subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Alternatives include when it is viable, when it is
> born.

    Degrees, yes--as others have pointed out, its a
spectrum. But in the context of consensus, that
"spectrum" is also a bell curve, with the two extremes
representing the vocal minorities, while most people
might agree to some fetal age a pragmatic compromise.
I dont own a polling company, so this is not sourced.
    In this case, however the extremes appear to be
split along absolute/binary lines, while in reality
most understand the middle ground. Hence the extremes
are almost reflexively represented as majorities
rather than as minorites,(1) and this inverse logic
effects how our articles are written and debated.
    IMHO It's incorrect for a general bell curve
consensus to be represented as simply exclusively a
bunch of "minorities"(2) just because there are
different degrees. IOW, to claim that an intuited
'general compromise POV' is merely a group of
conceptual, unrelated, and distict POVs is not
correct, as even a 'conceptual consensus'(3) =
rationality == NPOV. With representation for all the
conceptual and political degrees of course.

Fn
1 minorities (though certainly there's a political
split point)
2  (Perhaps so because there is yet no definitive
popular consensus yet on where the line is, other than
that represented in Roe.)
3 ...consensus, (as opposed to segmentalism on the
particulars)...

SV
Apologies for U.S.-centrist language and footnotes.

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Dori

subject:
[Wikitech-l] request;
	access to (anonymized) apache log data for a recommendation system

body:
On 7/25/05, tpryor at media.mit.edu <tpryor at media.mit.edu> wrote:

> For this I need access to user page requests over time- preferably stored in a
> database. I can provide a script that will translate users' ip addresses to a
> unique signature so that the users themselves remain anonymous, stuff the data
> into a reasonably size efficient mysql table, etc.

Why would you need Wikipedia's data for the design? Couldn't you set
up a wiki and use that data, or even use pseudo-random data?

> I was told that I might need to talk to Kate about the feasibility of doing
> this. Are there any existing objections to retaining anonymized apache log data
> for research purposes?

No objections to anonymized data. The trouble is that you can't really
anonymize this data all that easily. Just getting a program/script to
do the anonymizing would be a great project.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alphax

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 62

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

janisc at adelphia.net wrote:
> Much appreciated.  I think I know someone who took a photo of a
> celebrity that has a wikipedia entry.  I'll suggest they put their
> photo up.
>

Make sure they fully understand the implications of whatever license
they choose to license the photo under, and that they choose an
appropriate license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA)!

> Interesting to note--I'd hate to see it pulled, but I'm curious if
> falls under fair use.
>

If it's of the person, and it is used in an article about the person,
and it's a photo that is especially illustrative of the person, you can
claim fair use, but *only for the article about the person*. Or at least
that's my interpretation of how it works.

> Under Chrissy Hynde's entry someone used a scan from the Pretender's
> Greatest Hits cover.  Acceptable?  I'd hate to see it be
> deleted...but I'm also trying to figure out if photos like that are
> acceptable.
>

The cover would probably be more suitable for an article about the album
or the band than a member of it.

> & I know one of my favorite actors has a page with a non fair use
> photo.  Because it came from  newspapers and magazines.  They didn't
> take it.  I don't want to rat them out.  :)
>

Put it on IFD then.

> I just mentioned Hynde's entry because I want to know if a CD cover
> scan is acceptable?  And I had to mention the picture so you guys
> could see it. :)
>

Make sure that a claim of fair use applies. It is believed that under US
law, an album cover is fair use if it is used to illustrate an article
about the album/band.

BTW, have you considered subscribing to the English Wikipedia mailing
list? You can do so at
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l> or
<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe> - a lot of
discussion about Fair Use takes place on the English Wikipedia list,
because that is one of the few Wikipedias which allows Fair Use images
(if not the only one).

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC514V/RxM5Ph0xhMRAxq7AJ4g17tEMKJhp/VnzJra9Idd1gM2RQCfafqP
Omlm+r98nVIXF98Ep1lAj68=
=1PUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Is "fetus" = "human life" POV?

body:
> From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?

I think there certainly is a point of view involved here, in the
sense that there is a continuous spectrum of things ranging from
things that few would consider to be "human life" and things that
most would consider to be "human life," and anywhere you draw the
line represents some kind of point of view.

I'm going to list some points in that spectrum. I ask you, _not_
where you draw the line, but whether it is _possible_ to draw that
line anywhere without expressing a point of view.

1) Since a mouse shares about 90% of its genome with humans, wouldn't
a Martian consider that for all intents and purposes a mouse is
practically "human" life?

2) At this point, it has been established that rats dream. Over the
past couple of decades, ethologists have increasingly adopted the,
well, point of view that the concept of "consciousness" has
scientific validity... and that mammals in fact are conscious.
Probably most people, scientists or not, would agree that mammals are
capable of feeling physical pain, and that many of them are capable
of feeling emotions such as grief or joy. By virtue of sharing the
mental characteristics that constitute human personhood, are they
essentially "human" life and entitled to "personhood?"

3) Are the red blood cells in the last blood donation I made, alive?
(They metabolize and do many things but cannot reproduce). If they
are alive, they are certainly human. Are they "human life?"

4) How about cells scraped from the inside of my cheeks, which are a
classic high-school material for studying chromosomes?

5) How about my white blood cells, which have nuclei and contain my
genome and can reproduce themselves, but cannot with present
technology reproduce another human being?

6) How about a human kidney, removed from a car accident victim who
is carrying an organ donor card? That is, there is no reasonable
doubt that the person involved is "dead," yet the kidney is "still
alive," and is certainly "human?"

7) How about my sperm cells, which are certainly alive and certainly
human and can reproduce another human being when combined with
genetic material from an ovum, but cannot with present technology
reproduce another human being _by themselves?_

8) How about a sperm and an ovum, considered together, during the
time period when the sperm has entered the ovum fertilization
membrane has lifted, so that it is all but certain that a) no other
sperm can fertilize that ovum and b) that particular sperm will in
fact fertilize the ovum... but the nuclei have not yet merged? At
this point in time, the probability that a human being will develop
is almost the same as it is just after fertilization, and in both
cases we know exactly "who" it will be (in the sense of knowing the
genetic complement).

9) You use the word "fetus," so I assume you accept the ordinary
distinction between a "fetus" and "embryo" (less than 8 weeks old).
IS an embryo human life? Just like the separate egg-and-sperm just
prior to fertilization, the embryo is pretty much predestined to
_become_ human life, but it doesn't look like a human being and it
doesn't look different from a nonhuman embryo. Is it "human life?"

10) first-trimeter fetuses

11) second-trimester fetuses

12) third-trimester fetuses

13) Newborn infants

14) Toddlers

--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417


from_name: tpryor at media.mit.edu

subject:
[Wikitech-l] request; access to (anonymized) apache log data
	for a recommendation system

body:
> Using publicly-available data you can find out the set of pages edited
> by each username.  Then it is possible, with some degree of uncertainty,
> to link some usernames to one or more "unique signature"s (from your
> quoted text above), by matching sets of user page requests to sets of
> pages edited.  Thus some of the data we would release to you is
> bordering on, if not definitely, personally identifiable data which is
> not already publicly available.

I would like to work around this issue such that no editor's identity is
compromised. If the IP addresses of named wikipedia editors are discernable by
matching their wikipedia dated edit saves to the corresponding apache log
entries, when such log entries are found by the script, they can be skipped
entirely, not SHA1 hashed. Thereby no data that is personally
identifiable will
exist.

> The privacy policy [1] says that
> "personally identifiable data collected in the server logs will not be
> released by the developers who have access to it," except under certain
> circumstances, none of which cover this case.

> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
>
>> Tony Pryor
>>
> ---
> en:user:jeronim
> ---
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Phroziac

body:
Am I a human?

On 7/27/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> > From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
> >
> > Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> > life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> > "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
>
> I think there certainly is a point of view involved here, in the
> sense that there is a continuous spectrum of things ranging from
> things that few would consider to be "human life" and things that
> most would consider to be "human life," and anywhere you draw the
> line represents some kind of point of view.
>
> I'm going to list some points in that spectrum. I ask you, _not_
> where you draw the line, but whether it is _possible_ to draw that
> line anywhere without expressing a point of view.
>
> 1) Since a mouse shares about 90% of its genome with humans, wouldn't
> a Martian consider that for all intents and purposes a mouse is
> practically "human" life?
>
> 2) At this point, it has been established that rats dream. Over the
> past couple of decades, ethologists have increasingly adopted the,
> well, point of view that the concept of "consciousness" has
> scientific validity... and that mammals in fact are conscious.
> Probably most people, scientists or not, would agree that mammals are
> capable of feeling physical pain, and that many of them are capable
> of feeling emotions such as grief or joy. By virtue of sharing the
> mental characteristics that constitute human personhood, are they
> essentially "human" life and entitled to "personhood?"
>
> 3) Are the red blood cells in the last blood donation I made, alive?
> (They metabolize and do many things but cannot reproduce). If they
> are alive, they are certainly human. Are they "human life?"
>
> 4) How about cells scraped from the inside of my cheeks, which are a
> classic high-school material for studying chromosomes?
>
> 5) How about my white blood cells, which have nuclei and contain my
> genome and can reproduce themselves, but cannot with present
> technology reproduce another human being?
>
> 6) How about a human kidney, removed from a car accident victim who
> is carrying an organ donor card? That is, there is no reasonable
> doubt that the person involved is "dead," yet the kidney is "still
> alive," and is certainly "human?"
>
> 7) How about my sperm cells, which are certainly alive and certainly
> human and can reproduce another human being when combined with
> genetic material from an ovum, but cannot with present technology
> reproduce another human being _by themselves?_
>
> 8) How about a sperm and an ovum, considered together, during the
> time period when the sperm has entered the ovum fertilization
> membrane has lifted, so that it is all but certain that a) no other
> sperm can fertilize that ovum and b) that particular sperm will in
> fact fertilize the ovum... but the nuclei have not yet merged? At
> this point in time, the probability that a human being will develop
> is almost the same as it is just after fertilization, and in both
> cases we know exactly "who" it will be (in the sense of knowing the
> genetic complement).
>
> 9) You use the word "fetus," so I assume you accept the ordinary
> distinction between a "fetus" and "embryo" (less than 8 weeks old).
> IS an embryo human life? Just like the separate egg-and-sperm just
> prior to fertilization, the embryo is pretty much predestined to
> _become_ human life, but it doesn't look like a human being and it
> doesn't look different from a nonhuman embryo. Is it "human life?"
>
> 10) first-trimeter fetuses
>
> 11) second-trimester fetuses
>
> 12) third-trimester fetuses
>
> 13) Newborn infants
>
> 14) Toddlers
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
> August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
> www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Theo Clarke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Worrying trends

body:
A. Nony Mouse: Your implication that I am arguing a "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something"?idea misrepresents my position. Oversimplifying my position and then dismissing it as "pure nonsense" feels like an escalation of your previous dismissal of my suggestion as "ludicrous". I am unclear as to your intention here: you argue against my points at length and then dismiss it all in a sentence.  Do you seek discussion?

You are right that someone who cites no reason for a opposing a proposal may be seeking a consensus against it.  As I see it, the difficulty for the proposers is that they cannot tell whether the opposition amounts to "not now" or "not ever".

Was your "Their opinions are no more valid than yours." a suggestion that all opinions are of equal weight or a suggestion that my opinion, specifically, is of comparable weight to that of those who flatly reject certain changes in any form? And, if the latter, what weight are you according this class of opinion?

I will devote more time to this if you confirm a desire for discussion.  I cannot tell whether you are being abusive or are using impassioned language without hostile intent.  I see this as my failing, not yours.

Theo

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:23 +0100, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
>>?Anybody who chooses to cite no change that will enable
>>
>>?them to accept a proposal ?is applying an immutable veto and
>>?refusing to
>>?participate in consensus building.
>>
>?No, they are on the side of a consensus that it SHOULD NOT BE DONE.
>
>>?It amounts to saying "I object and
>>?nothing anyone can say or do will change my mind".
>>?That is the prerogative
>>?of a democratic voter but, in this context, it is a refusal to
>>?participate
>>?in the consensus building process.
>>
>?No, hardly. It is a request by those voters that the consensus lean
>?towards the most minimal option possible: no change. Face facts:
>?there
>?ARE some people who simply do NOT want to see certain changes. Their
>?opinions are no more valid than yours.
>
>>?And consensus is one of our tenets. If
>>?you want to be part of an encyclopedia project that is a
>>?democracy, go and
>>?find one; Wikipedia is not that animal.
>>
>?There are some policies that should never be passed, no matter what.
>?There are some editors who should never be given Admin powers, no
>?matter what (and there are quite a few of them that, to the
>?detriment
>?of Wikipedia as a whole, seem to have been given Admin powers
>?anyways).
>
>?Speaking this fact is NOT a "refusal to participate in the consensus
>?building process." It is a statement that they do not feel the
>?current
>?proposal, in WHATEVER form, benefits Wikipedia.
>
>?A Request for Adminship is a request to see whether someone is
>?suitable for Adminship. You're trying to turn it into a "what can we
>?do to make this person an Admin" forum rather than a real discussion
>?of whether or not the person SHOULD be an admin at all.
>
>?If a large number of people - large enough to show that there is
>?NOT a
>?concensus - believe that someone should not be an admin, then that
>?is
>?reason enough that they ?should not be an admin. It may be for one
>?reason, it may be for a thousand reasons, and it may change later,
>?but
>?they are free to be nominated later.
>
>?The whole "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something"
>?idea is pure nonsense.
>
>?A. Nony Mouse


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
--- steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?

Yes it is since the term is loaded, not unlike 'partial-birth abortion' vs
'intact dilation and extraction' or using the term 'unborn baby' instead of
fetus/embryo/zygote.  The reason; the non-medical terms were designed to confer
a value judgment.

'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this context since any cell from a
human is by definition human life. 'Independent human life' is another thing
altogether but in terms of gestation, would only include a viable fetus.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> I would say it's NPOV to say that a fetus is human
> life (what other
> kind of life could it be if it's a human fetus?),
> but it's POV to
> attribute personhood to the fetus, which is a legal
> issue only
> indirectly tied to the biological one.

Well, "personhood" in this case is a kind of misnomer
for "humanity." Hence debates regarding the humanity
of the fetus are also included even though, yes,
"personhood" is a social (hence, legal) definition,
and humanity is a universal (and coincidentally,
biological) definition.

SV

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Question: Is it POV...

> Yes it is since the term is loaded, not unlike
> 'partial-birth abortion' vs
> 'intact dilation and extraction' or using the term
> 'unborn baby' instead of
> fetus/embryo/zygote.  The reason; the non-medical
> terms were designed to confer
> a value judgment.

Well, I dont think others here will agree with your
reading of NPOV.
Likewise your statement is confusing, because you dont
keep "loaded" in context--in politics, I assume --
however politics isnt the only context of the debate.
All of it has bearing.
Likewise you imply that the medical-technical terms
like "IDE" are somehow neutral, or otherwise
non-judgemental. Perhaps this is best reworded that
both sides deliberately obfuscate the terms in
political attempts to either de-humanize or humanize
the fetus. NPOV relevancy: Its important not to
confuse cold, technical, clinical, "medical" terms
with NPOV terms. Note that bedside manner requires
doctors to echo the sentiments of the parent(s): Ie.
abortionists might call it "tissue," while OBGYNs
might call it a "baby."

> 'Human life' is also an odd term to use in this
> context since any cell from a
> human is by definition human life. 'Independent
> human life' is another thing
> altogether but in terms of gestation, would only
> include a viable fetus.

I dont think this is correct in the most precise or
even common use of the terms. While "human life"
requires "human (animal) cells", the cells themselves
arent particularly human (as Daniel pointed out).
Biologically speaking, theres little to distinguish a
chimp from any given human who might look like one.
So, we're limited within reason to the term "human" as
its generally accepted, and not putting undue emphasis
on interesting intellectual caveats. "Life" simply
refers to stuff that's alive, meaning "if its not
alive, nobody will make a stink." "Viability," is an
important factor within the general context of finding
a compromise between the "orgasm or birth" extremes.

-SV

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire

Has it been a year already?

--mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

body:
Delirium

> The sort of paper that buries its reader in gratuitous and
> only-tangentially-relevant equations and data tables as a substitute for
> actually making a good argument is sadly altogether too common.  Most do
> get caught by peer review (at least in good publications and conferences),
> but there are still a fair number that slip through...

Bad papers get published - no surprise there.  It would be a surprise if
they rose high up the citation statistics.  The comparison with political
rhetoric breaks down right there, doesn't it?  Simplistic political stuff
generally gets far more attention than carefully-crafted leaders and columns
in the quality press.

> But regardless, *we* don't want to do that.  A few of the articles that
> get too citation-happy do seem to do this sometimes... when every single
> sentence ends with an external link (half of them broken, since the web is
> mostly ephemeral), and the writing style is "a bunch of gratuitous facts
> are asserted with no coherent explanation", something is wrong...

Could be the people who use 'quote your sources' as a way to win arguments,
rather than improve the encyclopedia?

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
--- steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> All of it has bearing.
> Likewise you imply that the medical-technical terms
> like "IDE" are somehow neutral, or otherwise
> non-judgemental.

The medical terms were not created with value judgments on what they are
describing in mind, while terms like 'partial-birth abortion' deliberately
*were*. That = POV.

> Note that bedside manner requires
> doctors to echo the sentiments of the parent(s): Ie.
> abortionists might call it "tissue," while OBGYNs
> might call it a "baby."

Abortionists might. But a doctor would call it a fetus, embryo or zygote
depending on its gestational stage.

> I dont think this is correct in the most precise or
> even common use of the terms. While "human life"
> requires "human (animal) cells", the cells themselves
> arent particularly human (as Daniel pointed out).

Of course the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (gestation is all
about putting all those parts together to form an independent human life). Yet
almost every cell in a human body is functioning and has a full complement of
unique human genes (mature red blood cells being the most notable exception).
That makes them both alive and human.

> Biologically speaking, theres little to distinguish a
> chimp from any given human who might look like one.

False. They belong to different species; that's not a 'little' thing at all.
Chimps also have 24 sets of chromosomes, while humans have 23. Further, about
30,000 human genes make about 150,000 human proteins. So pure genetic
correspondence between species is a simplistic argument to allude to since it
is the complex interactions of those genes with each other and their products
that create the real differences.

This list is not about this, so this will be the last message I send or even
read in this thread.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
> We banned him for a year last February.
> He came back as user:Energybone, and the ban got reset last July (27th).
> That ban has now expired.

I wonder if the fact that the laser on the Hubble Space "Telescope" hit yet
another space shuttle has any connection with him coming back....

;)

-- mav

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


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pipermail Privacy Concern

body:
On 7/26/05, andyl2004 at sympatico.ca <andyl2004 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I really would like to avoid this problem in the future and either have these pipermail entries edited so as to remove my full name or have them hidden from search engines by having a "NOINDEX" command placed in the html codes for those pages.

As list administrators, we don't have a "delete archived message" or
"edit archived message" button. For us to modify the archives, we need
a member of the Wikimedia Technical Support Crew to directly modify
the entries on the server. Which is a hell of a lot of trouble, and is
obviously only reserved for the most serious of breaches of privacy.
If you still wish for them to rectify this, contact them on their
mailing list, which you can subscribe to at the following address:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

~Mark Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Example vs. Original research

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Alphax" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:42E755D6.6070307 at gmail.com...
> [snip]
>
>>Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is
>>distorted by the tides?
>
>
> {{sofixit}} :-)

Give me a place to stand on...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC546d/RxM5Ph0xhMRA54hAJ9H7ki0JoIcutqCh/5wiKPqxsm4KwCfbUG1
qTOPILK0ECzYiZ2yATJ8feM=
=CGZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Chris L?er wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
>> It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on
>> a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to
>> me ;)
>>
>> Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is
>> distorted by the tides?
>
>
> This would be a common scientific approach to dealing with critics, I
> believe. Instead of addressing their concerns, one adds lots of
> irrelevant, complicated details and hopes to confuse the heck out of
> them so that they shut up. ;)
>

I'm glad you like my approach :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC547r/RxM5Ph0xhMRA/6ZAKCczajNooLHDwy6xVAC4S8YClcXZwCeJpGK
ac8xSJKndCrAYUlgRDAyoxs=
=qTzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Borlaug feature pre-reporting; About about WP

body:
This is something like what I was thinking :-)   SJ

On 7/27/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What about allowing for three FA's a day, perhaps even
> rotating between them, every couple hours?? This would
> mean more work, and more previous featured articles
> listed... but it might be fun.
>
> SV
>
> --- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > SJ (2.718281828 at gmail.com) [050727 09:37]:
> >
> > > SJ, noting that as growth rates persist, at one
> > feature a day, many
> > > featured articles will never have their day in the
> > sun.
> >
> >
> > That's fine. The purpose of FA is to note and
> > encourage a certain standard
> > of quality, not just to pick front page candndates.
> > The ratio of FAs has
> > stayed fairly constant at 1 in 900 to 1000; we would
> > ideally want it to be
> > better than that.
> >
> > Raul has stated that in his opinion (as Featured
> > Articles Dictator), *any*
> > article fit to survive VFD could potentially be a
> > feature; I think this is
> > an entirely worthy goal.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: Salvatore Ingala

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Verify feature

body:
Hi! I've added to MediaWiki a feature which could be an alternative to page
protection: the verify feature. I've added to the sysops' bar a
'verify'/'unverify' button: 'verify' sets the current revision as
'verified'. When there is a 'verified' revision, users can still edit the
page, but new revisions are not shown until a sysops verifies it again (of
course, even new revisions can be accessed though the history, and the
verified one, if any, is in bold).
'Unverify', of course, removes the protection.

I think this would be a very good alternative to page protection against
vandals.
I would like to heard what do you think of it.

Regards,
Salvatore


subject: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Magnus Manske wrote:
> Based on a list collected by [[user:Bluemoose]], I have generated
> link-lists at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
>

FNORD!! Copyvio!!! Intellectual property theft!!!

...they wish :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC55o5/RxM5Ph0xhMRA+KJAJ423X5//N9lldqgwBR+PfbnJW+wJwCfdrrR
Dt+xdZf34UaPTMZm/1PCn+0=
=wfbd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Example vs. Original research

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Alphax" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:42E78E9D.1090002 at gmail.com...
>
>>Phil Boswell wrote:
>>
>>>"Alphax" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote in
>>>message news:42E755D6.6070307 at gmail.com...
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is
>>>>distorted by the tides?
>>>
>>>{{sofixit}} :-)
>>
>>Give me a place to stand on...
>
>
> YM an "edit" button to click on.
>
> WikiWorld, here we come...:-)

I was quoting a rather famous man with a lever (or was it a pole, or
just a really big stick???! Reminds me of the definition of Poll Tax -
if you don't pay, they've got this big pole...)

As I've often thought to myself, "if the world was a wiki, there are
people I'd nominate for deletion...."

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC55rb/RxM5Ph0xhMRA6GLAJ9sFq1FdJRCMxmYNz4jJ7eoGduW3QCeN+PQ
5HyCDToWpil+xGT95eG313s=
=ce6x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire

-Mark


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
>>Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and
>>every statement is probabilistic.  The near sphericity of the earth is a
>>POV with a very high probability of truth.  If all Wikipedians (and we
>>are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a
>>consensus   Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if
>>no-one is disputing the shape?
>
>
> So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to
> make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
>
> Or am I reading you wrong? :)
>

Well, that does it for me. I'm going to stick {{unreferenced}},
{{NPOV}}, {{disputed}} and {{whatwereyousmokingwhenyouwrotethis}} on as
many articles as possible :)

Or start nominating some FAs for VFD as being uncyclopedic. Starting
with [[Xenu]]...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC55uJ/RxM5Ph0xhMRAxtfAJ9IU7nSRmaQ6bX1WG7rALcUDx8jPgCaAuDG
EyysvZji12PkCBQGlnjfLSg=
=t6HI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Has it been a year already? --mav

We banned him for a year last February.
He came back as user:Energybone, and the ban got reset last July (27th).
That ban has now expired.
--Mark


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
    He's back but he's already been warned that he's being watched by a
couple hundred users and if he starts up again he'll be promptly banned.

-Jtkiefer


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Brainstrorming at Kennisnet

body:
Hoi,
Yesterday there was a meeting at Kennisnet in the Netherlands. As a
meeting it was a success. You may know that Kennisnet has a portal
function for educational content for the Dutch primary, secondary
schools and for vocational training. Kennisnet has now been actively
involved with the Wikimedia Foundation for over half a year, many
activities have resulted from this the hosting of servers for the WMF
the Queen Beatrix project to name a few.

The character of this meeting was very different; it was about how to
use Wiki content and Wiki technology in education. The Queen Beatrix
project was the first content squarely aimed to get direct involvement
from the students in Dutch education and in a way it was good and in a
way it was not. As it was so abundantly clear that this was coming much
of the content was created by the nl.Wikipedians before the project even
started. From a traffic point of view it is not all that bad, even
nl.wiktionary gets attention from the Kennisnet project, its access page
is on the 41st place of the frequently requested articles. Kennisnet has
its own statistics, and it can inform us how much traffic their project
gets and how many people find their way to our content.

Technically, it was discussed if it would be beneficial for schools to
have their own wikis. It was discussed if a wiki could/should replace a
school website, this idea was basically rejected. It is not relevant as
it is up to the school as it sees fit. If it makes for schools to have
their own wiki, it will be because it has a place in the curriculum and
it is approached as a tool. To get the active participation of schools,
educational content needs to be prepared; one of the essential parts of
this content will be instructional material on how to use a wiki.

There were several ways a wiki can be used; one is to have some basic
content, a framework that is a base for the work that is to be done
during the year. Another is to have it as a platform for creating the
"School newspaper" as it is great at creating collaborative content.
When students are to do their homework, wiki content can be used to
inform them what the homework is, it can even be used to have the
student do the homework.

The featured articles and articles of the day were considered for
translation exercises. Not only has this its application as just a good
text but it was also considered to ask students to translate articles
from and to the language that is being studied. The existence of
interwiki links was considered as a way to know if an article already
exists so that the "best" translation could be used for upload.
Wiktionary content was considered; as often the meanings translations
are missing it may be something that students can be asked to work on.
Defining a word is often a difficult exercise.

One technology that is often needed in schools is video material. It was
repeated that Kennisnet has the ability to stream content and is willing
to use this technology to be used for the Wikimedia Foundation. For the
WMF the use of "Open/Free" technology is a requirement; the software
will be changed to host ogg video material. Hosting the formats that are
in widespread us can already be done.

Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet would be willing to pay for
access to statistical content. Kennisnet, the portal organisation it is,
cannot fulfil such a request. There was however a discussion on how such
data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning were discussed.
When you have statistical content, you want to know the date and the
source of the content. ???????, ????? and ????????? have the
same statistics it makes little sense to store this in many projects.
Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata offer for this type of
information and the possibilities that the Ultimate Wiktionary offer for
localisation need to be considered. Kennisnet might consider helping
with the creation of the infrastructure for such a project.

One recurring theme in the discussion was the creation of a Dutch an
encyclopaedic project by and for kids. Often the Wikipedia articles are
difficult and they do not necessarily inform kids in their own language
and address their needs. For Kennisnet, giving an editorial hand in such
a project is something that would seriously be considered.

One fun thing was the never-ending need of summaries of novels and
poetry. The American ?Cliffs notes? are known for these. The strategies
of using summaries to fake real expertise were discussed. One of the
best strategies is also very time consuming so much so that reading the
book was considered an equally good strategy.. Summaries can be part of
the Wikipedias however, as the requirement of students is somewhat
different, discussing the book etc is rather relevant.. It might be
considered to have a Wikisummaries projects..

This is my recollection of this event I hope that the other participants
will give it a read and improve on it. I hope it will spark some
interest and discussion by all those who are involved in the combination
Wiki and education.

Thanks,
GerardM


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
Excellent points, Daniel.

A smart chimp can do many of the things
often considered "uniquely human", even
maintain a rudimentary conversation.
That's more than you can say for a fetus.

The genetic difference between humans
and chimpanzees is, what, about 10 times
more than the difference between individual
humans? Seems close enough to me.

And there have been cultures where killing
newborn babies was legal and considered ethical.

When Iceland converted to Christianity by
decree of the assembly ([[Althing]]) in the
year 999 three concessions were made to the
pagans:

1. It was still legal to sacrifice in private.
2. It was still legal to eat horsemeat.
3. It was still legal to "carry out" a baby upon birth.

Even in Christian times the legal code had an
article that allowed the castration of vagabonds
- and even if they died from the operation you
were not held responsible. Lest anyone think
eugenics is purely a recent idea.

(Old Icelandic: "Rett er at gelda g?ngomenn,
oc var?ar eigi vi? l?g, ?ott ?eir fai ?rkumbl
af e?r bana.")

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: David Gerard

body:
SJ (2.718281828 at gmail.com) [050727 09:37]:

> SJ, noting that as growth rates persist, at one feature a day, many
> featured articles will never have their day in the sun.

That's fine. The purpose of FA is to note and encourage a certain standard
of quality, not just to pick front page candndates. The ratio of FAs has
stayed fairly constant at 1 in 900 to 1000; we would ideally want it to be
better than that.

Raul has stated that in his opinion (as Featured Articles Dictator), *any*
article fit to survive VFD could potentially be a feature; I think this is
an entirely worthy goal.

- d.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed policy
	for wiki closure".

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wiki_closure
: written by Toytoy from the Chinese Wikipedia.

I think the talk page has pretty much established that this proposal is not
only dead in the water, but severely strains assumptions of good faith.
The page in question should be kept as an example of trying to use spurious
policy as a bludgeon. And any future policy proposals from Toytoy should be
watched very closely indeed.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Ye, though he was warned repeatedly that the site had changed greatly
since he last edited
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlautus_satire&diff=19760579&oldid=19754306

And unto him, didst Snowspinner impart knowledge of the commandment
that thou shalt not revert a page more than three times in 24 hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=19763884&oldid=19762486

And lo, he choseth to reject the sage advice offered him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=19764675&oldid=19763921

And verily, he was blocked for 24 hours as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19764704


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
He shall follow the Wikipedia commandments or he will be smited by
Jimbo, our god. :)

Seriously though, it would be a lot easier for all of us including him
if he'd just follow advice and stay within the rules or quite
righteously he will be banned and cast into the eternal torment that is
reserved for trolls and AOL users.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Zachary Harden

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
The user in question already had put his RFC page up for deletion. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire

Regards,

Zachary Harden

>From: Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back
>Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:18:47 -0400
>
>    He's back but he's already been warned that he's being watched by a
>couple hundred users and if he starts up again he'll be promptly banned.
>
>
>-Jtkiefer


body:
I think the idea was, that theres a substantial
backlog, and that at the current rate, 1 per day keep
up with the number of valid submissions. Yes, theres
enough to do this with. No, I dont think that the 10
random articles test should be considered a
bellweather for such a narrow cat. You pessimist, you.
;)

Anyway I dont really do daily features handling, but
it looks like its gonna happen BYKI. 2 a day... 3 a
day... maybe 4 a day.. who knows.

All I know is that if something sucky gets on the
front page I'll quickly get motivated (a little miffed
2) and start editing the hell out of it.

SV

--- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/28/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It wouldn't have to mean more work. The rotation
> could be done
> > automatically with a random selection extension
> like the image at
> >
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Featuredimage
> and the featured
> > game on http://games.wikicities.com/
> >
> > Angela.
>
> I hate to be the downer on this, but I'm a little
> bit surprised that
> no one has asked the obvious question - what is the
> point of this?
> We're currently producing about ten featured
> articles a week. That's
> enough to keep up the current system and give Raul a
> little bit of
> choice in order to keep an interesting mix of main
> page articles. If
> we had two or three featured articles on the main
> page a day (which I
> don't see as very necessary anyway), we'd have to
> substantially
> increase our output of featured articles, or else
> we'd be having to
> repeat already-featured articles in a matter of
> months.
>
> -- ambi
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
He isn't just back. He's back doing a lot of crap. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=prev&oldid=19773597

I think maybe another year without a lot of fuss is probably what we
need to do.

I have blocked him for 48 hours based on the quoted edit. I will
reopen the case today and put a year's ban up for a vote.

Fred

On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire
>
> -Mark
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for
one year, up to and including March 11, 2005

If there were no extensions.

Fred

On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> --- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>> title=Special:Contributions&target=Plautus_satire
>>
>
> Has it been a year already?
>
> --mav
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Ah, Peter - that was a poke at Jdtrl! How sly.

SV

--- Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/28/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> wrote:
> > Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com)
> [050728 06:51]:
> >
> > > Could be the people who use 'quote your sources'
> as a way to win arguments,
> > > rather than improve the encyclopedia?
> >
> > Any crank can attach twenty spurious references
> with no effort at all. But
> > that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic
> in itself.
>
> Odd you should mention this, David. One particular
> user attached ten
> spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him
> up. But he
> pretends they do.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_facto_head_of_state&diff=next&oldid=19747977
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


from_name: Skyring

body:
On 7/28/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> It could be worse.   We could be living on the surface of a golf ball. :-)

That'd be the pits.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 7/28/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

> >So, your answer to my question: "How many fundamentalists does it take to
> >make something controversial?" is "One. As long as she's a Wikipedian."
> >
> >Or am I reading you wrong? :)
> >
> >
> That seems like an accurate representation.  Of course that one person
> may have difficulty finding a place to stand with Archimedes' lever.

She could stand on the turtle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

--
Pete, noting that this article is well-sourced


subject: [WikiEN-l] 72-hour block

body:
Please take this to dispute resolution after your block. Right or
wrong this kind of disruptive struggle and revert warring is no good.
Calm down and take it to dispute resolution. Jtdirl may be in the
wrong also, but I have not considered that here.

Fred

On Jul 27, 2005, at 10:46 PM, Lapsed Pacifist wrote:

> Hi. My user name is Lapsed Pacifist, and my IP is 159.134.233.225.
> I'm sorry to say I've been here before, the last time things were
> resolved amicably. I've been blocked for 3 days by Jtdirl, and I
> believe this administrator is in breach of Wikipedia policy as
> outlined on Wikipedia:Blocking policy, specifically: "blocks should
> not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of
> disruptive and useful edits" and "users should not block those with
> whom they are currently engaged in conflict." I don't agree that my
> edits are disruptive, but even if this administrator does, my
> contentious entries are easily outnumbered by hundreds of others,
> and this administrator and I are currently disagreeing on different
> matters.
>
> The first three of the six points of the recommended procedure on
> the Wikipedia:Controversial blocks article read:
>
> 1. Check the facts with care.
> 2. Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
> 3. If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure
> there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators'
> noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.
>
> I will go through Jtdirl's entries on my talk page and comment in
> parentheses where I feel it is appropriate.
>
>
> last warning
> Your behaviour on Wikipedia has gone beyond the bounds of what can
> be tolerated. You are engaging in widespread reverts to insert
> blatently POV language [this is a reference to the use of the terms
> "Northern Ireland" and "six counties" and there was a long debate
> on Talk:Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland about this]
> into articles. But for the fact that you were once a credible
> editor here you would have been blocked long before now for your
> behaviur, but you have used up all the previous goodwill that
> existed towards you in your recent behaviour. Please stop. If you
> continue, you will be subject to a long block for this behaviour.
> This is your final warning. Please heed it.
>
> Fear?IREANN\(caint) 21:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
>
> Because you have continued, despite repeated warnings, to wage edit
> wars [this would be difficult on my own] and reverts to push your
> political agenda [I strongly dispute this last comment], and
> because as soon as you came back from your last block you started
> back on your old behaviour on many of the same pages, you have now
> been blocked for 3 days. If when you come back you continue to
> behave as you have been doing you may face a far lengthier block.
> Fear?IREANN\(caint) 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
>
> [There now follows a list of 34 edits, all whole or partial
> reverts. 16 are mine. The first 10 mostly concern a dispute on
> whether election results in Northern Ireland should be included in
> a paragraph attempting to construe the political aspirations of
> Northern Ireland's population, and the prominence of a survey on
> the region's future. The rest are about the nomenclature of the
> region.]
>
> [edit]
> Just some of the evidence of constant reverting of articles
> (cur) (last) 03:33, 28 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv blanking; 59
> out of 108 is slight)
> (cur) (last) 17:35, 27 July 2005 JW1805 (rvt. Once again, 59% is
> not a "slight" majority)
> (cur) (last) 10:53, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv blanking)
> (cur) (last) 00:02, 27 July 2005 JW1805 (rvt attempt to obscure
> poll results)
> (cur) (last) 23:36, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Revert edits by
> Timrollpickering to last version by Lapsed Pacifist)
> (cur) (last) 14:14, 26 July 2005 Timrollpickering m (Reverted edits
> by Lapsed Pacifist to last version by Timrollpickering)
> (cur) (last) 10:25, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; That's why
> it's mentioned. Why the other changes?)
> (cur) (last) 13:58, 25 July 2005 Timrollpickering (Revert on poll -
> the question is more clear cut than an election - see talk page;
> wikify links)
> (cur) (last) 07:18, 25 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Make a better
> case, Jonto)
> (cur) (last) 00:58, 25 July 2005 Jonto (Revert to version by
> JW1805. I disagree - I have outlined the reasons for polls on the
> talk page - Please discuss there first Zoney.)
> (cur) (last) 22:39, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert vandalism)
> (cur) (last) 22:32, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
> (cur) (last) 10:00, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert)
> (cur) (last) 06:59, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; please write
> accurate edit summaries)
> (cur) (last) 22:30, 26 July 2005 Djegan m (revert sectanism and
> vandalism of LP)
> (cur) (last) 22:28, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
> (cur) (last) 10:15, 26 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six
> counties")
> (cur) (last) 08:22, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
> (cur) (last) 09:53, 25 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six
> counties")
> (cur) (last) 06:59, 25 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly
> simplistic edit)
> (cur) (last) 21:48, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (rvt (corrected
> needlessly complex sentence structure))
> (cur) (last) 21:39, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly
> simplistic edit)
> (cur) (last) 15:37, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (corrected needlessly
> complex sentence structure)
> (cur) (last) 15:34, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; Restore context)
> (cur) (last) 04:57, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (simplify sentence)
> (cur) (last) 04:08, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
> (cur) (last) 00:00, 23 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
> (cur) (last) 23:48, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Revert edits by
> Djegan to last version by JavaJive)
> (cur) (last) 20:27, 22 July 2005 Djegan (revert sectanism and
> vandalism)
> (cur) (last) 20:20, 22 July 2005 JavaJive m (wikify date)
> (cur) (last) 19:06, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
> (cur) (last) 17:37, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
> (cur) (last) 10:14, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
> (cur) (last) 05:18, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
> In addition you have been adding in factual errors all over the
> place [I also strongly dispute this, and only the following
> inaccurate example is given]. It is hard to believe that calling
> the Irish state the Irish Free State years after you know very well
> it ceased to have that name, and was only called that by fringe
> republicans, is anything other than deliberate POV vandalism [I
> believe this is a reference to an edit summary on the ?amon de
> Valera article, when I reverted a change made by this user. The
> block came one minute after I did this. This is 2005, and the state
> is now known as th Republic of Ireland, but the edit concerned
> events in 1926, when that was the state's official name.], as is
> using Sinn F?in language [an obtuse reference to the naming debate]
> about the name of Northern Ireland when you know very well that
> Wikipedia cannot use that name for the northern state as it is POV.
> Fear?IREANN\(caint) 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist"
>
> The block, if it had to come, should have come from another
> administrator. This is my third block, my second by this user. On
> neither occasion did Jtdirl consult with other administrators
> before the blocks, unless it was by email. As well as wrongly
> accusing me of factual errors, this user has failed to check the
> facts e.g. the Free State comment. I believe this editor is in
> breach of parts of the blocking policy. I believe, from the
> comments made on my talk page, that this administrator has allowed
> emotion to overrule responsibility. I have not attempted to contact
> this user by email, partly because I do not expect a fair hearing
> there, partly because I would rather the block and the events
> surrounding it receive a wider audience, which is not available to
> me on any talk page at the moment. Sorry about the length of the
> mail, I am sure you have better things to do.
>
> LP
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> For the largest FREE email in Ireland (25MB) and 20MB of online
> file storage space - Visit http://www.campus.ie
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Angela

body:
> On 7/27/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What about allowing for three FA's a day, perhaps even
> > rotating between them, every couple hours?? This would
> > mean more work, and more previous featured articles
> > listed... but it might be fun.

It wouldn't have to mean more work. The rotation could be done
automatically with a random selection extension like the image at
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Featuredimage and the featured
game on http://games.wikicities.com/

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is
appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10
year olds plenty of chances to get it right.

Fred

On Jul 28, 2005, at 7:36 AM, Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>> Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the
>> year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out
>> of order?  As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's
>> banning duration is self-imposed.
>>
>
> I would oppose such a move. Most people who get
> banned are probably young and immature. Give them
> a year to grow up. And if they need another year
> when they come back then give them that too :)
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
In considering these topics, I'd say

* the human life within a body is generally considered to belong to two
stages : the first being embryo the second being foetus. Just after
conception, you do not have a foetus but only a set of undifferenciated
cells. For about 8 weeks, you still do not have a foetus and the live
being does not look like, nor behave like anything human. It would be
interesting to check if all medical entities consider the embryo stage
ends at the same time. In France, I believe it is 50 days of
development. This might mark a time for some people to believe "before"
it is an animal, "after", it is a small human.
I had the opportunity to see one of my babies just on the 51th day of
development, it looks like a human basically.

* another point to consider is medical experiment on human cells.
Depending on countries, experiments can or can not be done on embryo
cells, and this to a certain stage. In some people mind, this stage will
be the difference between making experiment on an animal and on a human.
The first being sometimes considered normal, sometimes a crime; the
second being generally considered a crime. Again, it might be
interesting to note the time limit for such experimenting, with regards
to population reaction to such experiments.

* another point of non return is the stage of developement until which
abortion is legal (aside from abnormalities issues). Depending on
countries, it may be conception, or 10 weeks or more. Often, this stage
of no-return may indicate a consensus on when stopping the life is
"okay" and when it is a "crime". In France, it is 10 weeks, so definitly
when the living being is a foetus.
I had the opportunity to see two of my babies at 10 weeks of
development, and to lose one exactly at this stage. I know some women
feel the need to give a name to such a baby to better assume the
grievance. And when abortions are made, babies are usually not shown to
the woman, there is a reason for that.
But again, it might be interesting to compare stages of maximum abortion
depending on countries. It might be interesting to evaluate the
consensus on when it becomes a crime to eliminate it voluntarily.

* The next point of non-return is the stage of development, when, when a
  foetus dies, he is recognised by the law. It receives a name, it may
be buried, and it is registered on legal papers. I'd say, again
interesting to compare countries. If a country recognise a dead foetus
as a dead human at ... say 6 months,... it would be quite illogical not
to claim the foetus at this stage is not human in this country...from a
legal perspective.

* The near last reference might be the stage at which a foetus can born
and be kept alive. Even if he might have been better inside, if he is
outside and alive, he is probably human. In best cases, this might be as
early as 5 months-6 months, though most will have consequences. But at 5
months-6 months, most women, if asked, would probably agree that their
foetus has a personnality. They move or not, they react to your touch or
not, they play with you moving around depending on your own reaction,
suck their thumbs or not, react to light, noise... differently. It may
not be "human", but it definitly has a "specific behavior which makes it
unique".

Still and finally, many would consider that being "human" is necessarily
being able to live "independently". Which might be at birth... or
anytime later... or never for some heavily handicaped people in some
people opinion.

This suggest to me this
* not everyone agrees there is a foetus personhood and if there is one,
not everyone agrees when it happens. Considering the "consensus" on this
topic is not a good idea, because NPOV is not about the "general
opinion". It is not the mainstream. So an article on foetus personhood
seems to me a call for disagreement, since the title seems to imply it
exists, whatever what the article contains. This is not so good.

* however, everyone agrees there is a human personhood. The only thing
on which possibly some would not agree would be that "some" people are
not human. But this is likely to be such a rare occurence, that
probably, an article on human personhood would not be questionnable. Do
an article on [[human personhood]] and discuss in it the various
thoughts across the world, upon when a little one becomes a human with a
human personhood. This will probably cause far less objections and you
will be able to discuss the topic in length in the article itself.

Anthere

steve v a ?crit:
> Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to
> be an article. I disagree with Skyring's claim that
> NPOV policy and NPOV terminology should be left to
> each article. As physical science has rational bearing
> on issues regarding the concept of universe, so does
> medical science have a bearing on all medical issues.
> The view that NPOV rel. rationality rel. science, and
> POV rel. irrationality rel. claim/belief is not a
> controversial interpretation of NPOV, IMHO.
>
> Hence we can feel free to state a dominant consensus
> that at some certain point, a fetus is a human life,
> and hence marginalize both extreme absolutist views
> which claim either that "human life begins at
> conception" or that the issue is entirely "in the
> domain of woman's choice [until its feet are out]."
>
> Sinreg,
> SV
>
> PS starting progress on: consolidating issues to
> Template:Abortion
>
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>>This is a pretty complex question to sum up easily,
>>and there's a huge
>>body of writing on it from all sides (not just
>>political advocates
>>either; there's a huge body of literature in
>>applied-ethics philosophy
>>journals).  Some opinions agree that it's a "human
>>life" but argue that
>>"human rights" is a misnomer and ought to be
>>"personhood rights", and
>>not granted automatically to humans but only to
>>persons; others dispute
>>that a fetus is "human" in the sense that the term
>>is generally meant,
>>and instead will only grant it is "of the species
>>homo sapiens" or
>>something similar.  There is a whole *other* body of
>>literature on what
>>exactly "personhood" is and means, and once you've
>>established that,
>>still another body of literature on what sort of
>>ethics ought to apply
>>to people who have been deemed "persons" in the
>>relevant sense (fifty
>>flavors of utilitarians, Kantians, and all the
>>rest).
>>
>>Basically there's nothing Wikipedia can say about
>>this subject that has
>>a consensus anywhere, other than some very basic
>>medical facts like "a
>>fetus is genetically of the species homo sapiens".
>>There is, however, a
>>lot of stuff other people say about it that would be
>>nice to summarize.
>>
>>-Mark
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
On 7/28/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> Generally speaking (and I am speaking from my personal experience here)
> whenever what I am calling a "learned expert" -- be it a graduate
> student in a subject or a PhD or a professional with years of time on
> the job -- makes contributions, they are well argued and highly
> referenced. As you say, these people have a lot of experience making
> these kinds of arguments and I think their method of discovering truth
> is the best one we have. So no, I don't want to tell the public that
> "they are wrong and that they should pay attention to their academic
> betters". I don't think it should even have to be said.

I've found that "learned experts" on WP sometimes use themselves as
references to push their own POVs, and if you then ask them for
sources, they provide impressive-looking material that doesn't
actually address the issue.

NOR applies just as much to self-proclaimed experts as anyone else.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
On 7/28/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
> life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
> "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?

Sounds like a question of terminology and interpretation for relevant
articles rather than on a WP-wide basis.

Is a foetus human in a medical sense? Of course.

In a legal sense? Up to the lawyers.

--
Peter in Canberra


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed policy
	for wiki closure".

body:
"Let all the pretty flowers bloom" Toytoy.

I think Mao said something like that once.

The way I see Wikipedia is just one Encyclopedia with many language
versions. To deny other languages on the basis of not enough members
contributing, or not enough fast growth is to deny a voice to the few
who when added up all together make up a big part of this encyclopedic
project.

Let all the pretty flowers bloom, it adds to the beauty of the garden,
to take these away makes it look like a bed of silk flowers, pretty to
look at from a distance, but up close the spirit is dead. Let the
minor languages coexist with the others, each language brings a shade
of color, and especially, there's beauty of expression and culture
that can only be expressed in one's own mother tongue.

Jay B.
en:User:ILVI
14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---------------------

Apology, but you obviously did not read what I wrote. Please read it again.

I also totally support all the language wikipedias blooming and never asked for any to be closed (but for a bunch of minor artificial languages admitedly which I think could belong somewhere in our projects, but NOT as encyclopedias)...

...but for me an encyclopedia is a flower... and a person is a flower as well.

If you let only flowers of a unique color, of a unique size and of a unique flowering period bloom, then you get a very beautiful but also very flat and boring flower bed during one month, and a carpet of crushed and drying petals the rest of the year.

When the color of a flower is not pleasant to your eye, you could just avoid having on in your garden, or avoid looking at it. But destroying it is just not a good solution.

And what I observed on meta was exactly that : the proposal did not please, it could have been left aside without caring, without giving it any more attention. What I object to is that the proposal was "closed", not to be discussed any more by *anyone*, threatened to be *deleted*, and the author treated like a *paria*. This reminds me of 1984. Unique thought and careful removal of people faces on pictures. To avoid anyone disturbing the perfection of a consensual flower bed.

I do not put glyphosate in my garden to remove all weeds.

anthere

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


from_name: Matt Mozer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Media wiki coloring tabs

body:
I am reposting my question since we upgraded media wiki to 1.4.7 and
are still experiencing the same behavior.

The internal wiki links in MediaWiki are either blue (click to view an
existing article) or red (click to edit a new article). This coloring
applies to the tabs at the top as well.
We have a number of stub articles in our wiki that are showing their
discussion tabs as red, even though the discussion does in fact exist.

It is only happening on the articles tab (discussion is red in color
when it is not new) but it doesn't happen for any other tabs.

Here's an example:  http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/IRS_Enrolled_Agent_Exam

Thank you.


from_name: Jerome Jamnicky

subject:
[Wikitech-l] request; access to (anonymized) apache log data
	for a	recommendation system

body:
tpryor at media.mit.edu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Apologies for this being a repeat; I was just informed that the original ended
> up being read as part of an existing thread.
>
> I'd like to make a request to obtain access to anonymized apache logs for
> wikipedia user data.
>
> I am creating a browsing interface for wikipedia that requires clustered user
> data
> (in that sense it is akin to finding articles using the amazon recommendation
> system or the earlier movielens recommendation system).
>
> For this I need access to user page requests over time- preferably stored in a
> database. I can provide a script that will translate users' ip addresses to a
> unique signature so that the users themselves remain anonymous, stuff the data
> into a reasonably size efficient mysql table, etc.
>
> I was told that I might need to talk to Kate about the feasibility of doing
> this. Are there any existing objections to retaining anonymized apache log data
> for research purposes?

Using publicly-available data you can find out the set of pages edited
by each username.  Then it is possible, with some degree of uncertainty,
to link some usernames to one or more "unique signature"s (from your
quoted text above), by matching sets of user page requests to sets of
pages edited.  Thus some of the data we would release to you is
bordering on, if not definitely, personally identifiable data which is
not already publicly available.  The privacy policy [1] says that
"personally identifiable data collected in the server logs will not be
released by the developers who have access to it," except under certain
circumstances, none of which cover this case.

[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

> Tony Pryor
>
---
en:user:jeronim
---
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

body:
On 7/28/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then we're in agreement that Fetal personhood needs to
> be an article. I disagree with Skyring's claim that
> NPOV policy and NPOV terminology should be left to
> each article. As physical science has rational bearing
> on issues regarding the concept of universe, so does
> medical science have a bearing on all medical issues.

Well, you'd hope so.

But when instead we are talking about legal issues, I'm not too sure
that doctors get the final word.

Or vice versa. Who do you want performing your vasectomy? A surgeon
with a scalpel and anaesthetics, or a judge with his gavel?

--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Meta e-mail

body:
When I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish Irate would go away.

On 7/28/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's what prompted the fwd (last) email:
>
> --- Irate wrote:
> > You haven't reanabled my WikiMeid a account after
> > Anthere corrupt Blocking, and most of you haven't
> > replied. That seems a tad uncooperative to me. I
> > suggest you block yourself so as not to be
> > inconsistent.
> >
> > If I am blocked Zannerium should defintely be
> > blocked. He ignored my request for many times longer
> > than I ignored him. I even had to go looking for an
> > admin to try and get him to stopped editing my
> > comments on my talk page, without signing them.
> >
> > I now thanks to the activities of one of your admins
> > am blocked. The explnation lack of cooperatine is
> > false, as people have cooperted with me far less.
> > Like people who have received this email but refuse
> > to answer or do anything are you and more or less
> > guilty of being uncooperative.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Delirium wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
>
> > The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this
> > phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this
> > field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly
> > in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion
> > presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very
> > contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view,
> > Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to
> > prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy
> > usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as
> > [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the
> > NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional
> > about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
>
> In such cases, where there are mostly-irreconcilable differences of
> opinion held by various groups, it makes sense to simply describe the
> opinion of each group, properly attributed.  In this case, there could
> be a section on academic viewpoints, and one on how the issue plays out
> in the political sphere.  Of course, political groups who attack the
> academic consensus should have their POV reported as well and properly
> attributed.
>
> Sometimes there might be more than two sections as well---the areas on
> psychiatry/psychology/mental-illness could use a revamping to better
> attribute and cover the range of: 1) medical consensus [e.g. what the
> _DSM_ says]; 2) scientific consensus of current research [often not the
> same as #1]; 3) philosophical consensus opinion [e.g. on the definition
> of "mental illness"]; and 4) public/political opinion.  So long as all
> opinions are properly attributed to who holds them, rather than
> presented as "the right opinion", I don't see why these can't all co-exist.
>
Well put, Mark.

Often I explain NPOV to non-Wikipedians sometimes resolving to an agreement
between different parties to disagree: e.g., some people think George Bush
is a good president of the US, some think he is a bad one. As Mark points
out here, often NPOV is best served when there are multiple POVs on a
subject by explaining the argument & how these various groups came to
their conclusions.

All groups involved should embrace this approach in their own best
interest, & exert themselves to make sure the POVs of groups opposed to
them are accurately explained for one good reason. Although I usually
prefer to use the language John Milton expressed it Areopagitica,
Sun Tzu might have expressed it in a way that will convince more
Wikipedians, that you must know your enemy to defeat him.

Geoff


from_name: Gordon Mohr (@ Bitzi)

subject: [Wikitech-l] the old Nupedia- and Wikipedia-logos

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
> I'd like to do some screenshots at web.archive.org. Is it possible to
> store the old Nupedia-logo
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NupediaLogo.jpg) at
> http://www.nupedia.com/nup4c5.jpg and the old Wikipedia-logo
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_logo_Nupedia.jpg) at
> * http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
> * http://deutsche.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
> * http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.jpg
> so the copys at web.archive.org look like in the old days?

When I view old Nupedia/Wikipedia.com pages via the Wayback Machine,
I see the old logos already. For example:

   http://web.archive.org/web/20010118225800/http://www.nupedia.com/
   http://web.archive.org/web/20010331173908/http://www.wikipedia.com/

FYI, the mechanism for patching the archived page to use contemporaneous
embedded images relies on Javascript. Perhaps you have Javascript
disabled in your browser, and merely need to reenable it to get the
screenshots you need?

- Gordon @ IA
   gojomo at archive.org


body:
On 7/28/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I a human?

Only if you're also a Democrat, apparently.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to
relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
think it's a bug in the software and go report it.

On 7/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Plautus satire is probably an older man. What you suggest is
> > appropriate for younger users who get carried away. We should give 10
> > year olds plenty of chances to get it right.
> >
>
> Proposal for a new policy:
>
> 1. User does something stupid -> User is warned.
> 2. User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
> policy pages.
> 3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which
> will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
>
> At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are
> required. Namely:
>
> * Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
> their user_talk page)
> * Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
> &action=edit page will still reset the block
>
> Possibly (or otherwise), I think something more drastic (but potentially
> more beneficial) might be required if this doesn't/won't work:
>
> Per-user, per-namespace, per-category blocking. Which means:
>
> * User can be prevented from editing any pages in a particular namespace
> (eg. articles);
> * User can be prevented from editing any articles in a particular category
>
> Now, tell me where and how to do these things in PHP (I'm fairly certain
> I could do them in pseudocode), and they'll be implemented by Mediawiki
> 1.8  :)
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFC6OcE/RxM5Ph0xhMRA0QpAJ9QRZMOSwYXQlNzV6mTYwrOlCVR6wCeLQGv
> TVOyTFpI38+/HgVK2NUla30=
> =9CJs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: ilooy

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed
	policy for wiki closure".

body:
"Let all the pretty flowers bloom" Toytoy.

I think Mao said something like that once.

The way I see Wikipedia is just one Encyclopedia with many language
versions. To deny other languages on the basis of not enough members
contributing, or not enough fast growth is to deny a voice to the few
who when added up all together make up a big part of this encyclopedic
project.

Let all the pretty flowers bloom, it adds to the beauty of the garden,
to take these away makes it look like a bed of silk flowers, pretty to
look at from a distance, but up close the spirit is dead. Let the
minor languages coexist with the others, each language brings a shade
of color, and especially, there's beauty of expression and culture
that can only be expressed in one's own mother tongue.

Jay B.
en:User:ILVI
14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


body:
tpryor at media.mit.edu wrote:
>
>> Using publicly-available data you can find out the set of pages edited
>> by each username.  Then it is possible, with some degree of uncertainty,
>> to link some usernames to one or more "unique signature"s (from your
>> quoted text above), by matching sets of user page requests to sets of
>> pages edited.  Thus some of the data we would release to you is
>> bordering on, if not definitely, personally identifiable data which is
>> not already publicly available.
>
>
> I would like to work around this issue such that no editor's identity is
> compromised. If the IP addresses of named wikipedia editors are
> discernable by
> matching their wikipedia dated edit saves to the corresponding apache log
> entries, when such log entries are found by the script, they can be skipped
> entirely, not SHA1 hashed. Thereby no data that is personally
> identifiable will
> exist.

Even records of just page views (no edits) with no time stamps and a
hashed IP will give you information about personal interests which can
be fuzzily matched to named editors, by virtue of the fact that the set
of pages viewed is likely a superset of the set of pages edited.  People
may have interests in certain topics, read Wikipedia pages related to
those topics, but avoid editing these pages in order to keep it private.
  This personally-identifiable information, or at least an approximation
of it, would be leaked, and privacy policy would be violated, no?

>> The privacy policy [1] says that
>> "personally identifiable data collected in the server logs will not be
>> released by the developers who have access to it," except under certain
>> circumstances, none of which cover this case.
>
>
>
>
>> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
>>
>>> Tony Pryor
>>>
>> ---
>> en:user:jeronim
>> ---
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: steve v

body:
OK. Ive copied the current template and put together
what that code would look like at:
Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/test

It should work whenever someone gets the chance to
install the relevant extension.

SV

--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/27/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > What about allowing for three FA's a day,
> perhaps even
> > > rotating between them, every couple hours?? This
> would
> > > mean more work, and more previous featured
> articles
> > > listed... but it might be fun.
>
> It wouldn't have to mean more work. The rotation
> could be done
> automatically with a random selection extension like
> the image at
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Featuredimage
> and the featured
> game on http://games.wikicities.com/
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> Given the user's history and current behaviour, even after the
> year-long ban, is there any reason that a permanent ban would be out
> of order?  As I understand it, the only restriction on the ArbComm's
> banning duration is self-imposed.

And deprive ourselves of the annual amusement? ;-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Dirk Riehle

subject:
Wikis in education (was: Re: [Foundation-l] Brainstrorming at
	Kennisnet

body:
There is a huge interest in using wikis in education, and consequently,
research on how to do it. It was the largest subgroup of submissions for
WikiSym 2005 (www.wikisym.org) so we'll be having the top papers at the
conference. (WikiSym is an academic research conference devoted to wikis.)

The breadth was amazing: from general school use to class and
project-specific use to social integration issues. Among those, I'd say the
most frequent uses where attempts to foster collaborative behavior among
younger students, so it wasn't so much about wiki contents. Rather, wikis
were used as a tool for developing social skills.

Dirk

Interested in wikis? Please go to http://www.wikisym.org!
Take a Geek's Tour of Silicon Valley! http://www.ageekstour.com
Dirk Riehle | +49 172 184 8755 | http://www.riehle.org

At 28.07.2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>Hoi,
>Yesterday there was a meeting at Kennisnet in the Netherlands. As a
>meeting it was a success. You may know that Kennisnet has a portal
>function for educational content for the Dutch primary, secondary schools
>and for vocational training. Kennisnet has now been actively involved with
>the Wikimedia Foundation for over half a year, many activities have
>resulted from this the hosting of servers for the WMF the Queen Beatrix
>project to name a few.
>
>The character of this meeting was very different; it was about how to use
>Wiki content and Wiki technology in education. The Queen Beatrix project
>was the first content squarely aimed to get direct involvement from the
>students in Dutch education and in a way it was good and in a way it was
>not. As it was so abundantly clear that this was coming much of the
>content was created by the nl.Wikipedians before the project even started.
> From a traffic point of view it is not all that bad, even nl.wiktionary
>gets attention from the Kennisnet project, its access page is on the 41st
>place of the frequently requested articles. Kennisnet has its own
>statistics, and it can inform us how much traffic their project gets and
>how many people find their way to our content.
>
>Technically, it was discussed if it would be beneficial for schools to
>have their own wikis. It was discussed if a wiki could/should replace a
>school website, this idea was basically rejected. It is not relevant as it
>is up to the school as it sees fit. If it makes for schools to have their
>own wiki, it will be because it has a place in the curriculum and it is
>approached as a tool. To get the active participation of schools,
>educational content needs to be prepared; one of the essential parts of
>this content will be instructional material on how to use a wiki.
>
>There were several ways a wiki can be used; one is to have some basic
>content, a framework that is a base for the work that is to be done during
>the year. Another is to have it as a platform for creating the "School
>newspaper" as it is great at creating collaborative content. When students
>are to do their homework, wiki content can be used to inform them what the
>homework is, it can even be used to have the student do the homework.
>
>The featured articles and articles of the day were considered for
>translation exercises. Not only has this its application as just a good
>text but it was also considered to ask students to translate articles from
>and to the language that is being studied. The existence of interwiki
>links was considered as a way to know if an article already exists so that
>the "best" translation could be used for upload. Wiktionary content was
>considered; as often the meanings translations are missing it may be
>something that students can be asked to work on. Defining a word is often
>a difficult exercise.
>
>One technology that is often needed in schools is video material. It was
>repeated that Kennisnet has the ability to stream content and is willing
>to use this technology to be used for the Wikimedia Foundation. For the
>WMF the use of "Open/Free" technology is a requirement; the software will
>be changed to host ogg video material. Hosting the formats that are in
>widespread us can already be done.
>
>Waerth did send a mail asking if Kennisnet would be willing to pay for
>access to statistical content. Kennisnet, the portal organisation it is,
>cannot fulfil such a request. There was however a discussion on how such
>data would be best hosted. Localisation and versioning were discussed.
>When you have statistical content, you want to know the date and the
>source of the content. ????? ?????????????? , ???????
??????? and
>?????????????????? have the same statistics it makes little sense to store
>this in many projects. Consequently the possibilities that Wikidata offer
>for this type of information and the possibilities that the Ultimate
>Wiktionary offer for localisation need to be considered. Kennisnet might
>consider helping with the creation of the infrastructure for such a project.
>
>One recurring theme in the discussion was the creation of a Dutch an
>encyclopaedic project by and for kids. Often the Wikipedia articles are
>difficult and they do not necessarily inform kids in their own language
>and address their needs. For Kennisnet, giving an editorial hand in such a
>project is something that would seriously be considered.
>
>One fun thing was the never-ending need of summaries of novels and poetry.
>The American ???Cliffs notes??? are known for these. The strategies of
>using summaries to fake real expertise were discussed. One of the best
>strategies is also very time consuming so much so that reading the book
>was considered an equally good strategy.. Summaries can be part of the
>Wikipedias however, as the requirement of students is somewhat different,
>discussing the book etc is rather relevant.. It might be considered to
>have a Wikisummaries projects..
>
>This is my recollection of this event I hope that the other participants
>will give it a read and improve on it. I hope it will spark some interest
>and discussion by all those who are involved in the combination Wiki and
>education.
>
>Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Irate

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>For the record since he is an english wikipedian, I blocked Irate for
>>one week on meta. Those unhappy with that decision may of course cancel
>>it and unblock him. Reason given for the block : uncooperative behavior
>>with his fellow wikipedians.
>
>
> And after an irc conversation today in which he appealed his latest
> block in en by Snowspinner, I blocked him indefinitely from English
> Wikipedia.
>
> He says that our rules are rubbish, and that he intended to continue
> "following" them as he has in the past.  (i.e., not at all)  I implored
> him to take on a higher standard of behavior, but he adopted a lawyering
> posture about it, that he's going to do as much as he can within the
> rules as he sees them being applied to others.  (i.e. the argument that
> if anyone gets away somehow with bad behavior, he can do it too).
>
> We've got an encyclopedia to write, and we should be very very sorry to
> those who have had to put up with him for this long.
>
> --Jimbo
>

Maybe he will now regret publishing his name, telephone number and
address in every email he sent to this list :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6DWP/RxM5Ph0xhMRAxxYAJ449AKeIkSyO/jY5lfJ9BTVGOgj4ACgsbjq
m7//Y4xubm99Qg8tUmSsaAM=
=en7M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood - thanks for all the fish

body:
--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course it is.  Whether or not a fetus is "human",
> or at what point it
> becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion
> debate.  Stating the
> anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the
> antithesis of NPOV.

NOT HUMAN: See, you say that, and Meelar has said
that, but others, Anthere, Slimvirgin, etc. disagree.
Mav even extended that to human cells, though in
general he sought to complicate matters. ANY POSITION
=/= NPOV : This is true, but using the FES example
again, extreme claims can be marginalised without
violating NPOV.
Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear
to be controversial, even though you and Meelar think
that such a reference would be an endorsement of a
view.

Again, this isnt merely for sake of discussion, as the
point was to seek some input regarding how to deal
with the debate on certain articles.  I know that my
reasoning can be hard to follow for some of you, but
if the debate is exclusively, binary then the "sides"
are reprented by *absolutist* (i.e.  *impractical*)
extremes. Thats not NPOV either, as it ignores the
fact that most people dont subscribe to the extremes
of "all life" or "all choice." Whatever can be
mutually agreed upon can be said to be something like
consensus, and therefore the basis for more NPOV
writing.

But if, as some claim (you, Meelar) that there isnt
even an agreement regarding the basic notion that a
fetus at 8.9 months is a "human" or "life" or "human
life", then there's no basis for consensus, hence NPOV
writing. That's not the case, fortunately, as most
seem to agree that neither extreme view is correct
--that its not simply a binary issue (as many claim it
should be represented) but its a bell curve in which
the split/peak seems to be some particular gestational
age--perhaps related to viability or not.

SV

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