subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
The multiple non-trivial sources thing is to shut out self-promotion and ad
campaigns.
Unfortunately a neccesary evil. The point I'm trying to make is that your
unsourced info may be accurate and useful, but it would be indistiguishable
from spam or a hoax if you don't cite it.
You'd effectively be making others spend more time tracking down sources you
presumably have readily available. Do you really want to give others 15
minutes of work when you can fix it yourself in less than 5?

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable
> source
> > of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of
> the
> > top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually,
> all
> > information reliable and sourced.
> >
> See, if I *had* to make a choice, I'd choose the latter.  In fact, I'd
> shut off the search engines through robots.txt and send everyone to
> one of the mirrors before I'd lose focus on the goal of *creating* the
> best encyclopedia.  Being a top 10 website is not the goal (in my
> opinion).  At best it is a means to attract new contributors - at
> worst it is a distraction due to people saying exactly what you just
> said.
>
> Do I think a choice *has* to be made?  No, not really.  I think it's
> quite possible to have a single site that does both; or alternatively,
> for the foundation to run both sites.
>
> > Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
> > articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
> >
> > A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced)
> detract
> > from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make
> it
> > THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
> >
> > KP
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Jimbo has nothing to do with this, we're talking about the external links
posted on blogs and other sites put there by readers, not some organized
marketing material from the foundation because there isn't any.

On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Trying to enforse the "rules" on the main
> > page is nothing short of distruption to make a point (WP:POINT).
>
> WP:POINT, WP:DICK, WP:FUCK are for people who can't argue, refuse to
> argue,
> or are incapable of making sound points to counteract a rather sound
> argument with which they disagree.
>
> In other words, it's a cop-out.
>
> To negate the argument.  If you're going to make rules for other people to
> abide by, you better abide by them yourself.  That's just a matter of
> courtesy.
>
> Otherwise, at the macrocosmic scale, it makes your authority illegitimate
> and then you can be dragged out into the street and executed like
> Mussolini
> (hanged), or Ceau?escu (shot), Robespierre (beheaded) or any other
> historical figure or government that ruled arbitrarily with a "do as I
> say,
> not as I do" style of governance.
>
> As to other links in print sources.  Whoever wrote up marketing materials
> with " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page " on it should be dragged
> into
> the street and shot, or at least fired because anyone in ad copy will tell
> you to state shorter URLs on such materials, or your target audience won't
> find it or (worse) they'll ignore it.  Heck, I type en.wikipedia.org each
> time I get to Wikipedia, but I'm not most people.  Most people don't think
> when looking at or responding to ads, written materials, etc.  Any smart
> marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
> saying " www.wikipedia.com "
>
> Jimbo, if that's the case, fire the marketing department.
>
> ...and switch the damn Main Page already.
>
> A hard redirect could fix this faster than I can fix a cheap boxed brownie
> mix from duncan hines.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher D. Thieme
> User:ExplorerCDT
> cdthieme at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Reliability" and "usefulness"

body:
That's why we have {{source needed}} templates. To get someone to verify
some piece of information is actually true. I agree deleting unsourced
information is harsh but if no one can vouch for it after a certain amount
of time, including the creator, exactly why should be take their word that
is true. A mere 5 minutes of editing can increase BOTH usefulness and
reliability.

And to tell you the truth, I don't think unreliable info is useful to begin
with.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl>
>
> > This is part of a wider trend towards
> > "reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
> > but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase
> > Wikipedia's
> > reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
> > But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the
> > reader of
> > that article.
>
> The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1064.
> The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1065.
> The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066.
> The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1067....
>
> Applying reductio ad absurdam, and cribbing from the Kurd Lasswitz
> story "The Universal Library," we can maximize the "usefulness" of
> Wikipedia by having a computer generate every possible combination of
> English words and submitting it as an article.
>
> This procedure will guarantee that Wikipedia contains _every_
> possible item of true information, and thus be more "useful" than any
> other encyclopedia.
>
> It will, of course, also contain every possible erroneous and
> misleading item of information, but no matter. We can, if we wish,
> solve  that problem by having the computer tagging every sentence as
> needing a citation, and by supplying an appropriate disclaimer.
>
> Readers, can, of course, always distinguish the accurate article by
> consulting the convenient [[List of accurate articles]], which this
> universal Wikipedia is guaranteed to contain, if, of course, they can
> figure out which of the googol or so articles entitled [[List of
> accurate articles]] is actually the real list of accurate articles.
>
> No, a mix of accurate and inaccurate information is not very "useful."
>
> It is like Lewis Carroll's clock that does not run at all and is thus
> right twice a day. Such a lock is not very useful because there is no
> way to tell _when_ it is right.
>
> The "law of recycling" states that the value per pound of a mixture
> of recycled material is equal to the value per pound of the least
> valuable material in the mixture. To at least a first approximation,
> the value of Wikipedia is set by the value of the least accurate
> material in Wikipedia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Sören Auer

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Navigation popups (was: Re: Wikipedia with,
 geo-browsing and AJAX)

body:
> Why not opt-out? If it's a good feature, we should take the step of
> giving it to people by default. If it's too intrusive, perhaps we can
> finetune it?

I guess the intrusiveness will be the least problem. If you add this
feature to Wikipedia per default, Wikipedia servers would have to be
doubled, at least (each such preview counts on the server side like
accessing a complete article).

S?ren


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia with geo-browsing and AJAX

body:
On 1/14/07, S?ren Auer <soeren at pediax.org> wrote:
> we thought it could be useful to experiment a bit with new technologies
> (AJAX, knowledge extraction from WP etc.). Result is a user interface
> for Wikipedia, which is largely based on AJAX, thus enabling previews of
> images or referenced articles without reloading the current Wikipedia
> page. Its called Pediax and accessible at:

There are some good ideas there. In particular, I really like how when
you hover over a link, you get the first paragraph or so from that
link presented as a tooltip. Wikipedia could do with that.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 14/01/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is in violation of [[WP:NAME]]

...something we ourselves invented and applied.

We're writing an encyclopedia here. We're working for the convenience
of our readers and editors. We're not attempting to work on a giant
self-consistent logical proof; we're not writing a legal system or
playing a game of nomic. If a "rule" for articles conflicts with the
sensible thing to do for the encyclopedia, we ignore the rule.

I am amazed people fall over themselves to comply with constraints
that simply don't matter.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: J.L.W.S. The Special One

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cascading protection

body:
Does this mean that if a page receives cascading protection, all
templates/images on it will be automatically protected (and will be
automatically unprotected when removed from the page with cascading
protection)? This would completely eliminate Main Page vandalism.

I understand that consensus is against semi-protection of Main Page
Featured Articles, but recent statistics have shown that Main Page
Featured Articles are in a vandalised state for 6-10% of the 24-hour
duration that they are on the Main Page (the actual figures are likely
to be higher, as template vandalism and vandalism by registered users
was not counted). Hence, we should seriously consider applying
cascading semi-protection to Main Page Featured Articles.

On 1/14/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ohh, I just tested this a bit. Works pretty much the way I was hoping for.
> Thanks!
>
> Only thing I might bug ye about -- what are the relevant MediaWiki messages?
> The main one, I think, would be whatever indicates the page has been
> affected by cascading protection.
>
> Hm, I also see that it shows up, when using &action=protect -- are there any
> other circumstances in which the cascading effect will be apparent? I'm
> mainly thinking of non-admins, here. Unless we're planning on using this
> infrequently enough that this isn't a major issue.
>
> -Luna
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One


list: foundation-l

from_name: Arne Klempert

subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless.

No it's necessary, if we want to create *free* knowledge.

In an ideal world our content would comply with any law in any
country. Of course this is almost impossible, so we have to make
decisions, which laws are important to comply with and which aren't.
And in some cases these decisions depend on language. To give you an
example: IMHO it's fundamentally important to our mission that the
content of the German Wikipedia complies at least with German,
Austrian and Swiss law. Because these are the countries where the
content is going to be used by third parties most likely.

Arne


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> I would presume that such a thing would be given a title like
> "Main Page (movie)"

Which I would move to [[Main Page (film)]].  :)

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is this valid on an userpage? is this other on
	articles?

body:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg
> is it fair use?

Fair use depends on what specific use it is being put to, so there's no
one universal "yes" or "no" answer. However:

> it's used on a bazillion userpages

Fair use of images on user pages is never permitted, in accordance with
item number 9 at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]. This image
appears to be so widespread in userspace because it was in a userbox at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1ne/Userboxes/User_abstractions] so
I've removed it from there.

> How about
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piet_Mondrian.jpg
> could fair use be argued on that? it wasn't used on Piet Mondrian (and
> his works have already been exemplified)

The image appears to have been deleted two days ago so I suppose this
issue is moot.

> how about using them in galleries?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&oldid=99549887

To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in
some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article
addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to
have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd
say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.

Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't
figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in
the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.

> I don't think guernica is allowed on [[Terror bombing]] under fair use
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=100791691
>
> How about [[Aerial bombing of cities]] ?
> Does fair use REALLY cover its use on [[Around the World in 80 Treasures]]

I'd say that [[Terror bombing]] and [[Aerial bombing of cities]] aren't
fair use, since those articles aren't about the painting itself in any
significant way, but that a reasonable case could be made for [[Around
the World in 80 Treasures]] since it's used specifically to reference
the painting itself.

I'm not a lawyer, but unfortunately even if I _were_ a lawyer I wouldn't
be able to give any sort of objective yes-or-no answer. As I understand
it the law in this area is subjective and the only way to get a
clear-cut answer on whether something is fair use or not is to actually
go through with a court case over it.

> The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages
> on other projects are not listed):
>
>     * Pablo Picasso

The painting is not extensively discussed, so it's a bit questionable.
But there aren't a lot of other Picasso paintings in the article so it
might be reasonable to keep as an exemplar of his work.

>     * Spanish Civil War

Mentioned in passing in a single line, not enough to be fair use here IMO.

>     * Aerial bombing of cities

Mentioned in passing in a single line, and not even by name. Not at all
fair use here.

>     * Bombing of Guernica

There's a whole section of this article that's about the painting so it
looks fair use to me here.

>     * Guernica (painting)

If it's fair use anywhere then it's fair use here.

>     * List of Picasso artworks 1931-1940

As with [[Pablo Picasso]], it's not discussed in any detail but it might
be reasonable to keep it here as an exemplar of his work. It's currently
the only Picasso painting illustrated here.

>     * Around the World in 80 Treasures

As mentioned above, a case could be made for fair use here but it's a
bit iffy. I expect someone else will probably remove it now that it's
been raised here on the mailing list and I wouldn't spend effort to keep
it in.

>     * Spanish art

Looks like the full extent of the mention of the painting is this line:
"While Picasso was worried that if he copied Vel?zquez's painting, it
would be seen only as a copy and not as any sort of unique
representation, he proceeded to do so, and the enormous work?the largest
he had produced since Guernica in 1937?earned a position of relevance in
the Spanish canon of art." This isn't even about the painting itself,
it's about some _other_ painting Picasso did. Not fair use.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this valid on an userpage? is this other on articles?

body:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg
is it fair use?
it's used on a bazillion userpages

How about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piet_Mondrian.jpg
could fair use be argued on that? it wasn't used on Piet Mondrian (and
his works have already been exemplified)

how about using them in galleries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&oldid=99549887

I don't think guernica is allowed on [[Terror bombing]] under fair use
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=100791691

How about [[Aerial bombing of cities]] ?
Does fair use REALLY cover its use on [[Around the World in 80 Treasures]]

The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages
on other projects are not listed):

    * Pablo Picasso
    * Spanish Civil War
    * Aerial bombing of cities
    * Bombing of Guernica
    * Guernica (painting)
    * List of Picasso artworks 1931-1940
    * Around the World in 80 Treasures
    * Spanish art


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] What is the structure of $editpage in
	AlternateEdit hook, and how to use it

body:
On 14/01/07, Liang Chen <bigreat at gmail.com> wrote:
>     I want to add a special line to every new page when first
> creat/edit it. And I want to use the AlternateEdit hook to write and

Why that hook? It seems to me that EditFormPreloadText would do a better job.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Merging policy

body:
On 1/14/07, theProject <wp.theproject at gmail.com> wrote:
> Our merging policy currently states that text-dump mergers are considered as
> acceptable progress, although this was met with criticism last time it was
> brought up on the mailing list. Is such procedure still acceptable? My
> thoughts are that if text dump mergers are acceptable, then perhaps
> significant headway could be made into the merge backlog with a semi-bot of
> some sort. Please comment.
>
> --
> theProject

IIRC, they're acceptable, but not the most useful way to do things.
If you're going about it with a bot (or were to) I'd put the stuff to
be merged on the talk page in a colored box or something with a
heading pointing the fact that it needs incorporation into the
article.  And then we could have a {{merge-on-talk}} template that
explains that content to be merged is on the talk page.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Playing Wikipedia

body:
On 14/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 13/01/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> >> 'I recall a blog post about people who were "playing wikipedia" as a game. Much
> >> like trolls feed off forum flamewars, they fed off engaging in wiki-politics, powertrips
> >> and drama.'

> > Wikipedia is the finest free MMORPG available. I'd rename it "Zeroth
> > Life" but I think that's IRC.

> ... shall we make a Game: of it on Uncyclopedia? :)

Something similar has, of course, already happened:

  http://common-lisp.net/project/lifp/rouge.htm

- d.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> I don't think you understand my position. I'm not arguing for an
> elimination of policy catering to non-U.S. countries. I'm arguing for a
> separation between languages and legalistic policy. We would have guides
> for editors from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Such a guide would
> not be specific to the German Wikipedia.

The guide, I think, is a good starting point. However, we should not
be imposing any kind of "licence" or "legal trick" or whatever you
want to call it to wikipedias in one specific language which have
chosen not to use these licences or tricks. This has to be a two-way
street. That the Foundation issues a clear policy about what is
acceptable and what is not is one thing, and yes, I believe it is
needed.

That some language based Wikipedias agree to make these rules narrower
to comply with the laws of the country in which the Wikipedia is most
likely to be read/used etc. is, imho, the problem of the community of
those wikipedias and their call.

>
> Plenty of people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. The current
> language-country ties don't account for those scenarios.

I have said it many times on this list, and I say it again. Any user
who thinks he is above the laws of his own country is doing so at his
own risk.

Let me try to give an example.

Imagine that German law declares that stroopwafels are illegal.
Talking about them, praising them, showing them, is illegal. Of
course, US law thinks stroopwafels are just great.

As a result, we could assume anything related to stroopwafels would be
banned from the German wikipedia and allowed on the English one.

If a contributor lives in Germany, he is subject to German law. Of
course, technically, the contributor *could* (in the sense they have
the possibility of) upload pro-stroopwafel material in the English
Wikipedia and say "but it's allowed in that wikipedia".

However, making such a document public is illegal in Germany.  The
contributor is responsible for making it public, against the laws of
the country he/she lives in. Hence also "suable" under the law of the
country he lives in.

To summarize, people should always:
- forget the idea that internet is a lawless zone
- observe the laws of the country they live in
- observe the laws of the US, where the servers are.

That's for the user.

Now, for the projects.

We could argue that since the German Wikipedia is hosted on American
soil, it could display tons of stuff about stroopwafels. However,
whatever you will say, the German Wikipedia does have a public that is
primarily located on German soil. So there's a big chance that the
people who are going to reuse the content are Germany-based. Promoting
stroopwafels heavily in the German Wikipedia could be a liability,
even for an American based web-site, for users reusing, but also for
the website itself, at least on German soil.

In the past, legality of content has been measured against the primary
audience of a website. See the Yahoo! lawsuit in France about nazi
material on Yahoo! Auctions.

I therefore believe that allowing communities to voice their concerns
and apply restrictions in their own Wikipedia according to a
country-language relationship is only fair.

However, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make people
aware of the risks they are taking by uploading material that is
"illegal" in their countries, even on a website where those are
"legal". Without going all the way to nazi stuff, this could apply for
things not so dramatic, such as Fair use material.

It's a difficult balance to find, but one we should be able to find by
educating our users as to how they can reuse our content, as you
suggest, and responsibilizing our contributors ("you are responsible
for the stuff you upload/write on Wikipedia, man!").

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
K P wrote:

> "This is part of a wider trend towards
>
>"reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
>but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's
>reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
>But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of
>that article."
>
>At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source
>of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of the
>top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all
>information reliable and sourced.
>
>Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
>articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
>
>A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
>from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
>THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.
>
Ths all appears sound.  Sourcing is good but we should not be having
fits of anxiety over it.  Every article needs to evolve in its own time
frame.  Sourcing and fact checking are all a part of that evolution from
a rough stub to a feature article.  It can happen at different rates
depending on, among other factors, the popularity of the subject.  The
project as a whole will never be fully sourced because we will always be
adding new articles which themselves will need to go through their own
evolution.

"Unsourced" and "beware" tags are important too, but with flexible and
often long time limits for cleaning up the problem.  I support the
stable version concept, though I would go further than a simple
"not-vandalized" marker.  I think there is room for a far more
sophisticated system of ratings.  A simple system that invites people to
add their ratings will also be good for drawing people.  Ones who might
not now be inclined to edit may be willing to rate an article if its
something as simple as putting in a number and sending.  When they do so
they would get a message like, "Your rating has been recorded; if you
think that something in the article needs to be fixed please clich here."

In the light of assuming good faith the anticipation of vandals can be
obsessive.  We do need to be vigilant about vandals, but we also need to
maintain a presumption of trust.

Ec


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
On 1/14/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue is that there is very little actually known about the ship
> yet.  It's not, as far as I can tell in the article, even in the
> building phase yet.  Is there anything public about them other than
> the order being placed?
>
> I think that many are concerned about articles created about things
> that don't exist yet and for which not much in the way of plans have
> been released, and feel that the right time to write this article
> would be when more information is available.
>
> -Matt

If "not much in the way of plans existed" then I'd say sure, it's
still speculative.

Carnival and the builder certainly have more detailed plans than that;
having the passenger count and the tonnage indicate that they know
what they're building very precisely (as an actual ship build "order"
would imply... one doesn't order "about like this"...).

If we take the flip side of this, we have large articles for the
[[Airbus A380]] and [[Boeing 787]] jets, and the [[Airbus A350]].
Exactly one of these designs (A380) has flown, and due to wiring
design snafus it will enter service around the launch date of the
unnamed Carnival ship.  Exactly one of them has any flightready
hardware (A380), though the initial components for the first 787s are
in production now.  The A350XWB hasn't even had its industrial launch
yet, so in a sense it's not as far along as the unnamed Carnival ship.

The right time for an article is when the object reaches notability
and is no longer a crystal-ball projection.  These ships, on order,
with plans agreed to between the builder and Carnival, are no longer
crystal ball projections, and are clearly big enough to be notable.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... Notability

body:
David Goodman wrote:

>I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
>few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
>place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
>delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
>less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
>article, stay and watch it.
>
Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you
keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or
you need to spend your time defending your edits.  That seriously cuts
down the time you have to do constructive things.

Ec


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
It seems to me that if the Main Page could be simultaneously located at
[[Main Page]], [[Main page]], [[Wikipedia:Main Page]] and [[Portal:Main
Page]], everyone would be happy.

Now if only we had some kind of 'redirect' system to make these all show
the same page, and a bit of code to hide the title so the difference was
invisible to the reader, we could do this.

Oh, wait, we can. And we already do.

-Gurch


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
Alex Powell escribi?:
> Something that occured to me that might be a good idea (TM) is to link up to
> subversion for the file repositories. This would have big space benefits, as
> only deltas would be stored, and give a more powerful view to the data.

Storing diffs was talked before. It wasn't an improve, as space would be
similar to the compressed text it's used now. And using the deltas to
the full article source could be large for some articles.


from_name: "Thomas Müller"

subject: [Foundation-l] Stroopwafels vs. Falun Gong (was: Boardmeeting)

body:
Hi
interesting, my position is, that we have a term or keyword for the encyclopaedia. e.G. STROOPWAFELS.

My idea is, that the description in all countries is the same and as well the structure of the article should be the same.

We are on the way to have a global consensus.

See LITVINENKO, in germany the article was fixed because of heavy editing, and in england every users could edit at any time.

See china blocking some content and principles, which we accept/grant here for right. Here we want the same description. I want that the chinese groups like "Falun Gong" fighting for democracy get the option to the same decription in every country.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

I want this article be written in the same way in china, as here in germany, and chinese people in germay should be able to edit this chinese article or just translate some content as well.

This is as well a reason, why we should support the wikia search engine project for a p2p search engine www.yacy.net and www.yacysearch.com (as a good demo for it) to have social development not depending on central monopolists.

A decentral search box on each wikipedia page like yacysearch.com would be cool, so please discuss this point as well at the board meetings in every country.

Thanks
tom

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:30:17 +0100
Von: "Delphine M?nard" <notafishz at gmail.com>
An: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

> On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> > I don't think you understand my position. I'm not arguing for an
> > elimination of policy catering to non-U.S. countries. I'm arguing for a
> > separation between languages and legalistic policy. We would have guides
> > for editors from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Such a guide would
> > not be specific to the German Wikipedia.
>
> The guide, I think, is a good starting point. However, we should not
> be imposing any kind of "licence" or "legal trick" or whatever you
> want to call it to wikipedias in one specific language which have
> chosen not to use these licences or tricks. This has to be a two-way
> street. That the Foundation issues a clear policy about what is
> acceptable and what is not is one thing, and yes, I believe it is
> needed.
>
> That some language based Wikipedias agree to make these rules narrower
> to comply with the laws of the country in which the Wikipedia is most
> likely to be read/used etc. is, imho, the problem of the community of
> those wikipedias and their call.
>
> >
> > Plenty of people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. The current
> > language-country ties don't account for those scenarios.
>
> I have said it many times on this list, and I say it again. Any user
> who thinks he is above the laws of his own country is doing so at his
> own risk.
>
> Let me try to give an example.
>
> Imagine that German law declares that stroopwafels are illegal.
> Talking about them, praising them, showing them, is illegal. Of
> course, US law thinks stroopwafels are just great.
>
> As a result, we could assume anything related to stroopwafels would be
> banned from the German wikipedia and allowed on the English one.
>
> If a contributor lives in Germany, he is subject to German law. Of
> course, technically, the contributor *could* (in the sense they have
> the possibility of) upload pro-stroopwafel material in the English
> Wikipedia and say "but it's allowed in that wikipedia".
>
> However, making such a document public is illegal in Germany.  The
> contributor is responsible for making it public, against the laws of
> the country he/she lives in. Hence also "suable" under the law of the
> country he lives in.
>
> To summarize, people should always:
> - forget the idea that internet is a lawless zone
> - observe the laws of the country they live in
> - observe the laws of the US, where the servers are.
>
> That's for the user.
>
> Now, for the projects.
>
> We could argue that since the German Wikipedia is hosted on American
> soil, it could display tons of stuff about stroopwafels. However,
> whatever you will say, the German Wikipedia does have a public that is
> primarily located on German soil. So there's a big chance that the
> people who are going to reuse the content are Germany-based. Promoting
> stroopwafels heavily in the German Wikipedia could be a liability,
> even for an American based web-site, for users reusing, but also for
> the website itself, at least on German soil.
>
> In the past, legality of content has been measured against the primary
> audience of a website. See the Yahoo! lawsuit in France about nazi
> material on Yahoo! Auctions.
>
> I therefore believe that allowing communities to voice their concerns
> and apply restrictions in their own Wikipedia according to a
> country-language relationship is only fair.
>
> However, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make people
> aware of the risks they are taking by uploading material that is
> "illegal" in their countries, even on a website where those are
> "legal". Without going all the way to nazi stuff, this could apply for
> things not so dramatic, such as Fair use material.
>
> It's a difficult balance to find, but one we should be able to find by
> educating our users as to how they can reuse our content, as you
> suggest, and responsibilizing our contributors ("you are responsible
> for the stuff you upload/write on Wikipedia, man!").
>
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish
> NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

subject: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

body:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> So even though our non-profit status may allow us to use NC image, others who use our content for
> commercial purposes would need to constantly remove non-free images. And *that* makes it
> needlessly difficult for others to use and enjoy our work.

If I take the contents of the english Wikipedia and I want to reuse them commercially in Italy, I have to remove all fair use images. And *that* makes it needlessly difficult (?) for me to use and enjoy our work. So for me the use of fair use images goes against the spirit if not the letter of the FDL.

Also (IANAL too) GFDL allows me to create derivative works, I don't know if I can take an image that is fair use and modify it. I think it's not possible and if this is the case, this as well goes against the spirit if not the letter of the FDL.

And to state it clearly once again, I'm against fair use *AND * NC's.

But if the point is that only US subjects should not have the problem of removing the bits of content that are not in accord with thier laws, please state it clearly.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Somehow survey: interactive graphics,
	JavaScript in Wiki

body:
So you want to mess even more the parser, isn't?
Those clouds are very nice. I think instead of asking the parser to do
the whole job and inserting JS, it would better be added by a JS (will
only show to JS browsers anyway). It is even possible now... fulling the
Monobook.js of almost-unused code. What about doing a
MediaWiki:articlejs/<PAGENAME> include (if exists) for each article?


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
Regardless of the mines, do you plan to have the cascading protection level
adjustable separately from the page-protection level? (The same way, you can
have separate edit and move protection if you want)

Bence

On 1/14/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14/01/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Be my guest!
> >
> > http://www.goarmy.com/
>
> It's likely not a unique cynical idea, but fifty points to anyone who
> actually understood the obscure reference to the bizarre short
> point-and-click adventure game...
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:

>K P schreef:
>
>
>>Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
>>articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."
>>
>>
>That is encouraging a dangerous perception: the place for unsourced
>information is in articles with {{unsourced}} on top, and therefore
>Wikipedia guarantees that articles that do not have a template are
>correct.
>
Wikipedia should not be guaranteeing anything.  If the reader is foolish
enough to believe everything we say he deserves the consequences.
Collectively we are not going out to intentionally deceive him.  We
should be encouraging a culture of doubt about everything on the
internet including ourselves.  More discrete notices  about information
being unsourced will help that along.

>Let's take a random article: [[Shoshone National Forest]]. It contains
>in the first sentence the assertion that it "spans nearly 2.5 million
>acres (10,000 km?)". This "fact" is not cited, is not repeated (and
>cited) later in the article, and cannot be found on any of the sites in
>"General references". In other words, it is unsourced, even though the
>article is not tagged (presumably; I have made the {{unsourced}}
>template invisible in my personal css).
>
>That is no problem however, because if this fact was really important
>for me, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia anyway, whether it is tagged or not.
>"Let the reader beware" should be the attitude for all of Wikipedia;
>sources cited or not.
>
>
Hiding the tag doesn't help.  When non-controverial facts like this are
not sourced we want to encourage the new reader to correct this.  The
example fact should be an easy one to track down.  Doing the easy ones
can build a potential editor's confidence.

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-15

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19290).
Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  19 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.
      * TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div
      * TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'
Passed 484 of 503 tests (96.22%)... FAILED!


body:
> David Strauss wrote:

> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.

I'm well aware of this. That's why basically I asked that WMF states clearly which kind of contents are allowed on Wikimedia projects. This should be uniform on all projects and should not be left to decision of the various communities.

And if NC's won't be allowed on the basis that everyone should be able to reuse commercially the content "as is", I'm telling you that this have to be true everywhere. And if this has to be true for everyone, everywere, fair use poses the same kind of problems as NC's.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada15gen07


body:
David Strauss wrote:

>The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>
This is always very important to keep in mind.

>There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
>upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
>there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
>and what Italian citizens may post to it.
>
>And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
>Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
>who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
>from Italian law because they're working in another language.
>
There is also a very large Italian immigrant community in North America
that can still understand its ancestral language.  I can't see them
feeling bound by Italian law.

>Perhaps we should put together guides for legal interaction with
>Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia editors in Italy must obtain
>permission for Wikipedia to use the content from the copyright holder
>*and* post a fair-use justification for use in jurisdictions with fair
>use or similar exceptions.
>
Is such a set of guidelines pssible?  I think you underestimate the
difficulty of a task that threads its way through such a jungle of law.

>We must distinguish between language editions of Wikipedia and national
>borders.
>
>
>Many countries have analogues of fair use:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
>
>The English Wikipedia allows only a relatively safe subset of fair use,
>so another country's system need not allow everything the U.S. does to
>make use English Wikipedia materials.
>
Allowing only a subset of fair use is within Wikimedia's rights.  If no
fair use is allowed at all the results could be more severe than expected.

>Assuming the person posting the material lives in Italy, the image
>should probably carry the Microsoft "used with permission" template
>*and* the fair-use justification. The former is to protect the person
>posting the material; the latter is to protect re-use of the content
>where fair use or fair dealing are allowed.
>
>If the person posting the material lives in the U.S., they would only
>need to post the fair-use justification because that covers their use,
>Wikipedia's, and future organizations'.
>
>Notice that I don't care to what language edition the person is posting.
>
I broadly agree with most of what you have said.

Ec


from_name: Liang Chen

subject:
[Wikitech-l] What is the structure of $editpage in AlternateEdit
	hook, and how to use it

body:
Hi,
    I want to add a special line to every new page when first
creat/edit it. And I want to use the AlternateEdit hook to write and
extension, but failed, it seems, I can't do like this
"$editpage->mArticle->mContent=$temp1;" when start a new page.

Thx!

--
                     ---BiGreat---


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

references:
<JBUXN3$B3B72F307F65E5DD7040F8EEBBD27AC1@libero.it>	<45AA918A.3060600@fourkitchens.com>	<45AA969A.4050501@gmail.com>
	<45AA98C3.7040602@fourkitchens.com>

body:
Hoi,
So the next step is to understand that it is not the projects that are
autonomous in this. To be realistic our legal issues are most visible in
our Commons repository. It has a restrictive policy as it needs to
function for ALL our projects and in all their languages.

There are in essence on our side four parties to consider:

    * The WMF
    * The chapters
    * The editors
    * The users

In the end all that we do is for the users. When we get it wrong, our
projects will not be available to them. This is from my pov worse than
that an editor is not allowed to edit. The ultimate reason why you as an
editor want to be careful is because you do not want to get personally
into legal issues.. Chapters and the foundation itself  are
organisations, they are getting the clout/visibility to improve the
situation. In order to do this, these organisations have to lobby for
the good cause. At the same time they have to take care that our
projects are sustainable.

Thanks,
    GerardM

David Strauss schreef:
> I agree that we need much further analysis of the legal issues editors
> encounter. Despite my lack of legal expertise, it's clear to me that
> languages aren't the right variable for composing legalistic policy.
>
> I also agree that this is not solely a Wikipedia issue. I use Wikipedia
> as my example because it's where the language-level policies have seen
> the most proliferation.
>
> I still think the best solution would be divorcing legalistic policy
> from language-based Wikipedia policy. We could set up pages on Meta to
> establish the obligations and limitations for editing as a citizen of or
> within certain countries.
>
> What we're doing now overly limits some editors and leaves others
> vulnerable.
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The German chapter has been taken to court in the past on matters of law
>> in Germany. It is not as simple as you suggest. The Italian chapter is
>> another entity that plays its part in the whole mess that is the law.
>> The British say it nicely: "the law is an arse". Do you know what your
>> personal legal status is when you edit an existing article with a
>> legally problematic picture or whatever in it.. Are you responsible,
>> maybe. Can you be taken to court, certainly.
>>
>> The biggest error that I see is that people with not enough knowledge
>> about the law make the policy. What I believe in is that we know as an
>> organisation what our message is about all this. That we take our
>> position judiciously as the many organisations that are the WMF and its
>> chapters. This way we protect the most vulnerable, our editors. This way
>> we may be able to resist the continuing land grab of the proprietary
>> stake holders.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>> PS this is not a Wikipedia issue .. :(


from_name: David Strauss

body:
teun spaans wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>
> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.

Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
address your objection:

"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070115/dd223fae/attachment.pgp


body:
teun spaans wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>
> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.

Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
address your objection:

"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/dd223fae/attachment.pgp>


body:
teun spaans wrote:
>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>
> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.

Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
address your objection:

"There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
and what Italian citizens may post to it.

"And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
from Italian law because they're working in another language."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/dd223fae/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are none really. Not even consitency, because there is another
> exception that NO one wants moved out of the main name-space, namely
> the shortcut-redirects (like [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], etc.) If we're
> going to be completely anal about the rules, shouldn't those go
> aswell? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to move the main
> page.

Well, no, there are clearly lots of good reasons to main page should
not be in main article space. Unfortunately there are also lots of
reasons why moving it is a bad reason. It's always sort of a bad sign
when the reasons for/against doing something are predominantly based
on the cost of doing it, not on the desirability of the end result.

Anyway, reasons Main Page should not be in article space:
- It's not an article
- It's a portal
- If ever there is a thing called Main Page that needs to be
described, things are going to get awkward

Reasons Main Page should be in article space:
- It's there now and it's a major hassle to change it.

The exceptions like WP:RFA etc have a good reason for being in article
space: their existence would be pointless if they weren't.

Steve


body:
On 1/15/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
>
> I suspect using even a limited version of it as a default would
> terrify our readers, but it's a wonderful tool if you want to use it
> willingly.

So, how can we have different classes of users, with different levels
of tools, without forking? We must have lots of power Wikipedia users,
who have to use the same tools as Wikipedia newbies. Can we give them
better tools without scaring the newbies?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] How to reference Wikipedia? Add "possibly".

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>Obviously I'm speculating a bit, but I noticed this sentence in a
>recent article in The Age, about a death from the Eastern Brown Snake,
>in Australia:
>
>"It is possibly the second-most venomous land snake in the world after
>the inland taipan, which is also an Australian snake."
>
>Our article on the snake has this sentence:
>"The Eastern Brown Snake is the second most venomous land snake in the
>world after the Inland Taipan.[1] "
>
>I wonder if the principle here is that if you don't want to admit
>you're sourcing from Wikipedia, you just add "possibly" :) Even when,
>interestingly enough, we actually had a source for that sentence:
>Steve Irwin's website :)
>
What I would be inclined to question is what is meant by "most
venomous".  Even if the statement can be properly referenced we still
need criteria for determining which of two snakes is the more venomous.
I would at least be inclined to add the word "possibly" to the Wikipedia
version.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Navigation popups

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 1/15/07, en: Firefoxman <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why not make it an opt-in on your userprefs page?
>>
>>
>Why not opt-out? If it's a good feature, we should take the step of
>giving it to people by default. If it's too intrusive, perhaps we can
>finetune it?
>
Begin with opt-in.  If it's really that good people will turn it on.  If
a super-majority choose to turn it on the default preference can always
be switched later.

Ec


from_name: PeruvianLlama

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Mark Ryan wrote:
> Which specific part of [[WP:NAME]] is it in violation of? Could you
> please point us to it?
<snip>
>  Is there something else called "Main Page" that deserves an
> article that is currently missing out? Is there a technical inability
> to produce main-namespace-only article dumps that do not include the
> Main Page? Or is it just the same old pedantry?
>
Good questions, and I support the label of "pedantry" if the only reason
to be had for moving the Main Page is that it "violates" any suffix of
WP:. But what are we to do if something does come along that deserves an
article called "Main Page"? Civilization at large may somehow struggle
through, but if most of the concerns so far raised about it being too
much of a hassle to move are in fact legit, then isn't this just going
to get worse for Wikipedia? What I mean to say is that if moving the
Main Page right now will be a pain because of server strain and
internal/external link updating, then does it not follow that this will
be even more of a pain once we have another year's worth of edit
histories, and another year's worth of internal/external links floating
around? And by extension, it will be all the more worse with five years'
worth, and ten years' worth, etc.

I guess that ultimately, we can just cross that bridge when we come to
it. This is the reason for consistency however; not just for its own
sake, but because by sacrificing present consistency even in small and
seemingly harmless amounts, we open ourselves to the possibility of a
bigger headache somewhere down the road.

Cheers,
 - PeruvianLlama


body:
You said:
"...and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the
claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the
claim..."

I said in my earlier post:
"But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can
host and what Italian citizens may post to it."

You're not recognizing that difference. You are treating the Italian
Wikipedia as if it has an exclusive relationship to people in Italy. Not
only do people in Italy edit other Wikipedias in abundance, people
outside Italy edit the Italian Wikipedia.

Now, I've personally tinkered around on the German Wikipedia. It makes
little sense to have my edits confined by policies assuming German
authorship. I'm a U.S. citizen publishing information to a U.S.-hosted
site. People in Germany may be the primary readers, but plenty of
Germans read the English Wikipedia, too.

Likewise, many people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. If the
German Wikipedia is the only place where policy considers the needs of
German editors, German editors of the English Wikipedia may be at risk.

Policies involving legal concepts need to be separated from languages.

teun spaans wrote:
> David,
>
> how should that answer my objections?
>
> teun
>
> On 1/15/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> teun spaans wrote:
>>>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>>>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>>>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>>>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>>>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>>>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>>> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
>>> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
>>> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
>>> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
>> Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
>> address your objection:
>>
>> "There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
>> upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
>> there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
>> and what Italian citizens may post to it.
>>
>> "And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
>> Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
>> who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
>> from Italian law because they're working in another language."
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070115/0d6734f2/attachment.pgp


body:
You said:
"...and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the
claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the
claim..."

I said in my earlier post:
"But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can
host and what Italian citizens may post to it."

You're not recognizing that difference. You are treating the Italian
Wikipedia as if it has an exclusive relationship to people in Italy. Not
only do people in Italy edit other Wikipedias in abundance, people
outside Italy edit the Italian Wikipedia.

Now, I've personally tinkered around on the German Wikipedia. It makes
little sense to have my edits confined by policies assuming German
authorship. I'm a U.S. citizen publishing information to a U.S.-hosted
site. People in Germany may be the primary readers, but plenty of
Germans read the English Wikipedia, too.

Likewise, many people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. If the
German Wikipedia is the only place where policy considers the needs of
German editors, German editors of the English Wikipedia may be at risk.

Policies involving legal concepts need to be separated from languages.

teun spaans wrote:
> David,
>
> how should that answer my objections?
>
> teun
>
> On 1/15/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> teun spaans wrote:
>>>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>>>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>>>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>>>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>>>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>>>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>>> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
>>> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
>>> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
>>> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
>> Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
>> address your objection:
>>
>> "There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
>> upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
>> there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
>> and what Italian citizens may post to it.
>>
>> "And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
>> Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
>> who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
>> from Italian law because they're working in another language."
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/0d6734f2/attachment.pgp>


body:
You said:
"...and the person commits the act from italian territory, and the
claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to consider the
claim..."

I said in my earlier post:
"But there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can
host and what Italian citizens may post to it."

You're not recognizing that difference. You are treating the Italian
Wikipedia as if it has an exclusive relationship to people in Italy. Not
only do people in Italy edit other Wikipedias in abundance, people
outside Italy edit the Italian Wikipedia.

Now, I've personally tinkered around on the German Wikipedia. It makes
little sense to have my edits confined by policies assuming German
authorship. I'm a U.S. citizen publishing information to a U.S.-hosted
site. People in Germany may be the primary readers, but plenty of
Germans read the English Wikipedia, too.

Likewise, many people in Germany edit the English Wikipedia. If the
German Wikipedia is the only place where policy considers the needs of
German editors, German editors of the English Wikipedia may be at risk.

Policies involving legal concepts need to be separated from languages.

teun spaans wrote:
> David,
>
> how should that answer my objections?
>
> teun
>
> On 1/15/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> teun spaans wrote:
>>>> The biggest error I see here is that people are trying to limit language
>>>> versions of Wikipedia so that they comply with the laws of the country
>>>> where the language is primarily spoken. But that's fruitless. The
>>>> Italian Wikipedia (hosted in Florida) isn't under Italian law just
>>>> because it's in Italian. Nor are Italian citizens liable for something
>>>> on the Italian Wikipedia just because the page is in Italian.
>>> I politely disagree. When the person doing something has the Italian
>>> nationality, and the person commits the act from italian territory,
>>> and the claiment is italian, an italian judge might well decide to
>>> consider the claim, despite the servers being in the us.
>> Please read the following two paragraphs from that post; they directly
>> address your objection:
>>
>> "There seems to be a plausible argument that Italian citizens cannot
>> upload normally copyrighted material under the fair use exception. But
>> there's a huge difference between what the Italian Wikipedia can host
>> and what Italian citizens may post to it.
>>
>> "And if you think that you can fix the problem by making the Italian
>> Wikipedia have policies that fit within Italian law, what about Italians
>> who edit the English or other Wikipedias? They're not suddenly exempt
>> from Italian law because they're working in another language."
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/0d6734f2/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Navigation popups (was: Re: Wikipedia with geo-browsing
	and AJAX)

body:
On 1/15/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups

Oh wow, just tried this, it's brilliant. Could we please seriously
consider making this the default for all users? It makes navigating
Wikipedia so much more pleasant.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> You make it sound like there are more reasons it should be moved, when
> really, your first two points are the same.

Heh, just like how consensus on Wikipedia isn't about counting votes,
counting arguments is pretty pointless. I'm repeating myself, but it
boils down to that there is no good reason for Main Page to be in main
article space other than the difficulty of actually moving it. So the
number of arguments for it being in the wrong space is sort of
irrelevant, as there are no counter arguments.

As to whether there would ever be anything called Main Page...if we
*didn't* have that as the title of our top-level portal, we would
probably redirect Main Page and Main page to homepage or index.html or
something.

Steve


body:
I think the equity you're suggesting is harmful.

The English Wikipedia's policy on fair use freely admits that fair-use
media is inferior to free media. But if people in Italy can't publish
under the fair-use exception, that doesn't give the Italian Wikipedia
justification to use non-commercial media.

Allowing non-commercial media doesn't fill the gap in content that
Italian law creates by banning fair use. It just seems vindictive.

Let's say we're both pastry chefs. I'm baking a pie. Even though I'm
against using saturated fats, I know that the final touch of flaky crust
requires a bit of shortening. So I compromise.

Now, let's say your bakery has a policy against using shortening. It
would be irrational for you to go back to your kitchen and start using
margarine loaded with trans-fats just because I'm using shortening and
you can't. You just end up -- nothing gained -- with an unhealthy pie.

senpai wrote:
> The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not
> free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some
> persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to
> me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the
> fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images
> and the CC-NC.
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
>>> italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
>>> penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
>>> images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and
>>> that
>>> images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
>>> are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
>>> under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
>>> on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload
>>> somthing
>>> with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can
>>> use
>>> that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
>>> tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
>>>
>> Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their
>> stricter rules.  Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that
>> it is in the public domain in Italy.  (Has Italy accepted for copyrights
>> to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still
>> life + 50?)  If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you
>> can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into
>> commons.  If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by
>> Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with
>> copyright, but is something else.
>>
>>> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
>>> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not
>>> free
>>> images.
>>>
>>>
>> I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as
>> some kind of blackmail.  What the Italian language project does, and
>> what the English project does have nothing to do with each other.  In
>> Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death.  Keeping
>> everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070115/e8d5e9d5/attachment.pgp


body:
I think the equity you're suggesting is harmful.

The English Wikipedia's policy on fair use freely admits that fair-use
media is inferior to free media. But if people in Italy can't publish
under the fair-use exception, that doesn't give the Italian Wikipedia
justification to use non-commercial media.

Allowing non-commercial media doesn't fill the gap in content that
Italian law creates by banning fair use. It just seems vindictive.

Let's say we're both pastry chefs. I'm baking a pie. Even though I'm
against using saturated fats, I know that the final touch of flaky crust
requires a bit of shortening. So I compromise.

Now, let's say your bakery has a policy against using shortening. It
would be irrational for you to go back to your kitchen and start using
margarine loaded with trans-fats just because I'm using shortening and
you can't. You just end up -- nothing gained -- with an unhealthy pie.

senpai wrote:
> The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not
> free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some
> persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to
> me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the
> fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images
> and the CC-NC.
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
>>> italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
>>> penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
>>> images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and
>>> that
>>> images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
>>> are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
>>> under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
>>> on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload
>>> somthing
>>> with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can
>>> use
>>> that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
>>> tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
>>>
>> Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their
>> stricter rules.  Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that
>> it is in the public domain in Italy.  (Has Italy accepted for copyrights
>> to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still
>> life + 50?)  If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you
>> can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into
>> commons.  If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by
>> Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with
>> copyright, but is something else.
>>
>>> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
>>> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not
>>> free
>>> images.
>>>
>>>
>> I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as
>> some kind of blackmail.  What the Italian language project does, and
>> what the English project does have nothing to do with each other.  In
>> Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death.  Keeping
>> everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/e8d5e9d5/attachment.pgp>


body:
I think the equity you're suggesting is harmful.

The English Wikipedia's policy on fair use freely admits that fair-use
media is inferior to free media. But if people in Italy can't publish
under the fair-use exception, that doesn't give the Italian Wikipedia
justification to use non-commercial media.

Allowing non-commercial media doesn't fill the gap in content that
Italian law creates by banning fair use. It just seems vindictive.

Let's say we're both pastry chefs. I'm baking a pie. Even though I'm
against using saturated fats, I know that the final touch of flaky crust
requires a bit of shortening. So I compromise.

Now, let's say your bakery has a policy against using shortening. It
would be irrational for you to go back to your kitchen and start using
margarine loaded with trans-fats just because I'm using shortening and
you can't. You just end up -- nothing gained -- with an unhealthy pie.

senpai wrote:
> The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not
> free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some
> persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to
> me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the
> fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images
> and the CC-NC.
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
>>> italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
>>> penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
>>> images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and
>>> that
>>> images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
>>> are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
>>> under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
>>> on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload
>>> somthing
>>> with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can
>>> use
>>> that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
>>> tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
>>>
>> Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their
>> stricter rules.  Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that
>> it is in the public domain in Italy.  (Has Italy accepted for copyrights
>> to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still
>> life + 50?)  If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you
>> can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into
>> commons.  If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by
>> Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with
>> copyright, but is something else.
>>
>>> For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
>>> free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not
>>> free
>>> images.
>>>
>>>
>> I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as
>> some kind of blackmail.  What the Italian language project does, and
>> what the English project does have nothing to do with each other.  In
>> Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death.  Keeping
>> everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/e8d5e9d5/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: David Goodman

body:
Yes, and here have been multiple comments on various user pages that WP
people are finding that they need to concentrate on either process or
editing. To some extent this is inevitable--there has always been a
separation between writing (=WP editing), true editing (=WP revising, often
done separately from writing the main text), and publishing (=WP process).
In WP and in the Real World, many authors eventually become editors, and
then engage in quality-control functions. Perhaps we expect too much.

On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> David Goodman wrote:
>
> >I prefer to write that way too, but it isn't safe now.   There are a
> >few editors running amuck with speedys on new stubs. Any editor can
> >place a speedy. It takes an admin to actually delete it, but they do
> >delete it if you haven't contested it with a hangon tag. You may have
> >less than an hour, depending how busy things are. If you start a new
> >article, stay and watch it.
> >
> Sometimes it comes to that, but it's an unhealthy environment when you
> keep having to watch out for who's ciming up behind you with a knife, or
> you need to spend your time defending your edits.  That seriously cuts
> down the time you have to do constructive things.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


body:
teun spaans wrote:
> I do recognise that there is a difference between the italian
> wikipedia and the what italian citizens are allowed to post to it.
>
> You as a US citizen, working from the US, may write in italian on the
> itialian wiki.
>
> All I say is that there migh well be a difference for Italians working
> on the italian wiki, doing so from italian territory. We may say on
> every page that we are only bound by florida law because the
> foundation is registered in florida and the servers are hosted there.
> But an italian judge may very well decide to disagree, especially if
> the claiment is also italian, and the readers are likely to be in
> italy as well. He may decide to take up a case, and the italian
> volunteer might be sued despite all our florida claims.

Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore everything that doesn't
apply in Florida.

> Your edits on the german wiki are probably safe, as you are a us
> citizen working from the us. Still, german justice might decide to
> pick you up if you should ever decide to visiti germany (not likely,
> though)

While I might be more likely to escape enforcement, I don't think I'm
any more protected from German law on the English Wikipedia than the
German one.

> You do well to separate languages from nationalities. German is also
> spoken in Switzerland, Austria, and parts of France and Belgium.
> But you cannot say: Because wel claim Florida law apllies to all wiki
> projects, Florida law is all an italian wikipedian has to reccon with.

And I'm not claiming that Florida law is all that applies. Though I
think you're misinterpreting my arguments, I believe we agree.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070115/50924337/attachment.pgp


body:
teun spaans wrote:
> I do recognise that there is a difference between the italian
> wikipedia and the what italian citizens are allowed to post to it.
>
> You as a US citizen, working from the US, may write in italian on the
> itialian wiki.
>
> All I say is that there migh well be a difference for Italians working
> on the italian wiki, doing so from italian territory. We may say on
> every page that we are only bound by florida law because the
> foundation is registered in florida and the servers are hosted there.
> But an italian judge may very well decide to disagree, especially if
> the claiment is also italian, and the readers are likely to be in
> italy as well. He may decide to take up a case, and the italian
> volunteer might be sued despite all our florida claims.

Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore everything that doesn't
apply in Florida.

> Your edits on the german wiki are probably safe, as you are a us
> citizen working from the us. Still, german justice might decide to
> pick you up if you should ever decide to visiti germany (not likely,
> though)

While I might be more likely to escape enforcement, I don't think I'm
any more protected from German law on the English Wikipedia than the
German one.

> You do well to separate languages from nationalities. German is also
> spoken in Switzerland, Austria, and parts of France and Belgium.
> But you cannot say: Because wel claim Florida law apllies to all wiki
> projects, Florida law is all an italian wikipedian has to reccon with.

And I'm not claiming that Florida law is all that applies. Though I
think you're misinterpreting my arguments, I believe we agree.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/50924337/attachment.pgp>


body:
teun spaans wrote:
> I do recognise that there is a difference between the italian
> wikipedia and the what italian citizens are allowed to post to it.
>
> You as a US citizen, working from the US, may write in italian on the
> itialian wiki.
>
> All I say is that there migh well be a difference for Italians working
> on the italian wiki, doing so from italian territory. We may say on
> every page that we are only bound by florida law because the
> foundation is registered in florida and the servers are hosted there.
> But an italian judge may very well decide to disagree, especially if
> the claiment is also italian, and the readers are likely to be in
> italy as well. He may decide to take up a case, and the italian
> volunteer might be sued despite all our florida claims.

Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore everything that doesn't
apply in Florida.

> Your edits on the german wiki are probably safe, as you are a us
> citizen working from the us. Still, german justice might decide to
> pick you up if you should ever decide to visiti germany (not likely,
> though)

While I might be more likely to escape enforcement, I don't think I'm
any more protected from German law on the English Wikipedia than the
German one.

> You do well to separate languages from nationalities. German is also
> spoken in Switzerland, Austria, and parts of France and Belgium.
> But you cannot say: Because wel claim Florida law apllies to all wiki
> projects, Florida law is all an italian wikipedian has to reccon with.

And I'm not claiming that Florida law is all that applies. Though I
think you're misinterpreting my arguments, I believe we agree.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/50924337/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.

Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
for fair-use media?

teun spaans wrote:
> May I disagree with this reasoning?
>
> That the italian law disapproves of fair use makes it only more
> compelling to find truly free images.
>
> On the Dutch wiki we abolished fair use over a year ago, and it is my
> wish the english wiki would do so as well: they are basically not
> free. Forbidding them makes people more anxious to go hunting for
> them. Or creating them.
>
> Replacing fair use with NC is no real solution. I hear people
> complaining about the need for air use all the time. There may be a
> few cases (screenshots of commercial programs, photos of people who
> died recently) for which no free alternative can be created. But
> mostly  free alternatives can potentially be created.
>
> teun

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070115/55d2b7d4/attachment.pgp


body:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.

Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
for fair-use media?

teun spaans wrote:
> May I disagree with this reasoning?
>
> That the italian law disapproves of fair use makes it only more
> compelling to find truly free images.
>
> On the Dutch wiki we abolished fair use over a year ago, and it is my
> wish the english wiki would do so as well: they are basically not
> free. Forbidding them makes people more anxious to go hunting for
> them. Or creating them.
>
> Replacing fair use with NC is no real solution. I hear people
> complaining about the need for air use all the time. There may be a
> few cases (screenshots of commercial programs, photos of people who
> died recently) for which no free alternative can be created. But
> mostly  free alternatives can potentially be created.
>
> teun

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/55d2b7d4/attachment.pgp>


body:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.

Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
for fair-use media?

teun spaans wrote:
> May I disagree with this reasoning?
>
> That the italian law disapproves of fair use makes it only more
> compelling to find truly free images.
>
> On the Dutch wiki we abolished fair use over a year ago, and it is my
> wish the english wiki would do so as well: they are basically not
> free. Forbidding them makes people more anxious to go hunting for
> them. Or creating them.
>
> Replacing fair use with NC is no real solution. I hear people
> complaining about the need for air use all the time. There may be a
> few cases (screenshots of commercial programs, photos of people who
> died recently) for which no free alternative can be created. But
> mostly  free alternatives can potentially be created.
>
> teun

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070115/55d2b7d4/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-13

references:
<e92136380701131208xa152299w16751ef349c1be75@mail.gmail.com>
	<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKIEIBJMAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<20070114175859.GA17292@cgi.jachomes.com>
	<45AB08DE.7000806@vyznev.net>

body:
On 15/01/07, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Reminds me of the local unit test script we have at work that prints:
>
> **
> ** COLOSSAL ERRORS WERE DETECTED!!! BLOCKER CRITICAL MAJOR PROBLEM
> VIOLATION!!!
> **
>
> at the end of the run if any tests have failed.  I bet it'd be red and
> blinking too, if it could only be made so.  :-)

Couple of klaxons in there, too...

Rob Church


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [19286]
	trunk/extensions/Contributors/Contributors.php

body:
On 15/01/07, ivanlanin at svn.wikimedia.org <ivanlanin at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Note: Please revert if this breaks the backward compatibility of this extension.

Ack! Sorry if my earlier mini-rant scared you off - it doesn't
actually break anything, it just looks a bit peculiar in MediaWiki <
1.9.0.

You'll typically know if you make a breaking change to some of my code
because I'll get even more sarcastic and hideous than usual and
probably revert you with something snide.

Rob Church


from_name: teun spaans

body:
There are over 7,500 "promophotos", which qualify as "fair use". The
english wiki would do well to abandon them, they are NOT free, and
should be replaceble. As a sysop on the dutch wiki involved in the
removal of copyrighted images, I get complaints time and again: "but
they have been approved on the english wiki".
It would certainly make life easier if the english wiki got rid of them.

On 1/12/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of  the
> > noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
>
> less than 1000 of each less
>
> >And what
> > about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without
> > asking permission?
> >
>
> That isn't quite the case.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 01:11:26PM +1100, Nick Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> Jay, how about:
>> Passed 484 of 503 tests (96.22%)... Summary: Some tests failed.
>> ... Versus the nirvana state:
>> Passed 503 of 503 tests (100.00%)... Summary: ALL TESTS PASSED!
>
> I should think that approach would be less confusing to those new
> potential developers everyone was so concerned about over there in the
> other thread.

Reminds me of the local unit test script we have at work that prints:

**
** COLOSSAL ERRORS WERE DETECTED!!! BLOCKER CRITICAL MAJOR PROBLEM
VIOLATION!!!
**

at the end of the run if any tests have failed.  I bet it'd be red and
blinking too, if it could only be made so.  :-)

--
Ilmari Karonen