from_name: Tels

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

Moin,

On Monday 02 April 2007 18:09:44 Brion Vibber wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 3/25/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than
> >> <link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
> >
> > Is that for bandwidth or display reasons?
>
> To keep Netscape 4.x from completely screwing up every page's layout and
> crashing on most of them.
>
>
> On the one hand, occasional mild aesthetic inconvenience for a small
> minority of people who use an obscure feature of some browsers...

"Save-as" is an obscure feature?

> On the other hand, complete failure of the site to function for a small
> minority of people who use an older, and *almost* but not quite dead
> browser.

How many hits from Netscape 4.0 per month does Wikipedia have?

I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and
incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported.
However, that is not my decision to make.

All the best,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Apr  2 20:40:40 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Most of the screen on a blog is blank for an imaginary populace of
 readers still using 640x480 resolution. I didn't buy a 19" monitor to
 have 50% of its screen realestate pissed away on firing white pixels,
 you assholes."

  -- maddox from xmission
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRhFrJncLPEOTuEwVAQJP5Qf/UR9VMcOW5pM4Tk8p8hjZjXFMMMuBRbYi
kF3hiGtcrUINFl1OKLS+TH7jXuU2cFlSxfusSkXxI6T3BRKAPkqYmpX4PKAdgrZx
HF8ZOn6s4gN8gaHUqkCg1PV4G+FhmrTRcDYwojkBcwZ36WWdqV4u+xi9ydKVeJE1
a1yH1pnbXyYvkMOdQbyHWfXuKBp646t8ao/tbxbZt6QS/OJ6uIQP6RerFMZdle+6
xzzJpFF7+DsO7xIiEgkd33AJAQRUmO1QOGpGF3GzzPhY/gA3A5lljJ+akDRakgas
bgK+xtGe4hF6/7N+ye0DbMhre8oF4Hvb5uZCRFJGPZtwMldb1RJHMA==
=yLG5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save it:

body:
Move en.wikipedia.org to en-dev.wikipedia.org and put only the
contents of the Wikipedia 0.5 DVD at en.wikipedia.org.

Betcha we'll suddenly have amazingly efficient procedures for getting
good content across from dev to stable.

This also avoids the issue of appearing to declare the Wikipedia
project a failure by effectively shutting it down and/or deleting
large swathes of it. Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
but public relations.

- d.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to save
	it:

body:
On 02/04/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Move en.wikipedia.org to en-dev.wikipedia.org and put only the
> contents of the Wikipedia 0.5 DVD at en.wikipedia.org.
>
> Betcha we'll suddenly have amazingly efficient procedures for getting
> good content across from dev to stable.
>
> This also avoids the issue of appearing to declare the Wikipedia
> project a failure by effectively shutting it down and/or deleting
> large swathes of it. Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
> but public relations.

I suggested something similar last month :-)

: This is a perfect project for an "ongoing fork". Every article on
: StablePedia is a static copy of a past Wikipedia article,
: perhaps slightly tidied by SP editors and reviewers; old
: revisions aren't displayed, and if they click 'edit' people
: are pointed back to Wikipedia to work on the ongoing draft.
: When you want to update, you just dump the old one, grab
: a new copy, approve and post on StablePedia - GFDL
: compliance is simple enough, and this means you can
: display your "approval infrastructure" nice and cleanly
: without conflicting with the live project. There's no conceptual
: reason the Foundation couldn't host both, either, and it might
: even be beneficial to do so as a trial balloon.

Doesn't require "stable versions", even, just a clearer segregation of
drafts and published articles. 'Course, how we keep it up to date is a
good question...

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposed overhaul of Meta

body:
Hello Wiki folk,

After approximately two and a half months of inactivity, I have decided to
return to Foundation-l. And today, I would like to address something: an
overhaul of Meta.

The Wikimedia Meta-Wiki is, in my opinion, the portal of things relevant to
every single involved member of Wikimedia projects. All of them. Yet, Meta
is not quite to my standard. I remember some time ago there was an effort
for cleaning up, but that seems to have turned to dust. This won't be some
fancy project, this is just what I am thinking about and I want to see if
you all get where I am heading at.

1) The current primary navigation system, [[Meta:Index]], is looking unhappy
with needless branching out. I could probably do this on my own, but I was
thinking that Meta:Index should be condensed as much as possible and -be
restricted to functions on Meta only-. Things for other projects can have a
similar navigation page. Likewise, the Meta:Index page should link to each
of the language categories. Additionally, I would like to see the Index page
more prominently featured on Meta.

2) The three messageboard pages -- Meta:Babel, Metapub, and Meta:Babylon --
have very terrible names, considering their purposes. You'd think Meta:Babel
would be about languages, but it's about Meta. You'd think Metapub would be
able Meta, but it's about the WMF in general. Meta:Babylon may hint towards
the idea of languages, but Meta:Babel sounds like a better candidate. I
discuss this more here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Renaming_some_pages

3) The Main Page is a bit big. It's not really a problem, but some things
could be transitioned over to Meta:Index or similar pages.

4) The feature where you get to select a language and then the interface is
in that language is really cool -- but I think its implementation should be
more conspicuous. For registered users, if they haven't selected their
language(s) of preference yet, they should be able to set the options in
Preferences. When this feature becomes available, there should be a message
in the Sitenotice advertising such a thing. For anonymous users, it could be
cookie-based; if there is no evidence that there is cache of Meta since the
implementation of such a feature, then before they could view any other
pages, they must set their language of preference first. This way, it is out
in the open, and there is little possibility for confusion.

5) I've heard about discussion of this, but I think the translation
functions of Meta should be moved to their own wiki. It would operate a lot
more efficiently (more main page space could be dedicated to translation),
and through special features made for translation wikis, it would be much
more convenient as well. A translation community, so-to-speak, could
establish a presence on such a wiki.

These are ideas to consider. Additionally, I have thought of an idea
involving streamlining communication throughout the Foundation, but I'll
have more information on that later.

Sincerely,
MessedRocker
(you can call me James)


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lock new article creation for three months

body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> I soundly disagree with you that's the main conclusion from this discussion.

I'm open to other conclusions.

> In fact, looking at your above summary, I might think the proper
> conclusion to draw is that the bureaucratic overhead of contributing
> to Wikipedia has grown out of control.

It probably is harder to be a newbie. But you can still turn up and edit 99.9% of the articles without having an account. It is not plausible to me that there is a solution to compiling the largest repository (of its kind) of human knowledge ever, without some sort of trade-off. 'Open for business' is still hanging there on the door.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

>Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains
>>about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves?
>>Egos, geez...
>>
>>
>Actually, people *do* complain about inaccuracies in other types of
>articles. Moreover, there are good reasons other than ego for people
>to notice the inaccuracies in articles about themselves. For one
>thing, we all know our own biographies in a lot more detail than
>other people. I'm willing to bet that no one on WikiEN-l other than
>myself knows off the top of their head what city I was born in or my
>date of birth. If someone other than myself were to read that I was
>born in 1961 in Toledo, Ohio, it's unlikely that they'd know it was
>incorrect, whereas I'd notice the error immediately.
>
It's conceivable that some subjects would be quite pleased with such
misinformation about themselves.  It would make them more difficult to
track down, and offer some measure of protection for their privacy.

>In any case, the people who complain about inaccuracies in articles
>are doing Wikipedia a favor, not a disservice. Complaints help
>Wikipedia learn about errors and improve. It may be momentarily
>embarrassing for Jimbo to have an error pointed out to him during a
>TV interview, but that's a small price to pay for useful feedback.
>
I must agree.  The publicity from these events may not be as bad as some
want to believe.  Perhaps the public message should stress that we
welcome such comments, because we fix them as soon as possible.  Between
the time that a problem is mentioned on TV or radio, and the time that
the average user tries to look up the problem it will probably be
fixed.  That just leaves the user wondering what the person is
complaining about.  The average reader may not yet understand how the
article history works.

It seems to me that the average citizen becomes most concerned when
complaints about obvious problems in society encounter denials from
those in a position to fix the problems.

>Slim Virgin wrote:
>
>
>>The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
>>persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
>>
>>By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
>>them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
>>controlling.
>>
>>
>Actually, hosting living bios probably helps improve fact-checking
>and accuracy more than publishing other types of articles. If there's
>an error in an article about some dead guy, he's NOT going to point
>out the error. Without the feedback from live people, Wikipedia would
>know less than it knows now about the accuracy of its articles and
>the validity of its editorial policies.
>
This would seem to support the view that article subjects should have
the right to publicly comment on the article about them, and even to
have their own words clearly identified.  The implied message that comes
out of this is. "We listen."

As Wikipedians we have some grasp about what it means to be
collaborative.  We can't assume that the public does.  The public's
respect for authority is stronger than many Wikipedians want to
believe.  That's been drummed into them throughout the course of their
upbringing.  We have a long time to wait before they realize that their
opinion matters.

Ec


body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> Since, after all, the impetus for this is nothing
> but public relations.

WP has always needed the right kind of good PR.

We have become a bit blas? about press coverage, I think. Has anyone pointed out to this list last week's Technology Guardian snippet: search for 'Bob Woolmer' gives the enWP page as second destination after his personal page. Fantastic! (I thought I'd check the page while writing this - oops, vandalism to revert.)

We have a _huge_ readership, and a steadily growing share of web traffic (per Alexa), itself a growing market.

Sure, if PR is 'reputation management', let's not get too fatigued with the day-to-day brawling, and wonder also about priorities some more. I have something in mind about 'the bottom of the barrel', and trying to define sensibly what we want to do about not scraping it straight into low-rent articles.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


body:
Robth wrote:

>On 3/29/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I know, let's just shut Wikipedia down!
>>That would  TOTALLY solve all our problems.
>>
>>
>This is the problem, of course.  We've developed this way of
>operating--we make mistakes eventually we, we fix them, it doesn't
>really matter.  If I write something slanderously untrue about some
>guy 2,000 years dead, who cares?  But when it comes time to deal with
>real people, who apply for jobs, get searched for on google (that
>fascinating new form of contemporary voyueurism), or whatever else, a
>mistake that lasts a day can be incredibly harmful.  And when we
>decide to put our "wiki philosophy", or whatever the hell it is that
>you're appealing to here, ahead of the concerns of the people our
>articles effect, we've created a project many of us don't want
>anything to do with.  And over the last few months, it's become very
>clear to me that many Wikipedians have exactly that order of
>priorities.
>
>I guess that's why they put exit signs on doors.
>
Also the exit doors swing out from public buildings.  They have
mechanisms that swing the door back shut when the person has exitted,
and no outside handles to allow the door to be reopened.

Ec


body:
On 02/04/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

 I have something in mind about 'the bottom of the barrel', and trying
to define sensibly what we want to do about not scraping it straight
into low-rent articles.

At this point you lost me in the fogs of metaphor ... er, come again?

- d.


body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> I think a powerful fallacy in your line of reasoning is the assumption
> that the encyclopedia in its current state is anywhere near the point
> of being comprehensive.

Oh, but I entirely agree. Adding bishopcruft at a great rate, myself.

> We should be expending every effort to prevent Wikipedia from being
> less welcoming or harder for newbies. Signs that Wikipedia is becoming
> less welcoming for newbies indicate the primary points of decay in the
> system.

Well, I certainly agree on one aspect of this: somehow making it harder for new editors to edit simply means they remain inexperienced newbies longer, which is no help at all.

Another thing: policy should be brought to a state where it belongs in the same sentence as 'lucidity'. This is a known (political) problem.

I think you may misunderstand the sort of direction that would meet my approval. There is a theoretical kind of place that would be 'upmarket of Wikipedia'. That is where Citizendium wants to be. I think we have the smarts to be there ourselves. 'Floor the accelerator' doesn't really acknowledge the possibility, because it is solely about growth.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:37:38 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wait a minute. As I understand it, the policy Phil is defending in his
>present post states that primary sources are acceptable where the
>interpretation drawn is not novel (i.e. new). This is how I understand our
>policy, although Phil in another post seems to have criticised this
>interpretation (that primary sources should not be cited unless there are
>secondary sources available).

>If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of
>the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face-value,
>literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often
>people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.

That's pretty much how I see it, too.  A subject which has *no*
reliable secondary sources is probably unencyclopaedic, a subject
which is primarily drawn from reputable secondary sources may
undoubtedly contain individual facts drawn directly from primary
sources, provided no novel conclusions are proposed as a result.

And I suspect Phil and I would agree on the majority of calls either
way, although we might well disagree as to what constitutes a reliable
secondary source for a given article.

In some cases we have articles where the level of quality of the
source is reduced and reduced until a non-trivial one can be found, on
the grounds that it is "obviously notable", like bands that have
appeared on Eurovision.

And in some cases people are still psychologically back in the "good
old days" of 2004 and earlier, when we actually needed lots more
content.  By now a pretty high proportion of new articles are vanity,
spam or both.  And the spammers are getting smarter - some companies
now employ SEOs directly.  But I digress.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] So as not to destroy the Wikipedia in order to
	save	it:

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> On 02/04/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

>  I have something in mind about 'the bottom of the barrel', and trying
> to define sensibly what we want to do about not scraping it straight
> into low-rent articles.

> At this point you lost me in the fogs of metaphor ... er, come again?

We all google, don't we? I'm fairly obstinate: I will hammer on Google using variant searches, to the point where I have refs for an article together. But, there are occasions when Google simply doesn't have enough reputable pages. This for me is 'scraping the bottom of the barrel': other types of database searching, too, give me the feeling that the supporting data for what I hoped to be able to assert is not quite there.

This is a warning red light on the dashboard: it would be a stretch, don't go there. Now, WP's rep is damaged more than in any other way, I think, by people who write for us, over-riding such signals. We've discussed numbers of such examples on this list. E.g. the reality show contestant with really no checkable background, all sources in effect reproducing stuff from a press pack. Internet memes, things that turn out to be old urban myths. Rumours, blogs.

In short, I'm saying something like 'reliable sources' in some cases shouldn't be butter spread too thin for the size of slice of bread. Damn, metaphor creep once more. But perhaps there's an essay in there. Certainly the sources discussion seems too much to be on 'which single source would you trust', not on evaluating the network.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical
>order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.

Not always, anyway.  Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for
example, have been known to stray into the area of creative
interpretation.

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


body:
On 02/04/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> We all google, don't we? I'm fairly obstinate: I will hammer on Google using variant searches, to the point where I have refs for an article together. But, there are occasions when Google simply doesn't have enough reputable pages. This for me is 'scraping the bottom of the barrel': other types of database searching, too, give me the feeling that the supporting data for what I hoped to be able to assert is not quite there. This is a warning red light on the dashboard: it would be a stretch, don't go there.

That says "yer gonna hafta find a real reference on paper" to me.
Possibly I am just old-fashioned.

> Now, WP's rep is damaged more than in any other way, I think, by people who write for us, over-riding such signals. We've discussed numbers of such examples on this list. E.g. the reality show contestant with really no checkable background, all sources in effect reproducing stuff from a press pack. Internet memes, things that turn out to be old urban myths. Rumours, blogs.

AFD is reaping those, possibly too efficiently - the rules-driven
Aspergic killbot element seems to wish to discourage new work in many
areas.

> In short, I'm saying something like 'reliable sources' in some cases shouldn't be butter spread too thin for the size of slice of bread. Damn, metaphor creep once more. But perhaps there's an essay in there. Certainly the sources discussion seems too much to be on 'which single source would you trust', not on evaluating the network.

Possibly sourcing is also a matter of editorial judgement and is not a
Taylorisable process either. Who'da thunk!

- d.


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

>On 3/30/07, gjzilla at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Safe harbor, as long as we take it down. ~~~~
>>
>>
>I don't know whether taking something down as soon as we see it would
>be enough if it's been up for ages and it's already done damage. But
>anyway, I know of situations where we *didn't* take problematic things
>down when we were made aware of them. It's all very hit and miss.
>
You can't take something down if you don't know it's there.  With 1.7
million articles it's very easy to not know that something is there.
This is why notice to the ISP is so important.  It's not a notification
if some person who is not directly affected expresses the belief that
something is problematic.  That is merely one person's opinion, and
who's to say that that person's opinion is any more valid than an
exactly opposite opinion honestly held by another reader.  As for
damages the plaintiff has the burden of proving the damages that
resulted directly from our actions.  In some countries truth is an
absolute defence to libel.

The biggest hurdles for a successful suit lie with the plaintiffs.  It
is much easier to defend when the plaintiffs have defined the suit, and
cannot introduce new issues or theories.  An effective plaintiff needs
to forsee ALL the possible arguments that the defence could raise, and
I'm afraid that most lawyers are not that smart.

This isn't meant as justification to doing the wrong things.  In almost
all instances we will have the opportunity to mitigate the problems long
before there's a court battle.  Being unduly alarmist about such things
only hurts us.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:48:30 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>In this case, the list of cars in the show was assembled from a
>primary source using simple criteria: any car shown was listed.

Um, no.  This is a classic case of "hard cases make bad law".  If the
list is taken to have been presented as part of the content of the
show, then it is almost certainly a copyright violation (I have
contacted the rights holders to check, of course).  If, on the other
hand, we argue that it is not a copyright violation because the list
itself is not presented as part of the show's content, then the list
in the article is a novel synthesis from original materials.

It rather depends on whether you count a list which identifies the
vehicles by photograph rather than text label, as being equivalent to
the same list translated into text labels,

Each week Clarkson and the Hamster stand up and invite the audience to
help them decide whether the Ford Blah is cool or not; the decision
made, it goes on the wall.

The Top Gear criterion of "coolness" has been the basis of derivative
works published by the BBC (e.g. Hammond's "What Not To Drive"), but
the only way to get the list as text is either to watch every show and
write them down, or to recognise the pictures.  Of course, I believe
it doesn't actually matter which you do, because reproducing the list
*in its entirety* is to a very /very/ high degree of probability a
violation of the BBC's copyright.

It's further complicated by the fact that the BBC don't appear to
consider it important enough to put on their website.  So the one
authoritative single source that might exist for the list as text, but
which would at the same time unambiguously make it copyright, does not
exist.

I also apply the simple man's copyright test: if something you produce
is based entirely on copying from another source which asserts
copyright, it's probably copyright violation.  Needless to say, Top
Gear has a copyright statement at the end of every broadcast.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:44:17 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important
>topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements
>designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.

I which case discussing NOR in the context of something the BBC Top
Gear team don't think is even worth putting on their website is
probably a waste of your time :-)

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


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: improving quality on enwiki

body:
On 31/03/07, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a message I wrote in another mailing list.  I'm forwarding it
> to enwiki-l at Jimbo's suggestion.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 30, 2007 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Otrs-en-l] [SPAM] info-en vs info-fr
> To: English OTRS discussion list <otrs-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> (Comments from another contributor redacted; the discussion was
> related to how inclusionist tendencies tend to lead to large numbers
> of unmaintained articles.)
>
> This was the gist of my recent blogpost on maintainability as the
> proper criterion for inclusion.  I freely admit to being an
> inclusionist -- I would love to see proper articles on all rysorts of
> random topics of even marginal interest -- but I temper that with the
> understanding that having unmaintainable articles harms the
> encyclopedia as a whole, and the recognition that the Wikipedia
> community is not currently capable of maintaining even the articles it
> has, let alone all the articles it could possibly have.
>
> My attitude on such people is that the content should be sequestered
> in a nonpublic place and reviewed upon notice that the individual in
> question has died.  If we never receive notice, then that's probably
> because the person was not interesting enough in life to justify an
> article anyway.  Yes, we might sequester an article for decades under
> this policy, but I'm an eventualist as well.
>
> However, don't mistake my eventualism for being support for the idea
> that we should leave crap articles sitting out there in public view
> (which is a point of view commonly attributed to eventualists).  I am
> firmly opposed to leaving low-quality articles on the public wiki when
> doing so will bring disrepute onto the subjects of those articles or
> bring harm to Wikipedia as a project.  I am therefore very much in
> favor of deletion of any article for which there is no established,
> committed process for maintenance.
>
> The problem with this is that there is no established, committed
> process for maintaining ANY article on Wikipedia.  All article
> maintenance on Wikipedia, and in fact virtually all process on
> Wikipedia, is haphazard.  We are just starting to get comprehensive
> vandalism management using centralized tools, or so I am told.  We
> still have no mechanisms for coordinating even so much as article
> categorization or article sourcing, both of which are crucial aspects
> of article maintenance.
>
> The infrastructure to maintain over a million and a half articles has
> never existed on Wikipedia.  Until it does, every new article is
> another paper cut, bleeding us a bit more each day.
>
> As I see it, the following absolutely must be done:
>
> * All articles must be categorized.  A bot can be used to generate
> lists of uncategorized articles, and the articles found in this way
> presented to volunteer categorizers using a workflow approach.
> Articles not categorized within a reasonable time (say, seven days for
> new articles, and three months for existing articles) will be deleted.
>  My understanding is that there are bots that are capable of making
> "good guesses" at categorization, so this may be less painful than it
> seems.
>
> * A mapping of categories onto Subject Working Groups needs to be
> established.  Each Subject Working Group is responsible for the
> maintenance of all articles which are categorized within categories
> assigned to that SWG.  (If an article is within the scope of multiple
> SWGs, an arbitration process, with both automated and deliberative
> components, will determine which SWG will be primarily responsible for
> it.)
>
> * Editors, most of whose edits are made to articles categorized within
> a specific SWG, will be identified and asked to form a SWG (or
> formalize an existing informal one).
>
> * SWGs will have the responsibility to ensure that all articles within
> their ambit are properly sourced, cleaned up, etc.
>
> * Any article which remains unsourced for one month will be deleted.
> A bot will detect unsourced articles and notify the responsible SWG of
> the article and the need to source it.
>
> This is all entirely orthogonal to vandalism management.
>
> There are already a lot of SWGs on Wikipedia, with varying degrees of
> organization; many WikiProjects qualify as such.  However, both the
> automation and the sense of group responsibility is not currently
> present, and needs to be cultivated.  We need these people to feel
> personally responsible for the quality of all of the articles in their
> SWG.
>
> This is a response to the scaling problem.  The English Wikipedia's
> community has grown too large to function organically the way it used
> to three years ago.  It is my belief that breaking it up into multiple
> subject-oriented communities will help to combat the scaling problem:
> the members of the SWG will all know one another and are far more
> likely to remain collegial and productive with one another.  A SWG
> that gets too large can be subdivided further, which means this
> provides an ongoing solution to the scaling problem, not just a
> one-time fix.
>
> Please feel free to refine this idea or just tell me it's a load of hooey.
>
> Kelly

Regardless if discussion goes any further on this. Would it be a good
idea to set up an project management or OTRS system and trial it with
a couple of active WikiProjects? See if Wikipedians work well with
small broken-down tasking?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:13:10 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>The issue becomes how it's being reported, then. Is the list of cars
>being compiled in relation to cars, or in relation to the list-
>makers? If it's the latter, it's much more like FA cup results.

The article is on the Top Gear Cool Wall.  It lists the cars which Top
Gear put on the Top Gear Cool Wall, grouped by the section of the wall
in which the Top Gear presenters and audience decided to place them.
It is broadcast as part of Top Gear, a copyright BBC programme.  There
is no objective standard by which the list could be independently
derived, the way it is derived is an intrinsic part of the Top Gear
show.  Specifically, one of the criteria is "would Kristin Scott
Thomas be seen driving this?"  And this is not based on asking her, as
was made abundantly clear when she appeared on the show and trashed a
number of the cars which Clarkson had rated as cool using the Scott
Thomas test.

Put that way it looks a bit less ambiguous than even I had thought...

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Only 2 h 23 m downtime in 2006

body:
On 02/04/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Congrats, that's actually quite a small amount of downtime we had.
> > http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/02/top-twenty-sites-most-downtime/

> In any case, they are reporting on 2007 year to date, not 2006.
> The loss of our netblock back in aug 2006 resulted in more than 2
> hours of outage alone.

This is simply not good enough. We are entirely too reliable. As Jimmy
Wales has said, "downtime is our most profitable product." Don't the
devs care about the Foundation's funding? Break the site more often!
Preferably on a Sunday afternoon!

- d.


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

body:
John Lee wrote:

> It strikes me that you could say, for example, "The usage of the
> phrase in
> the NYT during the 1980s was triple that of the 1970s"

Are you sure it didn't triple in just the last six months?

--Michael Snow


from_name: John Lee

body:
On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade"
> > <seraphimbladewikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to
> >> preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
> >> correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
> >> matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the
> >> guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a
> >> newspaper. If
> >> the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
> >> there's the source!
> >
> > I completely agree.
>
> I completely disagree.
>
> Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original
> research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because
> of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or
> usable comprehensive secondary sources.
>
> -Phil

We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary
sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our
purpose as an encyclopaedia.

Johnleemk


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Saving pages from WP with stylesheet

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

Moin,

On Monday 02 April 2007 19:07:26 Rob Church wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and
> > incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported.
> > However, that is not my decision to make.
>
> If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete
> browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia,
> voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.

Yeah, point taken. But you don't support Netscape 1.0, right? :)

I just find it sad that many people of modern software have to suffer
because there a a few unknown numbers of people using really old software.

All the best,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Apr  2 22:57:20 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/posters
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law. Right
 now, any professor can show a complete movie in his classroom without
 paying a dime - that's fair use. What is not fair use is making a copy
 of an encrypted DVD, because once you're able to break the encryption,
 you've undermined the encryption itself."

  -- Jack Valenti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRhGKl3cLPEOTuEwVAQLR/wf+JohjpDv7n4iXCQ7U6pp2/lhajn1OoBFk
KR/rP7aygRPgna2soQKPxt2xeQMX8qpJE6aLhE148o/HzUJrLP9k9uW7aGRvujJ3
nb2MjuUwfih9nincaGr88qw2TKOP7HiKdALJvQHr0vvHfIDFSzhql+NML7Q8eA/i
xKOm2YMC1S6rAb45EWKDic9TVWgEXu2zeVQOsreY3COWMCV+Ms+Q+lOk3aiLye/2
HbQQLdYtJtSGNAjOoeg/YoKwaywI2bkCqXkcHcRePyYMGLgXcFg3EnS/p/1JAQC9
6wKRkU4MzbEM02S6ubAQjOYRwutBQLcAsqmL/c835cyjPElHg6MGiQ==
=5Q3O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Moin,

On Monday 02 April 2007 19:36:09 Brion Vibber wrote:
> Rob Church wrote:
> > On 02/04/07, Tels wrote:
> >> I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and
> >> incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported.
> >> However, that is not my decision to make.
> >
> > If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete
> > browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia,
> > voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
>
> Ba-dum ching!
>
> Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for
> saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this
> anyway?)

Me. (good for when you don't have always internet access)

> and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for
> people stuck on older machines...
>
> Well policy-wise I guess it comes down to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick :)
>
> Of course it'd be *nice* to cleanly work with the save function of more
> popular browsers, but as long as we're forced to make the choice, not
> crashing the old-but-hard-to-upgrade minority still gets priority.

It is your choice, of course.

But you haven't answered the question how many of them are. More than 0? :-)

All the best,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Apr  2 22:58:45 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Now, _you_ behave!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRhGLIHcLPEOTuEwVAQKcwAf+IBSopxKHW7tkjHRYSHKTGnotsG55C0r9
MzMPoyWAIl4ngYwA+cYW21JtokmjbAvMBWiE768OJ1lGnZWI60mep9hQKNvs6Qq6
g/YWadxWs/V+bR3rJCPN67tx5J2XC4NvqoFyGKYEhiCmLtH/sT3TlWicp7HkZLoB
4iE430dcheoC3RpH0f54lDxYqkpsB2+YyhYwHKxNw8TkqWouSf7hjKUSitl/0kfB
tU0L3dUc4ZfrkZunMQUCVW2T2SDnLQeTjcGC3yaCAjE5PY5RMG4UdIW4aOQ33Q3v
vXIVW4MjrCzTG08m4e9y1egZ+6jM0oNks/5y4wwkvrcWzkjqeniw3w==
=R24I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:18:17 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial
>judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle
>course.

Yup.  Sadly, without rules like that, the editors who self-evidently
lack Clue will fight tooth and nail to keep crap, on the grounds that
there is no policy which says it must go.

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


body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:41:33 -0700, wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com wrote:

>Granted this _is_ original research, what exactly is the harm in it?

Missing context, for a start.  It's meaningless without a measure of
what proportion of eligible journals it appears in over that period.
Judgment of which are the relevant journals might be an issue...

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


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful

body:
Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just 1
member), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met
with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red
category links simply don't take you to an editing page?

This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can
still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category
(from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see the
members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed
as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go into
editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds.


from_name: Platonides

body:
Tels wrote:
> Yeah, point taken. But you don't support Netscape 1.0, right? :)
>
> I just find it sad that many people of modern software have to suffer
> because there a a few unknown numbers of people using really old software.
>
> All the best,
>
> Tels

Well, Wikipedia shows nice with Netscape 1.2 (at least as nice as it can
be without CSS) Certainly not crashing...


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful

body:
 Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just 1
member,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/019259.html ),
and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with
disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red
category links simply don't take you to an editing page?

This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can
still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category
(from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see the
members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed
as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go into
editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds.


body:
Tels wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>> Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for
>> saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this
>> anyway?)
>
> Me. (good for when you don't have always internet access)

I thought you were smart enough to know what extra files you need to
download to see it with styles. ;)

---

Although normal save of the 'complete page' on IE doesn't save it
either, saving to a unique file (its horrible mht) keeps the full CSS.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:14:14 -0700, William Pietri
<william at scissor.com> wrote:

>Are you saying that if we are compiling the list rather than them, then
>it's more like putting up the game scores?
>That makes some sense to me. We don't kick at plot summaries. Or in TV
>show episode pages, we list the songs used for shows where music is a
>significant element. That seems to be documenting somebody else's
>creative work rather than stealing it, which seems legit to me. IANAL,
>natch.

A bi like documenting a book by reproducing it in its entirety :-)

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


body:
On 02/04/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Well policy-wise I guess it comes down to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick :)

w00h00! Next time someone marks that for deletion, I'll quote this to
say it's Brion-quoted policy!

- d.


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 4/2/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't we lock new article creation in the main namespace entirely
> > for three months? Or six months? Demand that people fix existing
> > articles.
>
> Any proposal based on an assumption like "people spend X hours a week
> working on Wikipedia, and if only we could stop them wasting those X
> hours working on something silly" is flawed. If you stopped me
> creating new articles, I'd probably just get pissed off and leave.

If I was stopped from creating new articles, I probably wouldn't be
that pissed off (okay, who am I kidding, I would) but no matter what
I'd stop creating new articles.

If you don't get it, my point is that would be A Bad Thing. How many
redlinks are there in Wikipedia?

Hmmmmmmmm?


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:07:26PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and
> > incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported.
> > However, that is not my decision to make.
>
> If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete
> browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia,
> voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.

*Very* nice strawman, there, Rob.

But even *I* wouldn't champion NN4.x these days, and I did for a *very*
long time.

Has anyone ever gone through the Browser Archive and pulled screenshots?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] deleting unsourced articles ..... gradually

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> I'd like to see some study done that checks how many people would actually
> participate in a massive spring-like cleanup that would involve sourcing
> lacking articles.
>
Sadly I think what you would attract is those who would prefer to spend 5
seconds pasting "DELETE THIS UNSOURCED MONSTROSITY NOW!!!" over each and
every article rather than the few who could afford to spend much longer
actually finding proper sources and formatting them sufficiently to appease
the citation police.

We would be in the position where we were overwhelmed by articles tagged for
deletion, rather than by those tagged for sourcing, and much less time in
which to attempt to deal with them.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-hammered-in-a-tv-interview-is-not-fun-tf3488625.html#a9804371
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: Andreas R.

subject: [Wikitech-l] Using Special Pages for maintenance scripts

body:
Robert Leverington <lcarsdata at ...> writes:
> On 02/04/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at ...> wrote:
> > Robert Leverington wrote:
[...]
> > Won't it time-out if used from the web?
> >
> > Have you tried php shell http://mgeisler.net/php-shell/
> > It time-out too
>
> The php timeout can be increased via a built in MediaWiki function.

If it takes longer, even the browser can time out.
A very simple solution to avoid this would be to just send out e.g. blanks
continously. This will however produce php warnings about headers already sent
(if they are enabled) when trying to send out a wiki page after that.


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] InstantCommons demo

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> If an image is indicated as deleted, the software will then remove the
> commons notices from the image, and the image will look like a local
> upload with no mention of commons. This should be a mandatory
> requirement for instantcommons access to Wikimedia commons.

(...)

> I am pretty sure that requiring sites to remove the commons notice on
> images is something we must do. We need to make it crystal clear that
> we can not, do not, and will not take any responsibility for an image
> we've deleted.

Plus, the message wording must clearly state that it *Was* pulled from
commons, better with some legal wording as "we're not responsible about
it" and preferably, with a link to the user which uploaded it (similar
to what was done on en: stating what there are archived versions).

Another problem i see is a vandal uploads 'goatse' to commons marked as
GFDL, and immediatly inserts it on one hundred MediaWiki installs. We
will delete it almost immediatly but he now has it on a lot of mirrors.
Requiring the file to be at least X minutes old would benefit this, but
makes InstantCommons useless for those who want their users to upload at
  Commons (which may or may not be a good idea).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
geni wrote:

>On 3/31/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of
>>Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV
>>as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal
>>ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes
>>air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.
>>
>>
>We've had issues with people using wikipedia to distribute information
>about unbroadcast episodes obtained by methods other than the normal
>means.
>
What's wrong with that?  The details will be added a little later anyways.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
Earle Martin wrote:

>On 30/03/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
>>
>>
>Well, never mind that, then. Bureaucrat User:Nichalp has decided to
>close my RfA at halfway through, because it "does not enjoy the
>support of the community", even though the support votes and comments
>of confidence were starting to pour in. I have also received several
>private messages wishing me success.
>
>I would have been quite happy for the RfA to reach the end and fail
>(spectacularly, perhaps). However, this feels unfair. I've raised the
>issue on the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
>
I've just read through this thread, and resent that someone would have
purported to close off the vote before I would even have had a chance to
vote.  I've added my vote, but it seems that someone is already intent
on suppressing it.

Ec


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
>
> To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the
> tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting. I keep
> considering requesting an admin bit, but I might hit the same hurdle.
> I occasionally "need the tools". I occasionally would like to rename a
> page in a non-trivial case, or to rename a category. I occasionally
> would like to edit a protected page. That's about it. I don't want to
> block anyone, or do some of the other things one gets "the tools" for.
> But who would support that platform?
>
> Steve
>

I would. It's the basis upon which I was given the bit (a few years back).

I haven't looked into your history, so I can't guarantee I'd vote for
you (there has to be some level of discernment). But assuming you're not
an obvious troublemaker, let me know when you run on such a platform,
and I'll show up and vote for you.

-Rich


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-04-03

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20958).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  17 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:44:17 -0400, Phil Sandifer
> <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important
>> topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements
>> designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.
>
> I which case discussing NOR in the context of something the BBC Top
> Gear team don't think is even worth putting on their website is
> probably a waste of your time :-)
>
> Guy (JzG)

Having followed this thread, I have to voice some frustration with your
tactics, Guy. At one point you argue strongly that it's a copyvio. At
the next moment that it's OR. And you seem to slip back and forth as is
convenient for your argument. When someone makes a point in support of
it not being a copyvio, you bring out the OR defense. And when someone
makes a point about it not being OR, you bring out the copyvio defense.

As I say, this leaves me frustrated. Not because I necessarily agree or
disagree with any particular position, but because the conversation does
not seem to be headed toward any conclusion.

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<4ln1139lv0ous9kou0fqe2cnm6h6i5d1c7@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140704020403w761b6a7av3cf6cd0d26dc2453@mail.gmail.com>
	<ulp1131qd7fpnrpir0md9phvuo6n6ro0gf@4ax.com>
	<46111F07.6050106@shaw.ca>
	<fea213pr58fq7tbjvs8n2lrjfq99ff8nno@4ax.com>
	<56B5C430-6A31-4442-814E-5F2B2C92F8B4@gmail.com>
	<lpb2135859gl0ai7p0hp5an2596f6l9rt2@4ax.com>

body:
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer
> <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Personally, I advocate following the last good version here, which is
> >to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who
> >nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a
> >guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
>
> In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary
> sources where no reliable secondary sources exist.  Which we already
> know, of course.  That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.

Wait a minute. As I understand it, the policy Phil is defending in his
present post states that primary sources are acceptable where the
interpretation drawn is not novel (i.e. new). This is how I understand our
policy, although Phil in another post seems to have criticised this
interpretation (that primary sources should not be cited unless there are
secondary sources available).

If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation whatsoever of
the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face-value,
literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how often
people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.

Johnleemk


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

body:
Seraphim Blade wrote:
 > NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well
 > as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
 > matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first?

Giving the original research rule a double role in this way is bad for
two reasons:

- it is hard enough to work out where we want the boundary of this rule
   to be considering either one of the jobs separately;

- using the existence of published sources as a central way to judge
   relevance and importance is a recipe for systematic bias.

That isn't to say that the existence of published sources isn't a
sensible way to help make decisions about relevance and importance. But
there's no good reason to suppose that we should be using the same
criteria for the decision about when a statement is sufficiently obvious
that we can make it without giving a reference and the decision about
when a statement is significant enough to mention.

-M-


body:
On 4/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade <seraphimbladewikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is
> > that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an
> > article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also
> > helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can
> > be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same
> > question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone
> > wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
>
>
> This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial
> judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle
> course.
>
> Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
>
>
> - d.

It's an unfortunate truth that many of our editors aren't exactly capable of
exercising good editorial judgment. Also, while I disagree that we should
replace editorial discretion with rules, it's certainly non-contestable that
WP is never the right place for the role of "first reporter".

The solution, I think, is to stay true to NOR as it has always been: don't
use primary sources unless you are using them to present a non-novel
interpretation.

Johnleemk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 4/3/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:37 PM, John Lee wrote:
>
> > If there are no extant secondary sources, any interpretation
> > whatsoever of
> > the primary source is novel. I suppose one could argue for the face-
> > value,
> > literal meaning interpretation as non-novel, but it's suprising how
> > often
> > people can disagree on a literal reading of a source.
>
> Well, yes and no. First of all, this is where talk pages become
> useful parts of our process. Second of all, there are cases,
> including in academia, where you have to allow for some slippage
> here. My usual example here is [[Jacques Derrida]]. There are
> hundreds of secondary sources on him, but the good ones are A) no
> easier to interpret than the primary sources, and B) POV to high hell
> about what it is his philosophy means. The accessible general
> overviews are of mediocre quality at best, and are far from respected
> by any important Derrida scholars.
>
> Attempting to write an article primarily from secondary sources about
> Derrida is a doomed proposition.
>
> The way to write a good Derrida article is to have a bunch of people
> who use Derrida's ideas in their own scholarship write up summaries
> of Derrida's thought, and have points of disagreement and tension
> (i.e. the points where people disagree on exactly what On
> Grammatology means right here) sourced to secondary sources and
> explained in an NPOV fashion.
>
> This is important. The best way to write this article on a major
> philosopher who nobody would even think to nominate for deletion is
> from primary sources, using secondary sources only when needed.
>
> (This was, it should be noted, how [[Michel Foucault]], a similar
> article, was written and became a featured article. No citations
> anywhere in the "Works" section aside from the implied citation to
> the primary sources. Damn good artlcle, and a great overview of
> Foucault's work. This should be a model.)
>
> -Phil

But in this case, the secondary sources are in existence. If anyone wants to
confirm that our reading of Derrida's or Foucault's works is non-novel, they
can just slog through all the secondary sources. When there are no secondary
sources available, however, then it's a whole different ball game: any
interpretation of the primary sources is essentially novel, and thus
verboten under NOR.

What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if there
are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But
if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own
novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary
source?

Johnleemk


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question ("compilation copyright")

body:
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Oh thank you so much.  And there was I thinking that reproducing
> chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law,
> and I was just trying to stop us getting sued.

With the exception of fair use, of course - which is in fact more
useful AND more defensible in text than in pictures.  (For UK
contributors, of course, replace that with 'fair dealing' which is
much more restrictive, but I believe DOES still allow for criticism
and commentary - though someone better versed in it would be useful).

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
On 4/2/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
>
> To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the
> tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting.

I wholly agree.  It's people who HUNGER for the tools that worry me.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
> > What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if
> there
> > are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available.
> But
> > if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our
> own
> > novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary
> > source?
>
> In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out
> of
> all reasonableness.
>
> Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in
> alphabetical
> order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.

I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this
clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be
told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm
speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is
advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where
secondary sources don't exist.

Johnleemk


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 08:43 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
>
>
>
>On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade"
>> <seraphimbladewikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to
>>> preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
>>> correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
>>> matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the
>>> guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a
>>> newspaper. If
>>> the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
>>> there's the source!
>>
>> I completely agree.
>
>I completely disagree.
>
>Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original
>research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because
>of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or
>usable comprehensive secondary sources.
>
>-Phil

It would be common sense to adopt this position. I support it. Why should be deny users the right to add what they know? Published or not?

Fred


body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Earle Martin [mailto:wikipedia at downlode.org]
>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 05:35 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
>
>On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to
>the school's new logo/shield:
>
>"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new
>shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
>
>I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but
>replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on
>the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about -
>certainly more than I know about heraldry.
>
>However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally
>once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion,
>and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable
>source.
>
>My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be
>proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be
>difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the
>article again pending this.
>
>
>--
>Earle Martin

It strikes me that this information can be checked. Also, the harm done if it is wrong is minimal.

Fred


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 4/2/07, Brion Vibber <brion at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for
> saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this
> anyway?) and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for
> people stuck on older machines...

I would say that saving pages, and saving them correctly, is pretty
important. Who does it? People who live in areas of limited
connectivity and do not have a printer -- download your articles in an
Internet cafe and read them later. People who want to give a
presentation in a room without net access and fit files on a USB
stick. People who want to edit the files offline for re-use.

I agree, though, that we should not break Netscape 4 if we can avoid
it. There are probably still plenty of NS4 users on Sun workstations
and the like. For now, the best target for getting this fixed seems to
be the Firefox bug that causes it. But if there is another syntax that
could be used which avoids the saving problem, _and_ doesn't break
NS4, that would be excellent.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] Trademark violation - muslimwikipedia.com

body:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:16:51PM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> It will be a work of oscillating size; as soon as points 2 and 3 conflict,
> the article in question will have to disappear...

They _could_ remain in quantum superposition. <hopeful look>

read you soon,
	Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


body:
On 3/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page

I already contacted them a while ago about the name. They seem to be
in the process of changing it to "MuslimWiki" now.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 3/30/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>To the contrary, WP:POINT doesn't prohibit all makings of points, it only
>>prohibits disruption to make a point, so this doesn't violate anything.
>>Also, discussion of why something is wrong is the first step to fixing it,
>>so discussion is certainly a good thing.
>>
>>
>Making of points is a problem if it is disruptive, I made the same point
>several times yesterday.
>I consider a big row on an RFA nomination disruptive. Discussions should be
>done on talk or proposal pages, not in a nomination,
>that's why I think it's a problem.
>
It's clear to everyone that your proposal will help to ensure that no
change ever takes place.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 3/30/07, Jake Nelson <duskwave at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I share MGM's concerns, but do appreciate your take on the matter.
>>
>>Let me put it this way. Here's my RFA:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins&oldid=1819982#Jakenelson
>>
>>At the time, I had ~400 edits and had been on Wikipedia ~2 months.
>>
>>
>Back then the project was merely two years old. We could afford to be less
>picky about admins back then.
>Some people have gone over the top in their requirements, but how can we
>address that without affecting the fact the entire community has a voice in
>the process?
>
That voice is only theoretical.  Unless a person is able to spend a lot
of time following the process it's not a meaningful voice.  Suppressing
the voting early doesn't help.

Ec


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> Oh thank you so much.  And there was I thinking that reproducing
> chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law,
> and I was just trying to stop us getting sued.

Such as your image uploads
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chichester-Psalms.jpg
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Durufl%C3%A9-Requiem-Kirie.jpg
for example? Those particular pages of sheet music aren't even directly
discussed in the articles they're used in, they're just there for
decoration.

You're taking a radically extreme interpretation of copyright in this
one case of "fancruft", but clearly you realize that Wikipedia's
copyright guidelines actually aren't that stringent or you wouldn't have
uploaded those copyrighted scans.

In the first post of this thread you ended your description of the
situation with:

> Original research?  You decide.
>
> Copyright?  I think so, but what do I know?
>
> Fancruft?  Ooooh, tricky :-)
>
> Guidance appreciated.

Well, you've been getting plenty of guidance; lots of editors have
chimed in to agree that we're highly unlikely to get sued over this and
that it isn't original research in any significant way. But you don't
seem to be appreciating it, you seem to have had your mind made up to
the contrary from the start. So much for "you decide" and "what do I know?"

IMO it's looking more and more like you just wanted to find excuses to
back up the removal of some content you didn't like. You may win
individual battles that way but if you really want to rid Wikipedia as a
whole of fancruft then I'd suggest debating _fancruft itself_ rather
than trying to warp other unrelated policies to the task. You'll just
wind up annoying people and possibly causing unintended side effects.


references:
<64s113h36np78om6k7tfee67nek31sh2fq@4ax.com>
	<76d3f06d0704020618x1a926d8fq2c7cd24b3b0e45b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<up1213pgopieng044p1gu9u5c7a2o74r4i@4ax.com>
	<EA77106D-E01D-48AC-8CC0-56A45E2648B7@gmail.com>
	<bpa213drnsa38m2dn3ab8uo37an5oc3n4m@4ax.com>
	<76d3f06d0704021015se5ca96ct458254c498f7c4b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140704021018m1ed78691xdd63f56ffb70c9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<nlv213hag4u8blpamhe9d9376mglgcpqae@4ax.com> <4611971B.4020807@shaw.ca>
	<qtv313599cf3tmda9gcnfc3ef8jrpj5gdk@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:51:55 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I think it's more likely that they disagree with the premise that it
>> actually _is_ crap. And they very well might be right since labeling
>> something "crap" can be highly subjective. Assume good faith, please.
>
> What, like the personal essays on character traits of various
> characters in video games?  I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)

You'd be wrong. A video game aficionado could well find our articles
about video game characters to be the most interesting and useful
content on all of Wikipedia. Personally, I hate horror movies and yet I
find Wikipedia's articles about current and upcoming horror movies to be
extremely useful; when I see an ad for one with a seemingly interesting
premise I can read the plot outline on Wikipedia and satisfy my
curiosity without having to watch any of it. So who's to judge?


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Congrats, that's actually quite a small amount of downtime we had.
>>
>> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/02/top-twenty-sites-most-downtime/
>
> That's 2h 23m in 2007 to date, rather - in three months not twelve.

Two episodes of knams being down, reported as about one hour each. One was
clearly our fault (load balancer down with no hot spare), the other was
upstream. Well, we've learnt from our mistakes, we have hot spares for our
load balancers now.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Ben Yates

subject: [Foundation-l] how organizations work

body:
I ran across an thread at metafilter about organizational dynamics --
I thought it would make interesting reading for anyone involved with
wikipedia.  The thread's linked article is called the "tyranny of
structurelessness" but there are a lot of different opinions in the
discussion.

http://www.metafilter.com/59938/The-Tyranny-of-Structurelessness

Cheers

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


subject: [Foundation-l] how organizations work


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Some of them are starting to get the message

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

In today's /Real Life Adventures/, the little girl says "Dad says men
are smarter than women. Is that true?"

Her mom replies, "Listen, Honey.  Dad is the human Wikipedia.  He has
all the answers, but most of them are wrong."

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A good plan violently executed now
 sean at epoptic.com | is better than a perfect plan next
                  | week. --General George S. Patton, Jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGElHG/SVOiq2uhHMRAvNGAKCZcy//U855uUD7JB1/lq9KJPVTmgCg66Nq
fXSyZlaanbmKh9LTcODBzP0=
=kOm6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 03/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Wiki folk,
>
> After approximately two and a half months of inactivity, I have decided to
> return to Foundation-l. And today, I would like to address something: an
> overhaul of Meta.
>
> The Wikimedia Meta-Wiki is, in my opinion, the portal of things relevant to
> every single involved member of Wikimedia projects. All of them. Yet, Meta
> is not quite to my standard. I remember some time ago there was an effort
> for cleaning up, but that seems to have turned to dust. This won't be some
> fancy project, this is just what I am thinking about and I want to see if
> you all get where I am heading at.
>
> 1) The current primary navigation system, [[Meta:Index]], is looking unhappy
> with needless branching out. I could probably do this on my own, but I was
> thinking that Meta:Index should be condensed as much as possible and -be
> restricted to functions on Meta only-. Things for other projects can have a
> similar navigation page. Likewise, the Meta:Index page should link to each
> of the language categories. Additionally, I would like to see the Index page
> more prominently featured on Meta.
>
> 2) The three messageboard pages -- Meta:Babel, Metapub, and Meta:Babylon --
> have very terrible names, considering their purposes. You'd think Meta:Babel
> would be about languages, but it's about Meta. You'd think Metapub would be
> able Meta, but it's about the WMF in general. Meta:Babylon may hint towards
> the idea of languages, but Meta:Babel sounds like a better candidate. I
> discuss this more here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Renaming_some_pages
>
> 3) The Main Page is a bit big. It's not really a problem, but some things
> could be transitioned over to Meta:Index or similar pages.
>
> 4) The feature where you get to select a language and then the interface is
> in that language is really cool -- but I think its implementation should be
> more conspicuous. For registered users, if they haven't selected their
> language(s) of preference yet, they should be able to set the options in
> Preferences. When this feature becomes available, there should be a message
> in the Sitenotice advertising such a thing. For anonymous users, it could be
> cookie-based; if there is no evidence that there is cache of Meta since the
> implementation of such a feature, then before they could view any other
> pages, they must set their language of preference first. This way, it is out
> in the open, and there is little possibility for confusion.
>
> 5) I've heard about discussion of this, but I think the translation
> functions of Meta should be moved to their own wiki. It would operate a lot
> more efficiently (more main page space could be dedicated to translation),
> and through special features made for translation wikis, it would be much
> more convenient as well. A translation community, so-to-speak, could
> establish a presence on such a wiki.
>
> These are ideas to consider. Additionally, I have thought of an idea
> involving streamlining communication throughout the Foundation, but I'll
> have more information on that later.
>
> Sincerely,
> MessedRocker
> (you can call me James)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

As I said before, I'm supporting this idea as much as I can. We need
it. Today it's not really urgent, but one day it will be necessary.
The sooner we make the better it is.

In fact, very few contributors come byt hemself to help on ".meta"
work. Actually the ones who are joining have been guided by someone
else, like a chaperone.

Meta. is perhaps a good place to work, but as a place to know where
you can help, it's not.
In my idea, meta. is the messy backoffice with archives, and "newwiki"
would be the frontoffice, the one everyone see.

--
schiste


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> Not always, anyway.  Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for
>> example, have been known to stray into the area of creative
>> interpretation.
>
>That's a case where subjective interpretation may be necessary in order
>to determine whether an item is a member of the list.

Fine, as long as it's some named independent authority's subjective
interpretation.  With, for example, the list of tall men, it was
entirely a construct of Wikipedia editors: some people decided what
tall means, and then changed the value until the list was not "too
big" (for whatever value of big might be too big) then introduced some
extra criteria to exclude most basketball players because otherwise it
was mainly a list of basketball players.

>In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top
>Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
>than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.

That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes.  Like saying
it was No. 1 in the charts.  But, as with the charts, including the
entire list violates copyright.  And to get the names requires either
interpretation of the pictures or watching every show.  There are no
independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish
the list in text form.

>If there's a show where season 1 stars Joe Bloe and Jane Foo, and season
>2 stars Jane Foo and Billy dePlume, would it be original research to
>have the cast list

>* Joe Bloe
>* Jane Foo
>* Billy dePlume

>in the article about that show, even if nobody else had ever published
>the list in a secondary source before?

A show with absolutely no independently published cast lists?  Sounds
like it lacks sources.  Is it notable? ;-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:24:40 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>It seems analogous to listing the recipients of other awards, which
>we've done quite freely throughout Wikipedia. If listing award
>recipients violates the copyright of the award-givers in an
>impermissible way this could have some rather drastic effects on other
>articles.

No.  Awards are published one per year, and listing recipients is a
matter of adding one per year, many secondary sources will do this. In
this case the Cool Wall is a construct of the show, the list of
vehicles with placements on the wall is more analogous to a pop chart,
and those definitely are copyright.

But we are all guessing, albeit that I have yet to hear a robust
analogy which is shown not to be copyright.  Where there are competing
guesses, I would suggest that we should be cautious, where copyright
is concerned.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:41:28 -0400, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

>I didn't know you were a copyright lawyer.

Where did I say that?  I said I *think* it's copyright, and gave my
reasoning.  In this thread we've seen some sound reasons supporting
the idea it's copyright, and some (IMO) rather weaker ones saying it's
not.  Obviously I have asked the BBC and will await their response.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>This smells highly of an attempt to delete listcrufy by whatever means and
>stretching definitions.  I've seen a lot of stretched definitions lately,
>and they can really hurt us in the future.  You are creating Wikipedia's
>Commerce Clause.

This is not a list article.  It's an article that reproduces someone
else's list within the text.  If you want listcruft, look at the list
of tall men.

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


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 03/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Wikimedia Meta-Wiki is, in my opinion, the portal of things relevant to
> every single involved member of Wikimedia projects. All of them. Yet, Meta
> is not quite to my standard. I remember some time ago there was an effort
> for cleaning up, but that seems to have turned to dust. This won't be some
> fancy project, this is just what I am thinking about and I want to see if
> you all get where I am heading at.

The stewards regard Meta as their playground and don't want outside
involvement. Even Anthere was pulling the sort of tricks that were
getting people arbcommed on a better-behaved wiki such as en:wp.
(Anthere, before you react with incredulity - I pointed these out to
you at the time.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:29:50 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>No, we're not reproducing the contents of Top Gear in its entirety. Not
>even remotely close.

We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety.  If we list
the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright.  If
we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate
that copyright.  It is quite possible the list of Academy Award
winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.  I would not
know.  At least there we have numerous precedents in other sources, I
can't find any other source that duplicates the Cool Wall list in its
entirety.

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


from_name: James Farrar

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 03/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:24:40 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >It seems analogous to listing the recipients of other awards, which
> >we've done quite freely throughout Wikipedia. If listing award
> >recipients violates the copyright of the award-givers in an
> >impermissible way this could have some rather drastic effects on other
> >articles.
>
> No.  Awards are published one per year, and listing recipients is a
> matter of adding one per year, many secondary sources will do this. In
> this case the Cool Wall is a construct of the show, the list of
> vehicles with placements on the wall is more analogous to a pop chart,
> and those definitely are copyright.
>
> But we are all guessing, albeit that I have yet to hear a robust
> analogy which is shown not to be copyright.  Where there are competing
> guesses, I would suggest that we should be cautious, where copyright
> is concerned.

Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 03/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety.  If we list
> the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright.  If
> we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate
> that copyright.

Cite?

>  It is quite possible the list of Academy Award
> winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.

You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.

"It's a copyright violation *and* it's original research. Probably
violates a patent too, if I looked closely enough."

> know.  At least there we have numerous precedents in other sources, I
> can't find any other source that duplicates the Cool Wall list in its
> entirety.

Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this message? Could
be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation
or original research.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:21:17 -0500, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Having followed this thread, I have to voice some frustration with your
>tactics, Guy. At one point you argue strongly that it's a copyvio. At
>the next moment that it's OR. And you seem to slip back and forth as is
>convenient for your argument. When someone makes a point in support of
>it not being a copyvio, you bring out the OR defense. And when someone
>makes a point about it not being OR, you bring out the copyvio defense.
>
>As I say, this leaves me frustrated. Not because I necessarily agree or
>disagree with any particular position, but because the conversation does
>not seem to be headed toward any conclusion.

So let me be clear: I think it's a copyvio, and should be excluded on
that basis.  That is my reason for removing it from the article.
Reproducing the list in its entirety is very very likely to violate
the BBC's copyright, which is asserted in the show.

I *also* think it's original research, in that we are to my knowledge
the only place where this list is reproduced outside of the BBC, but
that is a separate issue.

I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other"
applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.  But
my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC
says it is not copyright then I will add it back.  I have asked them.

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


body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:51:55 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>I think it's more likely that they disagree with the premise that it
>actually _is_ crap. And they very well might be right since labeling
>something "crap" can be highly subjective. Assume good faith, please.

What, like the personal essays on character traits of various
characters in video games?  I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 03/04/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?

And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about
their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]

[*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us letters claiming this after Jimbo
said "sue and be damned."

- d.


body:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:08:44 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>So I take it you'll be putting
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners>
>up for deletion, then? That list also records a copyrighted series of
>judgments. Doesn't matter if it's more widely known, it's still
>copyrighted under this interpretation.

Has anyone asked the Academy if they assert copyright over the list?

>You're taking an extreme fundamentalist position here that IMO can't
>possibly work if Wikipedia is to have meaningful coverage of anything
>post-1920s.

Oh thank you so much.  And there was I thinking that reproducing
chunks of stuff directly out of primary sources was forbidden by law,
and I was just trying to stop us getting sued. Now I realise that I am
just trying to prevent us covering anything at all that happened in
the last seventy-odd years.  Excuse me while I go and nominate
Wikipedia for deletion.

Oh, wait, I didn't actually nominate the article for deletion, did I?

Once upon a time there was a presumption that the editor seeking to
include text was responsible for justifying it.  Seems that's changed,
then.

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


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other"
> applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.

As I've said, "if not one then the other" ignores the fact that Wikipedia's
definition of "original research" is not the same as any legal definition
related to copyright.  It does *not* follow that if not one then the other.

> But
> my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC
> says it is not copyright then I will add it back.  I have asked them.

Why?  You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR.  If you truly
believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude
it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.

(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the
US anyway?  Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American*
law.)


body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:47:21 +1000, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>The particular question was quite interesting from this point of view:
>1) TV show randomly presents a different fact each episode
>2) TV show never explicitly publishes the list of facts.
>3) A third party collects them (mechanically) and publishes it.

Almost: the list does exist, not just as a one-per-week thing; the
Cool Wall uses pictures not text, though.  At the end of the show, the
Cool Wall is there with all the vehicles on it.

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


from_name: Jim Wilson

body:
> The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red,
> so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it
> taking me to an edit box.

I see Virgil's point - and this is especially painful when the wiki has
editing locked to only users (or only sysops etc).  Casual visitors that
want to see a list of articles in a category are thrust into a "You have to
login to edit" page.  Only the savviest of users will know to remove the
&action=edit from the URL to get a look at the actual Category.

Also, a similar argument can be made for system messages.   If you search
for a system message (like MediaWiki:1movedto2) that has a default value but
hasn't been overridden, you'll get no search results with a "create this
page" link.  Clicking the link takes you either to an edit form prepopulated
with the data, or a view-source page if you're not a sysop.

In either case, you may just want to see the content of the message, which
exists, but not in the "article" sense.

I guess the system message handling would be considered a separate issue,
but similar insofar as it has to do with getting an edit form when the
regular page has something you want.

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

On 4/2/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just 1
> member,
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/019259.html ),
> and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with
> disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red
> category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
>
> This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories
> can
> still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a
> category
> (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see the
> members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is
> classed
> as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go into
> editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 03/04/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > http://muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page

> I already contacted them a while ago about the name. They seem to be
> in the process of changing it to "MuslimWiki" now.

And they've noted this on their front page. All good, and they're even GFDL :-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:14:21 +0100, "James Farrar"
<james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:

>Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?

I have done so.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, AvB wrote:
> Copyright is about *form*.
> Original research is about *information*.
> Guy seems to be arguing the list may be OR in view of the latter criterion.

He seems to be arguing "if it's not copyright, then it must be OR, because
if it's novel enough to not count as copyright, it's novel enough to be OR".
Since as you've pointed out, copyright and OR aren't the same thing, this
doesn't make sense.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:22:06 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Has anyone considered actually asking the BBC their opinion?

>And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about
>their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]

Did Clarkson die more than seventy years ago?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:17:25 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> We are, however, listing the cool wall in its entirety.  If we list
>> the Top Ten singles chart in its entirety, we violate copyright.  If
>> we list all the number one hits, it has also been stated we violate
>> that copyright.

>Cite?

I'll find the OTRS ticket ref for you if you like.  The company sent
us an email asking us to remove the list.

>>  It is quite possible the list of Academy Award
>> winners *is* copyright, but it has never been enforced.

>You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.

Convenience?  In what way is it convenient to me to have a days-long
argument over the removal of cruft from a crufty article?  Frankly I
don't give a flying fuck about the content, but I *do* care if we
violate copyright.  Silly of me, I know - and evil, apparently, in
that I'm just trying to wreck Wikipedia.  I thought I was doing the
right thing removing content with ambiguous at best copyright status,
perhaps I will know better last time.

>Is that an argument for or against its inclusion this message? Could
>be either, depending whether you're calling it a copyright violation
>or original research.

Yup.  But first and foremost I think it's a copyvio.  I still don't
think Wikipedia should *ever* be the first place to publish a concept,
but copyright is the big problem here in my view.

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


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 3 Apr 2007 at 08:17, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> You're slipping into something resembling Copyright Paranoia For Convenience.
>
> "It's a copyright violation *and* it's original research. Probably
> violates a patent too, if I looked closely enough."

And a trademark.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top
> >Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
> >than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
>
> That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes.  Like saying
> it was No. 1 in the charts.  But, as with the charts, including the
> entire list violates copyright.

Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.

>  And to get the names requires either
> interpretation of the pictures or watching every show.  There are no
> independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish
> the list in text form.

OH MY GOD! Someone watched every show! I know, let's shut down
Wikipedia for three months.

(Yes, that's someone else's idea, but it does seem to be silly season
right now.)