subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>>In any case, Jimbo already explicitly promised that there
>>will never be
>>ads on Wikipedia as long as he has a say in it, so I don't
>>see why this
>>is an issue.
>>
>>
>
>Has he? I thought it was just "There won't be ads as long as the
>community doesn't want them". I'd like to read more of the history of
>this topic, if anyone has a link.
>
>
I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was
a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter
by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also
promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally
advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's
constitution or in some other way to make it permanent."
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].

-Mark


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
I'm not opposed to ads on Wikipedia per se. I am,
however, vehemently opposed to those damn flashing
red-and-white banners that scream at me from some
websites. As long as any hypothetical ads to be put on
Wikipedia are unobtrusive, I'm not going to scream too
loudly.

-Hermione1980

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was
> a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter
> by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also
> promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally
> advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's
> constitution or in some other way to make it permanent."
> [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].

Everyting from "I" on was me talking for myself. That was also written a long time ago (over three
years), so I don't recall what exactly I based the paraphrase on either.

A historical note: That post was part of my effort to reunify the  Enciclopedia Libre and the
Spanish Wikipedia. What I was doing was pointing out each of the reasons EL stated prompted them
to start a fork and what has been done since the split to correct their grievances. Interesting
read for anybody who wasn't around at that time.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 12/31/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A
>
> IMHO it's a shoestring whenever income ~= expenses.  If the income for a
> year only *just* covers server expenditure with no room for backups,
> future proofing, redundancy, taking risks etc, then it's a shoestring -
> the magnitude is irrelevant.
>
I happen to have the 2004 (fiscal year) Form 990-EZ for the Wikimedia
Foundation in front of me right now (if you'd like to follow along, I
uploaded it to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Wikimedia_990_2004.pdf).
 Revenue = $71,171.  Expenses = $14,504.  I'm sure 2005 was basically
the same (only with bigger numbers).  Cash flow is roughly zero, but
this is fairly meaningless.  For example, Microsoft had a negative
cash flow in 2005, the same year their income - expenses was over $3
billion.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
--- charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Because there is a five-year history of those ideals getting the job done.
> You don't need a _logical_ connection, when you have a track record.

We also had a track record of bringing in more money in each fund drive than in all previous
drives combined. The current drive is not following that trend. Past performance is not a good
indication of what to expect indefinitely in the future.

> If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.

Considering we are running a top 30 website it certainly is. That is also what was budgeted; we've
been pretty good at underspending what we budget for by not being able to buy and deploy servers
fast enough.

See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers/hardware_orders

The Q3 spending vs actual report is delayed until we sort out some outstanding undocumented
transactions.

> The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential growth has been
> seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems to have risen
> 50% in December alone.  We all know this can't continue for ever.

We've been saying that for years now. And yet we continue to grow much faster than the rest of the
Internet. :)

At some point our growth will match that of the rest of the Internet, but the Internet itself will
continue to grow exponentially for years to come (still several billion people who aren't online
at all yet). Heck, if we are really successful then we will significantly drive part of that
growth.

> can't possibly know enough and rationally discuss how much money WP needs,
> until we have a clearer idea of where it is headed.

We can project a few quarters out. The proposed draft budget for Q1 of 2006 already stands at
about $500,000.

See:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget/2006/Q1 (needs to be updated with 3 new staff
positions and Wikimania-related costs).

> upside down, by the way - we have only an upside risk on the traffic, and
> apart from Jimbo's seed money we are not burning through the money in the
> bank, but visibly making it easier to get money, with no strings, simply by
> posting a notice on the sites.)

Our reserve fund was nearly depleted before the start of the current fundraiser. So we have burnt
through the money in the bank. The money we raised so far in the fund drive will not last long
either. Another drive will be needed in Q1 to cover the rest of that quarter's costs.

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia micronation - Tirben

body:
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

> Don't you know?  Wikipedia _is_ a micronation.  We've got a
> constitutional monarch, laws, nobles, democracy, rioting in the streets,
> lynch mobs, local fiefdoms, everything.

In 2006, WPAir - the only national airline where the passengers are in
charge, and the planes are reconfigured by complete amateurs from the moment
of take-off.

Charles


from_name: SP

subject: [WikiEN-l] Confessions of a image-maniac.

body:
Confessions of a image-maniac.

I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.

I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
Before I change my mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe2.jpg

--Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Ombudsman

body:
Hi,

I have proposed the structure of a Wikipedia Ombudsman at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ombudsman

This proposed policy/structure would seek to deal with complaints arising
from administrator and ArbCom conduct, which have been unfortunately quite
plentiful in recent times (IMO, there have been quite a lot of users who
feel they have been wronged by "the system").

Please write any comments or suggestions on the talk page.

Thanks,

Ronline


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: REQUEST_URI undefined index

body:
"Bartosz Milewski" <bartosz at relisoft.com>
wrote in message news:dp3s8j$cp8$1 at sea.gmane.org
> I followed the instructions in the link you posted and it did fix the
> REQUEST_URI warning, but other problems still remain.
>
> The login page kept flashing every second or so. I was able to
> stabilize it by minimizing and maximizing the Explorer (!) and logged
> in.
> Once I logged id, I could see the main page.
>
> When I try to edit the page, the edit page is partially displayed,
> but then immediately refreshed, and so on, in an infinite loop.
>
> You can see it for yourself: http://www.relisoft.com/wiki .
>
> Bartosz
>

I'm reporting that I just had such a flashing loop when editing my user page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adrian_Buehlmann&oldid=33403610
(the permalink is after having saved).

I do not know whether that's the same problem as described by Bartosz.

I'm using Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP 2.

Adrian


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
As soon as we introduce ads, then policy will be dictated by the
companies, not us (we all know how it works)

If Wikipedia stops being as it is then I will strongly consider
leaving the project

On 12/30/05, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some food for thought:
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1962714,00.html
>
> In an interview, Jimbo discusses the possibilities of ads eventually on the
> Wikipedia, due to the huge number of page views that we get.
>
> Also mentioned is the large-scale rejection of ads by the "wikitopeans"
> [sic] in the community.
>
>
> --
> Ben Emmel
> Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> bratsche1 at gmail.com
> "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> -- William Blake
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 12/31/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >>In any case, Jimbo already explicitly promised that there
> >>will never be
> >>ads on Wikipedia as long as he has a say in it, so I don't
> >>see why this
> >>is an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Has he? I thought it was just "There won't be ads as long as the
> >community doesn't want them". I'd like to read more of the history of
> >this topic, if anyone has a link.
> >
> >
> I'm having trouble finding the original mailing list post, but there was
> a pretty explicit post to that effect.  I was able to find a 2002 letter
> by Mav that paraphrases Jimbo as having said that: "Jimbo has also
> promised that there will never be ads on Wikipedia.  I will personally
> advocate that this is written in the preamble for the non-profit's
> constitution or in some other way to make it permanent."
> [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric49/The_Wikipedia_Family].
>
> -Mark

He's claimed that his statement was only that any decision regarding
advertising on Wikipedia would come from the community, not from him
(and looking at the history of posts this seems to be true).  See this
post (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004517.html):

This is _not_ to say that we will go down any path towards advertising
on the site.  I have always said, and continue to say, that decision
will come from the community, not from me.

Just earlier this year he said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bomis:

This is very POV. The Wikipedia community has never "ruled out"
advertising, and this article makes it seem like the reason I went the
non profit route and no-advertising is in response to resistance from
the community. This is not accurate. I have consistently been opposed
to advertising on Wikipedia, although in the early days I thought
advertising was going to eventually be necessary. Now I think
advertising will never be necessary, but I wonder if someday we (the
community) might decide that we could do so much good in the world
with a small amount of advertising that we might choose to accept it.
--Jimbo Wales 19:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from those "early days"
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advertising_on_Wikipedia):

Note: This is a preliminary essay, intended to give you food for
thought. Comments are welcome, but at this time, please make your
comments to me privately, or if you must be public about it, do it on
the wikipedia-l mailing list. Everything discussed here is so
preliminary at this point that public debate isn't really warranted. I
seek feedback here primarily to refine my own thinking about the
issues raised.

Someday, there will be advertising on Wikipedia. Either that, or we
will have to find some other way to raise money, but I can't think of
any.

This is not coming soon. As of today, November 9, 2001, I would say
that this is at least 6 months to (more likely) 1 year away. Why then,
and not now? Because despite encouraging growth in traffic, the amount
of money that could be made from having sponsorship of Wikipedia is
not enough to worry about.

I imagine that there will be some resistance to advertising from
adamant anti-capitalists, and from those who think that any
association with money is necessarily corrupting. I can't really help
that, and I can only state for the record that I think such people are
seriously mistaken in many aspects of their world view.

But there may be other resistance to advertising from people with
legitimate concerns! And I hope to address those concerns now, long
before this becomes an "instant issue".

First, I know from long experience at Bomis (which currently has more
than 100 million monthly pageviews throughout our entire network,
which makes us a big site, but not exactly Yahoo!), that advertisers
don't ever attempt to dictate content. So it strikes me as extremely
unlikely that any advertiser will ever care what Wikipedia's content
is. Certainly, I have never seen it at Bomis.

Second, despite the fact that such a thing would be extremely
unlikely, if an advertiser ever did ask for changes to the content to
flatter them, I would simply respond: go to hell. The independence of
the community is essential to the longterm success of this project.

Third, advertising should be done in a tasteful way. To me this means
at least these things, and a lot more besides: (a) no popup ads, (b)
advertising clearly marked as such, so that visitors do not mistake it
for content, (c) keyword-based advertising to whatever extent
possible, so that the user is presented with _relevant_ advertising,
(d) text-link based advertising preferable to banners or other
high-bandwidth advertising, to preserve the beautiful simplicity of
our interface.

At the top of that page, some time before September 2002, a note was added:

There are currently no plans for Advertising on Wikipedia. Instead, I
had to let Larry go as an employee. This reduced my costs to maintain
wikipedia to a level that I can carry for a long long time to come. To
achieve my long term goals for wikipedia (including distribution to
everyone on the planet!), funds will likely be required. We'll figure
that out in the future, but donations to the nonprofit organization is
my preference. Jimbo Wales

FWIW, I can't find any evidence that any promise was ever made.
Here's a mailing list post from March 2002
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-March/019238.html):

With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for
funds.  Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the
wikipedia is called off for now.

In 2004, in a Slashdot interview
(http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230),
Wales said:

The question of advertising is discussed sometimes, but not really in
the context of "will we need to accept ads to survive". The answer to
that is clearly "no".

The discussion about advertising is really more a question that asks:
with this kind of traffic, and the kind of growth we are seeing, how
much good could we do as a charitable institution if we decided to
accept advertising. It would be very lucrative for the Wikimedia
Foundation if the community decided to do it, because our cost
structure is extremely extremely low compared to any traditional
website.

That money could be used to fund books and media centers in the
developing world. Some of it could be used to purchase additional
hardware, some could be used to support the development of free
software that we use in our mission. The question that we may have to
ask ourselves, from the comfort of our relatively wealthy
Internet-connected world, is whether our discomfort and distaste for
advertising intruding on the purity of Wikipedia is more important
than that mission.

But it's more complex than that, even, because in large part, our
success so far is due to the purity of what we're doing. We might find
that accepting ad money would cut us off from possible grant money.
It's a complex question.

But it is not a question that has to be answered for our continuing
survival. We can keep going as we are now, with your help of course.
:-)


from_name: Brock Batsell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why is my IP Blocked?

body:
Canadian Kid wrote:
> I would like to know who, if anyone, can help my IP (64.230.123.119)
> get unblocked?
>
> I have apparently been blocked for spreading rumours without them
> being documented. I would like, however, to offer the following points.
>
> 1. on the issue of the Conservative Party moving the airborn to CFB
> Trenton and out of my MPs riding (who has been fighting to bring it
> here) I noted that my MPs own party has stolen an issue right out from
> underneath her. The following was noted in the edit history: "PLEASE
> Document rumours before you put them in. The CPC website doesn't
> mention moving the airborne to Trenton anywhere. It's JUST A RUMOUR
> unless its documented)" I would kindly ask you, however, check out
> http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=677&lang=e
> where you will find in the December 13, 2005 video of Talk Politics ,
> at the 32 minute 15 second mark of the video, the Conservative Party's
> Defence Critic, Gordon O'Connor, stating that his party wishes to
> reincarnate the airborn in CFB Trenton.
>
> 2. Another issue facing this MP is an investogation by the Privacy
> Commissioner of Canada related to how her office received and then
> used personal information - likely from passport applications. I cited
> the Pembroke Observer Newspaper
> link(http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=138630&catname=Local+News)
> that clearly shows that a Deep River couple has contacted the Privacy
> Commissioner of Canada. I will admit that the online article does not
> have 100% of the article showing, however that is not the point. I was
> asked to provide proof and I have. If the administrators are so
> concerned about whether my edit was truthful then they can buy a copy
> of the Pembroke Observer and see that the edit reflects the truth and
> that residents have asked, in the middle of an election, the Privacy
> Commissioner of Canada to investogate their MP - I would suggest that
> this worth posting.
>
> Could someone please help. I believe I have tried, very hard, to meet
> the standards asked of me - ie providing proof, and yet still they
> block me.
>
> Please help :)
>
> Sara
>
For reference, the history of the article in question is available at:*
http://tinyurl.com/ajhh4*

I'm not familiar with this particular politician or issue, so looking at
it objectively, here are my thoughts. On point number 1, you didn't
provide this proof at all, which is why it was removed from the article
? editors aren't able to magically divine sources that you don't
provide. On point number 2, it wasn't removed for lack of evidence, it
was removed because several editors believe it isn't yet important
enough to warrant a mention in her biographical article. The block was
probably a little premature, but it will expire soon, and in the future,
you should discuss controversial edits on the article's talk page first,
or after they've been reverted once and before you revert back.
Communication and providing sources go a long way in content disputes.
Just a little friendly advice.

--
Regards,
[[:en:User:Bbatsell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

>At the moment we charge nothing, so isn't charging *anything*
> better?

For whom?  For what purpose?

>And any relatively active user is probably going to generate $5
> worth of Adsense ads anyway, isn't he?

As soon as you start counting the eyeballs of users, rather than the edits
of editors, you actually change the whole dynamic of the project.

>I don't know what percentage of
> users donate currently, but it's probably very low.  Even assuming that
> all these people drastically reduce their contributions in reaction to
> the introduction of ads, you'd probably be a long way ahead.

What if the best editors move to a clone that doesn't have ads?
>
> I know that there are many ideologies at play in the Wikipedia world,
> like "free" information, unrestrained contribution (even by anonymous
> users), GFDL licensing etc - but I don't see a logical connection from
> there to the provision of an ad-free service.

Because there is a five-year history of those ideals getting the job done.
You don't need a _logical_ connection, when you have a track record.

>In any case, I as a user
> would be more than happy to put up with a few ads (or a low yearly fee)
> to be rid of server strain, and the feeling of using a service running
> on a shoestring.

If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A 'low' yearly
fee - would be relative to the income of a developed-world person in work,
or a villager in Asia or Africa in subsistence.agriculture?

The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential growth has been
seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems to have risen
50% in December alone.  We all know this can't continue for ever.  But we
can't possibly know enough and rationally discuss how much money WP needs,
until we have a clearer idea of where it is headed.  (It is the dotcom boom
upside down, by the way - we have only an upside risk on the traffic, and
apart from Jimbo's seed money we are not burning through the money in the
bank, but visibly making it easier to get money, with no strings, simply by
posting a notice on the sites.)

Charles


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
I recall having made this comment on a talk page somewhere but anyway :)

Personally I find wikipedia 'strange' in not having ads. I'm not sure I
can think of any other site on the web with a similar popularity without
ads. Even microsoft.com has ads for Microsoft products. All newspaper
sites do, slashdot does etc etc. So the precedent is certainly there.

I agree with the idea of the subscription fee if you can't stand even
discreet Google Adsense type ads.  But instead of $30 a year, why not
$5?  At the moment we charge nothing, so isn't charging *anything*
better?  And any relatively active user is probably going to generate $5
worth of Adsense ads anyway, isn't he?  I don't know what percentage of
users donate currently, but it's probably very low.  Even assuming that
all these people drastically reduce their contributions in reaction to
the introduction of ads, you'd probably be a long way ahead.

I know that there are many ideologies at play in the Wikipedia world,
like "free" information, unrestrained contribution (even by anonymous
users), GFDL licensing etc - but I don't see a logical connection from
there to the provision of an ad-free service. In any case, I as a user
would be more than happy to put up with a few ads (or a low yearly fee)
to be rid of server strain, and the feeling of using a service running
on a shoestring.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Josh Gordon
> Sent: Saturday, 31th December 2005 8:34 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?
>
>
> Perhaps the best solution would be like the one Salon,
> Weather Underground, and many other sites use: pay a
> subscription fee (say, $29.95 a year) or see (and probably
> ignore) the ads. That way we'd have our choice of how to
> personally support Wikipedia.
>
> jpgordon
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik> ien-l
>


from_name: Ngã Na Bá Tuấn Thư

subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 16 Fund Drive Report

body:
Copied from:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fund_drives/2005/Q4/Day_16
--------------------------------------------------------------

=Saturday 31 December=
A total of 420 donations were made through PayPal on '''Day 16''', yielding the equivalent of
$12,701.14 USD; a very modest increase over Day 15 (3rd highest so far in this drive). The average
donation this day was $30.24.

MoneyBookers donations since the last update two days ago amounted to $140.69, bringing that total
to $1422.58.

:Grand total at end of day: $162,472.86

 AUD    18.56     (13.93 USD)
 CAD 	364.98    (300.35 USD)
 EUR 	1,627.03  (1,976.34 USD)
 GBP 	456.24 	  (818.18 USD)
 JPY 	10,972.00 (99.13 USD)
 USD 	9,493.22
 Total 	12,701.14 USD

==Special thanks to those who gave large donations==
An anonymous donor gave the largest donation this day, $500.00. There were also many donors who
gave the equivalent of about $100 or more (listed in no particular order); Colin Rose, Ralph
Leighton, Neil Fred Picciotto, Kevin Griffin, Ray O'Donnell, Stuart Shay, Erik Anderson,
Christopher Potter, and 31 anonymous donors.

:<small>Note: While large donations are great, it should be noted that about 70% of all the money
donated to the Wikimedia Foundation comes from donations that are the equivalent of $50 or less
and the average donation is about $25.</small>

==Selected donor comments==
Let's all thank everybody who donated on this day by reading their comments.

:Full listing at: http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/index.php/2005-12-31/detail/

*"Go Wikinews!" by Tim Spurrier
*"So amazing to get all this information with a single click! Thank you all! :)" by anonymous
*"One of the greatest online resources, ever!" by Kris Warren
*"Here's to forwarding the sciences! Cheers to you Jimmy from a chemist!" by Patrick Holder
*"Knowledge has no limits and Wikipedia makes paper books cry. It's becoming the greatest
knowledge library for the whole world. Greets from Poland." by Michal Marzec
*"Es importante que mantengan su esfuerzo" by anonymous
*"Jimmy, try conducting charity concerts, and other public charity events, and you'll see more
money coming. Please try it, at least just this once." by Christian Shultz
*"I didn't do much reading for my college Chinese history class, but after reading the Wikipedia
articles on Chinese history right before the exam, I aced it." by Quinn Carey
*"I love Wikipedia! I love the spirit of sharing and egalitarianism it stands for. I also love the
high quality of knowledge it has garnered under one roof. It is truly an inspirational
enterprise." by Kathy Sun
*"Wikipedia.de war und ist mir eine gro?e Hilfe zum Studium. Mit einer Spende bedanke ich mich
daf?r" by Carmen Beyer
*"Don't get cocky; learn from the traditional encyclopedias." by anonymous
*"Happy New Wikiyear!" by anonymous
*"The wiki foundation represents the true spirit of the internet which seems to have been
forgotten in todays commercialist internet age, thanks." by Andrew Denny
*"free as in freedom" by stefaan WATTE
*"May God bless this great educational endeavor! -- Que Dios bendiga esta gran obra educativa!" by
anonymous
*"Oxford finals now significantly easier" by Thomas Ogg
*"I used to talk to Jimmy Wales ages ago and have the uttermost respect for him." by David Tainsh

*"理念に賛同して。" by Kazushige Suzuki
*"The best encyclopedia of all - plus promising wikibooks for the world" by anonymous

Some of my personal favorites:
*"Wikipedia enhances my daily life. I love it." by anonymous
*"I remember wiki as a wee baby. I luvs ya' wiki!!!" by Sean Russell
*"Wikipedia is one of the world's most useful tools. It deserves every chance to blossom further."
by anonymous
*"Wikipedia is something truly extraordinary, truly democratic, truly enlightened. It must live
on!" by Ian Boswell
*"Everyone wants to know the meaning of life...but ignores the library. Support Wikipedia!" by
anonymous
*"Let's not lose this rich opportunity; everybody please donate!" by Manfred Peschke
*"This is (hopefully) the future of the Internet!" by Joel Wright *"To the Future, Wikipedia!" by
anonymous

-- Daniel Mayer

__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Day 16 Fund Drive Report


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Day 16 Fund Drive Report


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> In any case, Jimbo already explicitly promised that there
> will never be
> ads on Wikipedia as long as he has a say in it, so I don't
> see why this
> is an issue.

Has he? I thought it was just "There won't be ads as long as the
community doesn't want them". I'd like to read more of the history of
this topic, if anyone has a link.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Hi,

It's nice to hear the other side of the ad argument. If anyone has some
"further reading", I'd be grateful.

> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
> >At the moment we charge nothing, so isn't charging
> *anything*  better?
>
> For whom?  For what purpose?

For the purpose of making WP better of course :)

> As soon as you start counting the eyeballs of users, rather
> than the edits
> of editors, you actually change the whole dynamic of the project.

Good point.

> What if the best editors move to a clone that doesn't have ads?

Do you think they would do that rather than, say, pay $5 not to see
them? What if WP had a rule that said anyone with 1500 edits was exempt
from ads?

> If $750000 was spent in 2005, it's hardly a shoestring.  A

IMHO it's a shoestring whenever income ~= expenses.  If the income for a
year only *just* covers server expenditure with no room for backups,
future proofing, redundancy, taking risks etc, then it's a shoestring -
the magnitude is irrelevant.

> 'low' yearly
> fee - would be relative to the income of a developed-world
> person in work,
> or a villager in Asia or Africa in subsistence.agriculture?

I wasn't suggesting denying access to anyone. Presumably a poor African
would not object to seeing ads if they get a free encyclopaedia out of
the deal. "Presumably".

>
> The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential
> growth has been
> seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems

It's the only site I have regularly used in the last couple of years
which as a normal part of usage puts up "Server experiencing
difficulties, come back lately".  I get that message on WP pretty much
every day during certain hours.  And that's not to mention some of the
more esoteric messages like edits being disabled, the DB being out of
sync etc. I would *much* rather have ads than put up with server
unavailability.

(And yes, I'm a newbie, in case anyone was wondering :))

> to have risen
> 50% in December alone.  We all know this can't continue for
> ever.  But we
> can't possibly know enough and rationally discuss how much
> money WP needs,
> until we have a clearer idea of where it is headed.  (It is

True. Where is WP headed?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Gift of knowledge:" having it both ways

body:
> We do not. We say "give the gift of knowledge."
>
> Small wonder that we're starting to see some hostility from
> the outside. We're trying to have it both ways. We set
> expectations ("give the gift of knowledge") and then are
> surprised when people have the expections we set.

I agree with this. Similarly, we say "From Wikipedia, the free
Encyclopedia", not "From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia that anyone
can edit". Why? Because the community (ok, a very small part of it)
deemed that the latter was "ugly".  Apparently it's ugly to state the
fallibility of Wikipedia in a public way, but it's great to rely on it
to avoid responsibility.

Ok, I'm being harsh. But WP really *does* present itself to the layman
(ie, the casual websurfer) as being an authority, and it's only when you
delve deeper, by reading this mailing list, reading interviews with
Jimbo or clicking on the "disclaimer" link, does WP explicitly disclaim
authoritativeness.  This is, IMHO, a problem.  One that would very
easily be resolved with some sort of relatively prominent link labelled
"Researchers: What you need to know about WP" or whatever.

Steve

(Happy new year here in 15 minutes btw :))


from_name: Jon B

subject: [Wikitech-l] W3M browser doesn't handle Unicode?

body:
I was told that the W3M browser doesn't display Unicode characters
correctly, but more importantly, I noticed that it strips them during
saves.  It should be added to the blacklist for the Unicode
workaround.

http://w3m.sourceforge.net/

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_characters#The_workaround

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omegatron&diff=33447368&oldid=33351989


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Jake Nelson wrote:
>> Of course, the second organization taking care of Wikipedia publication
>> idea is a very good one as well. In that case, they'd handle "reader
>> mode" for the most part, and core-Wikipedia would be pretty much
>> strictly an editing project.
>>
>
> Yeah, helpdesk-l has had quite a few "where can I get a book/CD/DVD/Palm
> version of your content?" emails...

Step 1: Learn German
Step 2: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3866400012
Step 3: :D

For 'hardcopy' (DVDs, books, etc) outsourcing this makes sense, and that's what
we do now. Anybody who wants to put in the effort and money to publish that kind
of stuff can do so, and there's some great folks in Germany doing just that, and
giving back by supporting Wikimedia.

For the web, things are a bit different. Our own web site is out there in the
public eye, seen as the authoritative version, way up in page rank, etc. So it's
up to us to take at least some minimum measures to make sure we're serving the
public. That'll mean making more effort to mark things as changing, recently
changed, unreviewed, etc, and if we have stable/reviewed content making it
reeeeeal easy to see (preferably by default for the random visitor, with the
latest updates a click away).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060101/74a51180/attachment.pgp


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Arg. This solution is exactly what I've been arguing _against_. :) I
> like the idea of stable versions but I hate the idea of stable versions
> being shown by default. I think showing stable versions by default will
> cut off much of the influx of new editors since the "working" Wikipedia
> will be hidden from view, and it's something that is better done by our
> multitudinous mirrors anyway.

That's *not* done better by mirrors. It's not done *at all* by mirrors. Mirrors
are totally irrelevant; what we need is to keep the random penises, libel, etc
off of the front page.

The front page, for the most part, is going to be whatever article people
arrived at from a search engine, as visible on http://*.wikipedia.org.

Mirrors are their own affair; we've got our own butts to cover. Unless you want
us to take *.wikipedia.org out of the web's search engines (a simple change to
robots.txt can do this), we need to recognize that we serve the public and
provide an appropriate initial view for random visitors.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060101/abf9b163/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] My preferences/math

body:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> No matter what I change "My preferences/math" to, I always get the same
> thing, which is mostly PNGs. I've checked on the blahtex web pages that I
> can use MathML in my Firefox but the preferences on wikipedia.org don't seem
> to do anything. I haven't found anywhere an explanation of why the
> preferences/math tab does nothing, not in the preferences tab, not in the
> help for the preferences tab, not in the discussion pages.

The MathML mode doesn't work for almost anything at this time. Only very simple
equations like "x = y".

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060101/a0e48bdf/attachment.pgp


from_name: GORANN

subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year

body:
Tr?s bonne et heureuse ann?e ? tous et ? toutes !
?????? ???? 2006 ?????? ?????!
Srecna Nova 2006 godina svima!

Djakon Gorann Andjelkovic sa porodicom


subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year


from_name: Canadian Kid

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why is my IP Blocked?

body:
With all do respect there are countless posts made, countless posts, that
are not cited as though this is an essay. As for the second point, I do not
believe some administrator should be the deciding individual over what is
and isn't important. I do not communicate on Mrs. Gallant's page her daily
campaign efforts or what she ate for breakfast. The fact that a member of
parliament is being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is in
fact a fairly big deal and whether it is or isn't in the national newspapers
is purely trivial. I would hope that not everything posted on Wikipedia is
found on in my morning newspaper because I would never get finished reading
the damn thing. And as for your cute comments on devinity and magic I think
your tone, as an administrator, could be a bit more professional.

Now I am going to put these two points back on Mrs. Gallant's page, with
proper quoting, citiations and all the proof I can muster - if that means
citing a hundred different organizations. And I would point out that it has
been the administrator who has had a problem with these two issues and not
residents who actually live in the riding.

All I ask is that your administrators be asked to back off if prrof is
provided and not determine what is and isn't important since they neither
know the MP, know the riding and what residents and local newspapers
consider important, and leave my posts alone!

>From: Brock Batsell <wikipedia at theskeptik.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>,canadiankid2001 at hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why is my IP Blocked?
>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:37:19 -0600
>
>Canadian Kid wrote:
>>I would like to know who, if anyone, can help my IP (64.230.123.119) get
>>unblocked?
>>
>>I have apparently been blocked for spreading rumours without them being
>>documented. I would like, however, to offer the following points.
>>
>>1. on the issue of the Conservative Party moving the airborn to CFB
>>Trenton and out of my MPs riding (who has been fighting to bring it here)
>>I noted that my MPs own party has stolen an issue right out from
>>underneath her. The following was noted in the edit history: "PLEASE
>>Document rumours before you put them in. The CPC website doesn't mention
>>moving the airborne to Trenton anywhere. It's JUST A RUMOUR unless its
>>documented)" I would kindly ask you, however, check out
>>http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=677&lang=e
>>where you will find in the December 13, 2005 video of Talk Politics , at
>>the 32 minute 15 second mark of the video, the Conservative Party's
>>Defence Critic, Gordon O'Connor, stating that his party wishes to
>>reincarnate the airborn in CFB Trenton.
>>
>>2. Another issue facing this MP is an investogation by the Privacy
>>Commissioner of Canada related to how her office received and then used
>>personal information - likely from passport applications. I cited the
>>Pembroke Observer Newspaper
>>link(http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=138630&catname=Local+News)
>>that clearly shows that a Deep River couple has contacted the Privacy
>>Commissioner of Canada. I will admit that the online article does not have
>>100% of the article showing, however that is not the point. I was asked to
>>provide proof and I have. If the administrators are so concerned about
>>whether my edit was truthful then they can buy a copy of the Pembroke
>>Observer and see that the edit reflects the truth and that residents have
>>asked, in the middle of an election, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to
>>investogate their MP - I would suggest that this worth posting.
>>
>>Could someone please help. I believe I have tried, very hard, to meet the
>>standards asked of me - ie providing proof, and yet still they block me.
>>
>>Please help :)
>>
>>Sara
>>
>For reference, the history of the article in question is available at:*
>http://tinyurl.com/ajhh4*
>
>I'm not familiar with this particular politician or issue, so looking at it
>objectively, here are my thoughts. On point number 1, you didn't provide
>this proof at all, which is why it was removed from the article ? editors
>aren't able to magically divine sources that you don't provide. On point
>number 2, it wasn't removed for lack of evidence, it was removed because
>several editors believe it isn't yet important enough to warrant a mention
>in her biographical article. The block was probably a little premature, but
>it will expire soon, and in the future, you should discuss controversial
>edits on the article's talk page first, or after they've been reverted once
>and before you revert back. Communication and providing sources go a long
>way in content disputes. Just a little friendly advice.
>
>--
>Regards,
>[[:en:User:Bbatsell]]
>


from_name: Dennis Dikkerboom

subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year

body:
Folle lok en seine yn it nije jier!

Dennis Dikkerboom


subject: [Foundation-l] Happy new year


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] My preferences/math

body:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> No matter what I change "My preferences/math" to, I always get the same
> thing, which is mostly PNGs. I've checked on the blahtex web pages that I
> can use MathML in my Firefox but the preferences on wikipedia.org don't seem
> to do anything. I haven't found anywhere an explanation of why the
> preferences/math tab does nothing, not in the preferences tab, not in the
> help for the preferences tab, not in the discussion pages.
>
> Can anyone explain to me what's going on, and possibly update
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Rendering_math and even
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?
>

It's possible that a lot of <math> entries are using the \,\! (or
whatever it is) construct to force PNG rendering...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060101/e612c952/attachment.pgp


subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
????
??????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????

????

===?

??????????????

=== ?

???????????

????????

???????

On 12/31/05, Tomoko OHOYA <idic at kcn.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> ????? ?
> ???????????????????
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ
> ??????????????????
> I want to translate faq page to Japanese.
>
> ???????(ja)???????????
> So, I created ja page.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_%E3%82%88%E3%81%8F%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E8%B3%AA%E5%95%8F%E3%81%A8%E5%9B%9E%E7%AD%94%E9%9B%86
>
> ??????Save page??????TOC????????????????
> ????2.7?2.8?????
> After translate some line and submit Save page button,
> some of TOC lines, 2.7 or 2.8 for example, doesn't show correctly.
> what's wrong?
>
> ????????????????????
> ???????????
>
>
> Nga_Na_Ba_Tu?n_Th? ????????:
> >?????
> >????????????????
> >
> >?????????????????????????????????????????????
> >???????
> >
> >???
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
>
> ----
> // Tomoko OHOYA
> // idic at kcn.ne.jp
> // http://www.kcn.ne.jp/~idic/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
SP wrote:

> Confessions of a image-maniac.
>
> I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
> I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.
>
> I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
> If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
> Before I change my mind?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe2.jpg
>

Public domain is about the most non-dubious "licence" we've got. Or is
it not actually public domain? If so, relabel it with the correct
licence information. I suspect if I saw a nice public-domain image like
this tagged for deletion I'd first ensure it was moved to Commons before
deleting it.


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] I expect a desyssoppingprocedure soon

body:
I have totally had it with the dutch wikipedia so in a reactio today I
let myself go and told them how I felt. I expect the quite large
political correct brigade on nl.wikipedia to desyssop me soon. In which
case I will voluntarily step down from all my work in wikimediaprojects.
I am getting sick and tired of the debateclimate that seems to become
more and more common. To spoil the fun of the political correct brigade
here is the dutch original and english translation of what I said:

/English:
The guidelines suck they leave us no room to deal with pissheads like
Verrekijker/Versieck. And on top of that someone threatened to desyssop
me. Walter please mail that person that they have to do what they cannot
let go. Please. I am sick and tired of the threatening behind my back,
No one can blackmail me. I am doing everything that I feel is necessary
to keep nl: wiki a good place voor the users that come here to edit and
write an encyclopedia (99,99% of the users) and that they have
discussions every now and then ... that is normal, it goes with the
territory. I do not give a flying fuck though for the ruleinterpreters,
the talkpage knights who only discuss because they like to discuss and
the trolls. I hope that their computers will give them a deadly
powershock.  We have only one rule as far as I am concerned and that is
that we are writing an encyclopedia and everyone who is not helping with
that can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Dutch original:/
/De richtlijnen zuigen en laten ons totaal geen ruimte om adequat met
etterbakken als Verrekijker/Versieck en anderen te dealen. En dan is er
iemand die gedreigd heeft met een desysopprocedure voor mij. Walter mail
die persoon dat ze vooral hun gang moeten gang. Alsjeblieft. Ik ben het
eeuwige achter mijn rug gedreig zat. Ik ben niet chanteerbaar. Ik doe
alles wat ik nodig acht om de nl: wiki een goede plaats te houden voor
de gebruikers die hier serieus komen om te editten (dus 99,99%) en dat
die wel eens een discussie hebben ach wat dat is normaal dat hoort
erbij!..... ik geef echter geen ene malle moer om de
regeltjesinterpreteerders de overlegridders die overleggen voor het
plezier en de trollen. Ik hoop dat die allemaal een dodelijke
stroomschok krijgen vanachter hun computer. We hebben hier maar een
regel en dat is dat we een encyclopedie aan het schrijven zijn en
iedereen die daar niet aan meedoet kan wat mij betreft naar de hel lopen.

Waerth/Walter
/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I expect a desyssoppingprocedure soon


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
--- charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Daniel Mayer"  wrote.
>
> >Another drive will be needed in Q1 to cover the rest of that quarter's
> >costs.
>
> I'm not going to argue on the numbers.  The mission is _still_ to write the
> encyclopedia, rather than look at it from the finance director's point of
> view.  Let's continue to bear that in mind.

And to continue writing that encyclopedia we need to keep our financial house in order. Numbers
are farily important in that regard. Let't not forget that. :)

-- mav

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
On 1/1/06, Jon B <xzql3ik02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> I was told that the W3M browser doesn't display Unicode characters
> correctly, but more importantly, I noticed that it strips them during
> saves.  It should be added to the blacklist for the Unicode
> workaround.

First of all I presume you're talking about multibyte characters
because ASCII is also a subset of unicode (and there are other
single-byte characters besides the ASCII characters).

* What version of w3m is this?
* What platform is it running on?
* What are the language & locale settings?

It seems to be a user problem and not a w3m problem, I was able to
correctly save one, two, three and four byte characters on my
MediaWiki installation using w3m/0.5.1+cvs-1.938 and the en_US.utf8
locale using a utf8 xterm, however running the browser with a
non-unicode locale (such as C) results in it saving incorrect
characters.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] alleged vandalism

body:
I did checkuser and whois on this and found the ip which is from a
provider in a major city and is used by many users. There were about
5 users, including one vandal. The block, from December 30 for 24
hours, should have expired. ips like this should only be blocked for
15 minutes or so. This user probably could have gotten in by
rebooting then trying to connect again as the ip would probably have
changed.

Fred

On Jan 1, 2006, at 4:22 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> If the block was applied to your IP address, you need to give it,
> so we can
> check the block log. Admins cannot see which IPs are attached to a
> username
> (only people with the checkuser feature (developers and arbcom
> members) can.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 12/30/05, Pat Gallacher <pat_gallacher at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have been blocked for alleged vandalism.  I think
>> this is a mistake.  The blockage applies to my IP
>> address not my user name.  I am unable to email the
>> admin who decided to block me.  This has happened
>> before, I think things are getting confused.
>>
>> My username is PatGallacher.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party -
>> http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
"Daniel Mayer"  wrote.

>Another drive will be needed in Q1 to cover the rest of that quarter's
>costs.

I'm not going to argue on the numbers.  The mission is _still_ to write the
encyclopedia, rather than look at it from the finance director's point of
view.  Let's continue to bear that in mind.

Charles


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [MediaWiki-CVS] phase3 RELEASE-NOTES,1.618,1.619

body:
On 12/29/05, Brion Vibber <vibber at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3
> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv8843
>
> Modified Files:
>         RELEASE-NOTES
> Log Message:
> * Fix for short_open_tag off again; please don't break this, guys

Tip: If you use vim put this in your .vimrc:

let php_noShortTags = 1

then <? echo "x"; ?> won't be highlighted as is the default, but the
same code with <?php will be.


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
> > > The 'server strain' argument occurs only because
exponential growth has been
> > > seen.

The main issue for opponents is that the revenue
stream would likely far exceeds any server needs.
Where will all the extra money go? Or more to the
point, what right does the general quasi-nymous
community of disembodied internet personae have to
argue with whatever decision Jimbo makes? (He's done
alright thus far, and the Siegenthaler thing couldn't
have been planned/timed better). Opportunities to cash
in on millions and millions of dollars dont come along
every day, and most people in that position would be
regarded as foolish to not do so.

>From that baseline, all of the stated reasons can be
regarded as superficial, but its fair to say that its
both a community decision and a business decision
involving matters of:
 a) solvency
 b) upscaling
 c) compensating workers (ie. programmers)
 d) changing from an open model to an
    heirarchial one.
 e) jet fuel and shiatsu massages

Opponents may largely be satisfied if the (e) category
is all but struck from the list --being the classic
loophole of in the corporate business model. And (d)
is debatable in 16 dimensions.

Whatever the decision if the community does not agree
with how the decision is made or how ads are
implemented, it will simply drift somewhere else.
Wikipedia is just a name after all. I personally dont
think its a bad idea, but only if the ads are all at
the very bottom of the page.

Stevertigo

__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
On 31/12/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> > Hi, a group of us have decided to found a micronation, formed of the
> > Wikipedia community. Currently we've only chosen our country's name,
> Tirben,
> > so if you want to get involved in the forming of our constitution
> (hopefully
> > it'll be easier than the founding fathers found it) then you're welcome
> to
> > drop by and help out. Our IRC channel is #tirben on Freenode, and our
> > website is at http://tirben.starglade.org/
> >
> > Everyone's invited to drop by, and please spread this message. I hope
> this
> > will be a great community builder!
> >
>
> Is it an offshore tax haven? :)
>

I don't know about offshore, but there's absolutely no tax laws whatsoever!

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
http://talrias.net/


from_name: Kyle Lutze

body:
well, besides the language used in there (damn you must be pissed) it
sounds like the dutch wikipedia is starting to turn into the english
wikipedia. Perhaps time to do some an audit of some sort?

Kyle12`

Walter van Kalken wrote:
> I have totally had it with the dutch wikipedia so in a reactio today I
> let myself go and told them how I felt. I expect the quite large
> political correct brigade on nl.wikipedia to desyssop me soon. In which
> case I will voluntarily step down from all my work in wikimediaprojects.
> I am getting sick and tired of the debateclimate that seems to become
> more and more common. To spoil the fun of the political correct brigade
> here is the dutch original and english translation of what I said:
>
> /English:
> The guidelines suck they leave us no room to deal with pissheads like
> Verrekijker/Versieck. And on top of that someone threatened to desyssop
> me. Walter please mail that person that they have to do what they cannot
> let go. Please. I am sick and tired of the threatening behind my back,
> No one can blackmail me. I am doing everything that I feel is necessary
> to keep nl: wiki a good place voor the users that come here to edit and
> write an encyclopedia (99,99% of the users) and that they have
> discussions every now and then ... that is normal, it goes with the
> territory. I do not give a flying fuck though for the ruleinterpreters,
> the talkpage knights who only discuss because they like to discuss and
> the trolls. I hope that their computers will give them a deadly
> powershock.  We have only one rule as far as I am concerned and that is
> that we are writing an encyclopedia and everyone who is not helping with
> that can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
>
> Dutch original:/
> /De richtlijnen zuigen en laten ons totaal geen ruimte om adequat met
> etterbakken als Verrekijker/Versieck en anderen te dealen. En dan is er
> iemand die gedreigd heeft met een desysopprocedure voor mij. Walter mail
> die persoon dat ze vooral hun gang moeten gang. Alsjeblieft. Ik ben het
> eeuwige achter mijn rug gedreig zat. Ik ben niet chanteerbaar. Ik doe
> alles wat ik nodig acht om de nl: wiki een goede plaats te houden voor
> de gebruikers die hier serieus komen om te editten (dus 99,99%) en dat
> die wel eens een discussie hebben ach wat dat is normaal dat hoort
> erbij!..... ik geef echter geen ene malle moer om de
> regeltjesinterpreteerders de overlegridders die overleggen voor het
> plezier en de trollen. Ik hoop dat die allemaal een dodelijke
> stroomschok krijgen vanachter hun computer. We hebben hier maar een
> regel en dat is dat we een encyclopedie aan het schrijven zijn en
> iedereen die daar niet aan meedoet kan wat mij betreft naar de hel lopen.


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/1/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> And to continue writing that encyclopedia we need to keep our financial house in order. Numbers
> are farily important in that regard. Let't not forget that. :)
>
> -- mav
>

Do we have any idea of the income ads will produce? If so, how
accurate is the projections? How about income projections for limited
ads (prohibited from article namespace, for example).


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki CVS statistics

body:
As my first toolserver project I've made some statistics of the
activity in our CVS repository. I made aggregated statistics of the
whole repository[1] as well as statistics for individual modules[2].
You'll see per commiter statistics there, LOC statistics, file &
directory statistics and changelogs. Addidionally I've put the raw CVS
changelogs up there too[4], and finally the whole thing can be
downloaded[3] for local viewing & hacking, just make sure you're
*ahem* adhering to the license[5].

1. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cvs/html/all/
2. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cvs/html/
3. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cvs/cvs.tar.gz
4. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cvs/log/
5. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/cvs/COPYING


from_name: XaosFluX

body:
IMHO,
Havnig a Stable Version is a Good Thing, however changing how editing works
is not.  I would be in favor of keeping everything the way it is now,
except:
Allow the version to be flagged as validated, DO NOT show it be default, and
call it something friendlier like 'Last Version for Publication', with a tab
on the top, the introduction text in this link should not say this is a
perfect article, etc; just that it is the last version that was selected for
export to other media's, these versions are periodically updated, to update
this version (follow this link or steps for validating a new version).

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Stable versions policy

> Displaying vandalism instantaneously is the real problem and better work
> flow management will help
> to mitigate that problem a great deal. Delayed edits for anons and new
> users will also help; even
> going so far as preventing any edit by an anon or new user from being
> saved (and thus displayed)
> until a trusted user has checked it for obvious vandalism. Many things can
> be used to minimize the
> risk of showing obscene vandalism to readers. Let's at least *try* those
> before doing something
> that will fundamentally change the character of the project.
>
> We also need to make sure that live versions are clearly marked as the
> latest but unreviewed
> version of articles. That readers need to be extra careful with those
> versions but at the same
> time should not regard stable versions as infallible either.
>
> If the stable designations is to mean anything, then the amount of review
> needed to get it will
> ensure that stable versions will be, on average, significantly less
> current than the live version.
>
> So showing stable versions by default will *kill* one of the best aspects
> of Wikipedia; its
> ability to record history as it happens. It will also encourage needless
> forking of articles with
> stable versions whenever its subject is in the news. Not because doing
> that is best for covering
> the subject, but *only* to be able to report on the current events (no
> stable version = live
> version is displayed).
>
> For these reasons and others, I am **EXTREMELY** against hiding the live
> version behind stable
> ones on Wikipedia. If that is what they want, then there will be plenty of
> mirrors that will only
> display stable versions of our articles. Or they could simply choose to
> view stable versions by
> default; either by clicking on a 'View stable version of this article'
> link for selected articles
> or logging in and setting their preferences for that.
>
> Hiding the live version behind a stable one is like cutting your nose off
> to spite your face. It
> tries to solve a problem that does not exist; the Nature article showed
> that we are on the right
> track with our current methods. We just need better ways to prevent the
> display of obvious
> vandalism at any time (even a few seconds is unacceptable since a reader
> may have loaded the
> article during that time). We *DO NOT* need to also hide all the other
> valid edits that go on.
> Hiding those just to prevent the display of vandalism is a blunt tool that
> *will* cause more harm
> than good. We need to focus on our real problems and surgically target
> solutions to combat them.
>
> Don't get me wrong; I'm all for having a stable article system in the mold
> of the old sifter idea.
> It will be very useful as part of workflow management and attaining our
> goal to have print and
> CD/DVD versions of our content. It will also be useful on the website
> since it gives readers the
> option to cite slightly more trustworthy versions if they value that over
> having the most
> up-to-date version that has only been checked to make sure there is no
> obvious vandalism.
> Prominent links to the stable version should be provided along with easy
> ways for readers to
> choose to only view those by default if they want. But the wikipedia.org
> website is where the
> development of the content goes on. So that needs to be the focus. We just
> need better workflow
> management to ensure we don't display obvious vandalism to readers.
>
> Again, being current and up to date is our most lauded characteristic.
> Hiding the live version
> behind stable ones kills that *unless* the 'stable' label is diluted and
> bastardized to only mean
> 'no obvious vandalism'.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
> http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 12/31/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Wikipedia is *supposed* to be strange compared to the rest, though.  In
> addition to being strange in having no ads, we're also strange in
> licensing our content under the GFDL, rather than the more standard "All
> Rights Reserved" that Microsoft, Slashdot, CNN, et al use.

That and that "you can edit this page" nonsense...

--
Sam


body:
On 12/31/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> We have only one rule as far as I am concerned and that is
> that we are writing an encyclopedia and everyone who is not helping with
> that can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Well said, Walter.  Please stick with it; you are very much
appreciated in the global Wikimedia community.

Happy new year!

--
Sam


from_name: Tomoko OHOYA

subject: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
???????????????????

newbie??????????
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ
????????????????????
???????????TOC???????????????????
?????????????????????

?????????????????????????
???????????????

?????????????

----
// Tomoko OHOYA
// idic at kcn.ne.jp
// http://www.kcn.ne.jp/~idic/


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
 On 1/1/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> SP wrote:
> > Confessions of a image-maniac.
> >
> > I have a image that needs to go. It's license is dubious.
> > I love the image so much, even if its color's ridiculous.
> >
> > I promised myself it would go on New Years Day.
> > If I tag it speedy delete will someone make it go away
> > Before I change my mind?
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:0184_Lantern_slide_woman%2C_Ford%2C_pipe2.jpg
> >
>
> Public domain is about the most non-dubious "licence" we've got. Or is
> it not actually public domain? If so, relabel it with the correct
> licence information. I suspect if I saw a nice public-domain image like
> this tagged for deletion I'd first ensure it was moved to Commons before
> deleting it.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Images that are moved to the commons should be tagged {{nowcommons}}


subject: [WikiEN-l] alleged vandalism

body:
If the block was applied to your IP address, you need to give it, so we can
check the block log. Admins cannot see which IPs are attached to a username
(only people with the checkuser feature (developers and arbcom members) can.

Mgm

On 12/30/05, Pat Gallacher <pat_gallacher at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have been blocked for alleged vandalism.  I think
> this is a mistake.  The blockage applies to my IP
> address not my user name.  I am unable to email the
> admin who decided to block me.  This has happened
> before, I think things are getting confused.
>
> My username is PatGallacher.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party -
> http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Josh Gordon wrote:

>Perhaps the best solution would be like the one Salon, Weather Underground,
>and many other sites use: pay a subscription fee (say, $29.95 a year) or see
>(and probably ignore) the ads. That way we'd have our choice of how to
>personally support Wikipedia.
>
To tell the truth, ads strung along the side of the screen wouldn't
stop me from editing, but if the servers get unresponsive, I kill
all my WP windows and go do something else.

(Of course, that "something else" may be prepping another batch of
photos for upload to WP later. :-) )

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?
"Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves and
subsequently how they are referred to by others.

Mgm

On 12/31/05, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> "Childlove movement" is a POV euphemism for pedophilia advocacy. There is
> currently and AFD on the article at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Childlove_movementhowever, we have a small number of pedophilia advocates (self-identified on
> their user pages) who have been editing pedophilia related articles in an
> attempt to promote their POV.
>
> What this means is there may not be "consensus" at the AFD to take action
> such as deleting, merging or renaming the article. However, I think it's
> quite clear that the name of the article at least is POV.
>
> Just as we would not allow a small group of dedicated anti-Semities to
> maintain an article title such as "Holohoax" we shouldn't allow a small
> group of pedophiles to use wikipedia to promote their preferred terminology
> of "childlover".
>
> Any ideas as to how we should handle this? If a small group of dedicated
> advocates can block consensus that is a serious threat to our NPOV policy.
>
> Homey
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: "Fair use" images now allowed in userspace?

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> [...] Hopefully, however, Wikipedia can find some compromise between
> the copyleft fundamentalists and those like me who believe that a
> psychological separation between public and private space is
> important. Given the objections to the posting of meetup photos which
> have arisen at the past, I don't believe I'm alone. I think this
> concept of a balance between freedom and privacy is one which could
> use some more discussion.

I could see the addition of a special tag/category of non-free images
specifically designated for use only on user pages, and enforced with
bots. The point of being strict about fair use is to facilitate free
downstream usage, but downstream users don't really have any use for
user pages anyway; for them we just need a way that they can automate
the filtering of images they don't want, and a special tag will do the
job just fine.

Stan


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Hermione1980 wrote:

> I'm not opposed to ads on Wikipedia per se. I am,
> however, vehemently opposed to those damn flashing
> red-and-white banners that scream at me from some
> websites. As long as any hypothetical ads to be put on
> Wikipedia are unobtrusive, I'm not going to scream too
> loudly.
>
This is one of the reasons I am opposed to advertising on
Wikipedia: far too many web ads are designed with the
intent of drawing attention to themselves, which distracts
from the content of Wikipedia. I doubt many people would
find it easy to work their way thru an article on
mathematics or rewrite the tortured syntax of a syntax while
from the corner of the browser an ad for a dating service
flashes the cleavage of some attractive woman -- one of
my recent annoyances with the Userfriendly website. (I also
despise internet dating services for other reasons, which
are not relevant here.)

Insuring that any Wikipedia ads adhere to some standard only
increases the overhead that accompanies advertisements.
As Eclectology noted in another post, if you have ads, then
you need to pay someone to track (& collect) the revenues.
Then there is the cost of marketing Wikipedia ads . . . which
leads to a group of people with a vested interest in monitoring
article content (for example, adding pressure to remove or
rewrite articles about sexuality so that Wikipedia isn't
blocked by potential eyeballs).

One important thing about not having ads is that it is a
return to the older Internet, a place where explicit commercial
use was forbidden. Maybe I've improved my memories of that
environment, but I remember that there a certain sense of
community there whee everyone was more willing to share --
even the porn, believe it or not, was free.

Ads on websites have helped to erode that sense of community.
Whenever ads appear on a website, this cannot help but
create a sense of us vs. them: the users who are subjected
to ads, & the people behind the website who presumably are
getting rich off of the ads. Thus this would send a message
contrary to the official one that Wikipedia is as accessible
as possible to all; & I suspect that advertising on Wikipedia
would be soon followed by an increase in vandalism, & a
decline in new members.

These are just a few immediate thoughts I have on the matter.
It might be more informative to study just how the community
around the Internet Movie Database changed when Amazon
bought it.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
-- Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> With respect, this is a fairly strange line of
argument. Objectively,
> there is nothing particularly bizarre or strange
about Wikipedia as an online community. There are
other wikis, there are >other collaborative projects,
there are >other online forums etc etc. So all of that
>is not in itself a reason to say "Wikipedia >is so
different that it makes sense
> for it to continue being different by having no
ads".

I generally tend to agree with you, but 1) the issue
isnt really as fancy as that, and 2)
<sarcasm>Wikipedia is not a
community/democracy/etc./etc./<sarcasm>

Im guessing that growth projections would show that if
Wikipedia didnt have any server problems whatsoever,
it would now rank about 10 (instead of 30). So once
the server situation gets up to its optimal capacity
(theres a market cap for everything: maybe at 2x
current capacity) there will be other costs. Legal
fees, paid server techs, backpay for work (to keep
people happy), limousines, etc. With success comes its
costs. Does WP's continued success depend more on
those princples or on its financial and commercial
competitiveness with commercialist or academic/elitist
upstarts/restarts. Arent there degrees in-between?

WP's huge demand makes it not just needing to keep up,
but it puts it in a position to make egalitarian
demands and not merely  bend to commercialist ones.
Open model success might have limits, but a high
enough degree of success makes the very notion of ads
at least [[edit]]able, and therefore feasibly
compatible with the open culture. Fastfission did a
good job of breaking down the basic 'compromise' about
how ads could work.

Stevertigo
"You have just won {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} dollars!"

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


from_name: Adrian Buehlmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Idea for explicit revision transclusion of templates

body:
I think it would be very helpful if we could say per article
which version of a template should be transcluded.

I do not know how that could be done in wiki syntax best. Just as a
(possibly bad) example:

For example inside the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
the text:

<use oldid=33403194>Template:Infobox President</use>

could specify that version
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_President&oldid=33403194

of the template should be used on that article (instead of the newest one).

Just and idea. I think that would help stop the shooting of prominent articles
via templates.

Adrian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adrian_Buehlmann


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 1/1/06, Garion1000 <garion1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should use Google ads on Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt will have a
> field day with that one. :)

That's the best argument for having ads that I've seen so far.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
On 12/31/05, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The 'server strain' argument occurs only because exponential
> > growth has been
> > seen.  WP _has not_ crumbled under the strain.  Traffic seems
>
> It's the only site I have regularly used in the last couple of years
> which as a normal part of usage puts up "Server experiencing
> difficulties, come back lately".  I get that message on WP pretty much
> every day during certain hours.  And that's not to mention some of the
> more esoteric messages like edits being disabled, the DB being out of
> sync etc. I would *much* rather have ads than put up with server
> unavailability.

That is a pretty good argument for ads yes. I still don't know myself, I do
really like it that wp is ad free.

Perhaps we should use Google ads on Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt will have a
field day with that one. :)

Garion


from_name: homey2005 at sympatico.ca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?

"Pedophile advocacy" is no more a neologism than "Opposition to the war in Iraq". It's simply the compilation of accepted terms into a descriptive phrase. The neologism in "childlove movement" is the term "childlove" which exists in no standard dictionary and is not used by any mainstream sources. The term "pedophile" is well established as is the word "advocacy".

> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves

That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".

> and subsequently how they are referred to by others.

That statement is based on a false premise. It is simply not the case that a group of people is automatically referred to by the name they give themselves (see my earlier argument about "white nationalists"). Secondly, we have no evidence that this is the case with the pedophile movement. Lexis/Nexis shows no occurances of the term "childlove" in published media reports.

Anyway, another editor has moved the article to "pedophile advocacy" based on consensus in the AFD so now the discussion should shift to the contents of the article itself.

Homey

>
> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun AM 06:28:56 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term itself?
> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves and
> subsequently how they are referred to by others.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 12/31/05, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > "Childlove movement" is a POV euphemism for pedophilia advocacy. There is
> > currently and AFD on the article at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Childlove_movementhowever, we have a small number of pedophilia advocates (self-identified on
> > their user pages) who have been editing pedophilia related articles in an
> > attempt to promote their POV.
> >
> > What this means is there may not be "consensus" at the AFD to take action
> > such as deleting, merging or renaming the article. However, I think it's
> > quite clear that the name of the article at least is POV.
> >
> > Just as we would not allow a small group of dedicated anti-Semities to
> > maintain an article title such as "Holohoax" we shouldn't allow a small
> > group of pedophiles to use wikipedia to promote their preferred terminology
> > of "childlover".
> >
> > Any ideas as to how we should handle this? If a small group of dedicated
> > advocates can block consensus that is a serious threat to our NPOV policy.
> >
> > Homey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: SP

body:
Images that are moved to the commons should be tagged {{nowcommons}}

        It is released for educational, non-commercial, and personal
        use. So clearly not WP material. I uploaded it in error but
        hated to get rid of it because I like it so much. I put it at
        the top of my user page for a few weeks, planning to get rid of
        it today. I've labeled it now.

        --Sydney Poore

            Go Bengals!


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Heiko Evermann

subject: [Wiktionary-l] A Christmas present on Boxing day

body:
Hi Gerard,

> I am extremely happy that I can inform you on Boxing day that a tired
> Erik has produced the first tangible result of the Wikidata / Ultimate
> Wiktionary project. It shows that we want great content in many
> languages, that we want to include thesaurus information and that we
> are happy to include with gratitude content like the Gemet thesaurus.
First of all: Congratulations for the working prototype. I think that UW is a
very important project and it is good to see that it is making progress.

> Our goal with Ultimate Wiktionary is to provide an even more complex
> application that will make this data collaboratively editable, to add
> dynamic user-based views, APIs, and crucial features such as
> inflections, etymologies, complex relations and attributes, and much
> more. This will be a huge challenge. Fortunately, more funding seems to
> be on the horizon, allowing us to put more developers on the job.
I have made some experiments and this led to some thoughts and questions. I
hope that you do not mind.

I have tried http://www.epov.org/wd-gemet/index.php/flower and have seen two
Entries: en and en-US. Both seem to have independent lists of translations,
as en lists en-US as translation but en-US does not list en as translation.
How will this be handled? What is your way to make sure that the definitions
and translations remain consistent? In the case of flower there should be no
distinction between en and en-US whatsoever. I have asked this before, but so
far I have not received a response that really solved the matter.

I have also had a look at the entries for "color" and "colour". The
interesting thing here is that one (en) has a definition and one (en-US)
doesn't.

And when I navigate to the different translations, (e.g. German: Farbe), I get
the same list of definitions in several languages. However, when we translate
Farbe back into English, we would have to make the distinction between two
different meanings: color (hue) and paint (for the wall). As all the
different translations seem to be forming one ring, I wonder, how the meaning
would be split in the German entry, and how one would select the translations
into pl, sl, gb onto these two meanings.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ads on Wikipedia?

body:
Just a few thoughts on advertising:

* It wouldn't have to be banner ads in the obnoxious sense. Surely
there could be some sort of quality control and discreteness about it.
I'm sure we could find someone willing to shell out a lot of funding
for a small ad on the lower left hand corner of each page. If every
set of advertisements had to be approved by some small board of
thoughtful people, it would probably keep out the "You may be a
winner!" and "Mortgage your house online!" ads.

* What if ad content could be controlled through user CSS pages? Those
who are 'in the know' could outright disable them without difficulty.
People without accounts could never disable them. What's the ratio of
logged-in to non-logged in page hits?

* I think that "targetted" schemes along the lines of Google Adsense
are a bad idea. If we have ads, they should be as little connected to
the content being viewed as possible, as a matter of integrity.
Article content and article titles should have NO relation to
advertising content. If it does, we are not only inviting some raised
eyebrows about content validity, but we're inviting people to try and
game the system by modifying articles in oh-so-clever and minor ways
to get their specific advertisements listed first.

* Perhaps there are other revenue models we should consider first
before advertising. At the moment the only ones on the table seem to
be 1. selling hard-copies, 2. begging, and 3. advertising. I have the
business acumen of a pigeon but surely there must be alternatives to
these three.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paul Pantone article needs fact-check

body:
Hello folks,

I'm still checking through criminal categories looking for problems. I
found an article that needs more checking than I have time to do now. If
someone has the time and interest, this article needs a fact-check and
more mainstream media sources. I think this person is high risk for
causing us problems is the article is not exactly right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pantone

--Sydney Poore
Go Bengals!


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
Maybe we could call it pseudoscience.

-Phil

On Jan 1, 2006, at 2:32 PM, <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:

>> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term
>> itself?
>
> "Pedophile advocacy" is no more a neologism than "Opposition to the
> war in Iraq". It's simply the compilation of accepted terms into a
> descriptive phrase. The neologism in "childlove movement" is the
> term "childlove" which exists in no standard dictionary and is not
> used by any mainstream sources. The term "pedophile" is well
> established as is the word "advocacy".
>
>> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves
>
> That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a
> particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism
> simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to
> "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial
> rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists"
> rather than "Holocaust deniers".
>
>> and subsequently how they are referred to by others.
>
> That statement is based on a false premise. It is simply not the
> case that a group of people is automatically referred to by the
> name they give themselves (see my earlier argument about "white
> nationalists"). Secondly, we have no evidence that this is the case
> with the pedophile movement. Lexis/Nexis shows no occurances of the
> term "childlove" in published media reports.
>
> Anyway, another editor has moved the article to "pedophile
> advocacy" based on consensus in the AFD so now the discussion
> should shift to the contents of the article itself.
>
> Homey
>
>
>>
>> From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun AM 06:28:56 EST
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>>
>> And how exactly is "pedophilia advocacy" not some neologistic term
>> itself?
>> "Childlove movement" is the name by which they refer to themselves
>> and
>> subsequently how they are referred to by others.
>>
>> Mgm
>>
>>
>> On 12/31/05, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Childlove movement" is a POV euphemism for pedophilia advocacy.
>>> There is
>>> currently and AFD on the article at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
>>> Childlove_movementhowever, we have a small number of pedophilia
>>> advocates (self-identified on
>>> their user pages) who have been editing pedophilia related
>>> articles in an
>>> attempt to promote their POV.
>>>
>>> What this means is there may not be "consensus" at the AFD to
>>> take action
>>> such as deleting, merging or renaming the article. However, I
>>> think it's
>>> quite clear that the name of the article at least is POV.
>>>
>>> Just as we would not allow a small group of dedicated anti-
>>> Semities to
>>> maintain an article title such as "Holohoax" we shouldn't allow a
>>> small
>>> group of pedophiles to use wikipedia to promote their preferred
>>> terminology
>>> of "childlover".
>>>
>>> Any ideas as to how we should handle this? If a small group of
>>> dedicated
>>> advocates can block consensus that is a serious threat to our
>>> NPOV policy.
>>>
>>> Homey
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".

Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
way of dealing with this sort of thing:

"White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
"White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."

Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
of thing that MGM is getting at.  Other examples include distinctions
like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].

When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.

FF


subject: [Wikipedia-l] TOCの一部が欠けてしまいます

body:
???????
???????????????????

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_FAQ
??????????????????
I want to translate faq page to Japanese.

???????(ja)???????????
So, I created ja page.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_%E3%82%88%E3%81%8F%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E8%B3%AA%E5%95%8F%E3%81%A8%E5%9B%9E%E7%AD%94%E9%9B%86

??????Save page??????TOC????????????????
????2.7?2.8?????
After translate some line and submit Save page button,
some of TOC lines, 2.7 or 2.8 for example, doesn't show correctly.
what's wrong?

????????????????????
???????????

Nga_Na_Ba_Tu?n_Th? ????????:
>?????
>????????????????
>
>?????????????????????????????????????????????
>???????
>
>???
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

----
// Tomoko OHOYA
// idic at kcn.ne.jp
// http://www.kcn.ne.jp/~idic/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Merry Christmas from Daniel Brandt (David Gerard)

body:
Well, I agree that this is a privacy issue primarily.

As an aside, I find it unlikely that "fair use" could possibly be
interpretted to allow the wholesale copying and *re-distributing* of
the whole of copyrighted content of entire websites. (Personal copying
for historical record with limited access would have a pretty good
argument for it. But the Wayback Machine is open to everyone. Hell,
I've used it myself to get once-free content which has since become
pay content!)

But anyway, this little thread has, I think, run its little course...

FF

On 12/31/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/31/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey -- I agree completely on its utility! I love the site myself! But let's
> > not pretend that there aren't some major copyright questions with mirroring
> > the content of the entire internet and making it available to everyone who
> > wants it.
> >
> > FF
> >
> Sure, there are copyright questions with mirroring content.  There are
> also some answers, including the doctrine of fair use.  In any case,
> that there are copyright questions over mirroring content doesn't mean
> that mirroring content is the same as ripping someone off.  I mean,
> c'mon, does Rob think he was going to make any money off that page?
>
> It seems to me this is a privacy issue (if anything), not a copyright one.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

body:
Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).

Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia". The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism.

Homey
>
> From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
>
> On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".
>
> Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
> nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
> way of dealing with this sort of thing:
>
> "White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
> social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
> "White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
> that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
> including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
> heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
> racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
> intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."
>
> Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
> completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
> nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
> question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
> of thing that MGM is getting at.  Other examples include distinctions
> like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].
>
> When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
> organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
> established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
> itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>