subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/20/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Might depend on the fact. Something neutral such as "Joe Foo" lives in
> "Crankytown California" might me ok

Come to think about it even a normally "neutral" fact might have some
POV and OR issues. Let's take "date of birth" for example...

There is an article about a notable model named "Carmen Roe".

Carmen Roe claims to be 19 years old.

Somebody digs up a copy of her birth certificate that shows that she
is 26 and updates her Wikipedia entry.

If such was done, it would be using "original research" to show that
she "lied about her age". The article now violates both OR and NPOV.
It would be the same as if somebody found a copy of her medical
records that says she is HIV+ and added that. In both cases the
article should be reverted until it's reported by a "real" news
organization.

So perhaps what this whole issue boils down to is "Wikipedia doesn't
do investigative journalism".


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

body:
Well, Sheldon, this assumes that the Foundation has authority *over* the
community, which the Foundation more or less denies.  So whatever
corporate powers I have or don't have are likely quite different from
whatever powers our community traditions give me.

Several board members have made it quite clear that they don't intend to
interfere with that one way or the other.

The community predates the Foundation, and was created to hold certain
legal assets and fulfill certain legal responsibilities.

Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Stevertigo wrote:
>
>> But the
>> fact is that until Jimbo decides otherwise, he is the reigning
>> monarch.
>
> He already HAS decided otherwise, by creating the Wikimedia
> Foundation and transferring the assets of Wikipedia from his private
> company to the foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation's bylaws clearly
> state, "All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the
> authority of, and the business and affairs of the Foundation shall be
> managed under, the direction of the Board of Trustees. ... The act of
> the majority of the Trustees present at a meeting at which a quorum
> is present shall be the act of the Board of Trustees." Moreover, "Any
> Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of the full membership of
> the Board."
>
> In short, Jimbo's powers only exist insofar as they are granted to
> him by the full board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation, on
> which he only holds one seat. Moreover, the other trustees could
> remove him from the board if they so chose. If it were their desire
> to do so, in fact, they could impose limits on his powers up to and
> including banning him entirely from editing Wikipedia.
>
> This does not mean, of course, that he has no powers. It merely means
> that his powers are derived from (and therefore limited by) the
> consent of the full board of the foundation, which chooses to grant
> him certain powers based on the trust he has accumulated through his
> history as a leader of the project. If, however, a dispute were to
> arise over the question of who has ultimate power, there is little
> doubt that a court of law would rule in favor of the board.
>
> In short: The king is dead. Long live Jimbo!
>
> --------------------------------
> |  Sheldon Rampton
> |  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
> |  Author of books including:
> |     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
> |     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
> |     Mad Cow USA
> |     Trust Us, We're Experts
> |     Weapons of Mass Deception
> |     Banana Republicans
> |     The Best War Ever
> --------------------------------
> |  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
> |  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
> |
> |  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
> |  https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
> --------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:

> These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you
> missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free
> Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR
> and RS,  it was announced on the Village Pump...

I don't know how I missed it, and my misisng it is ultimately no one's
responsibility but my own, I want to make that absolutely 100% clear.

HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends a good
deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that do for
overall consensus?

-Jeff


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

>> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT people still didn't notice.  If it's not
>> easy for well-established Wikiaddicts to know about such a proposal,
>> what's going to happen?
>
> You posted on the ATT talk page on February 16 just as it was going
> live. You said it "looks excellent" and that you were about to start
> the process of "breaking apart" RS, and you seemed to want to speed up
> (not slow down) the development of the ATT/FAQ page to replace RS.

Indeed.  The discussion had gone, what, 4 months by then?  I don't see a
problem with it personally, but I didn't get much input into it either.

-Jeff


list: commons-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
So I'm learning Perl now. So I needed a project to sharpen my
programming claws with. So I remembered people not happy with the
MediaWiki commons interface. So I thought I'd steal from the best and
wrote a new one.

Flickr-Like cOMMONS = Flommons

Misc examples:
* Single picture
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&mode=single_image&image=Venice_-_Church_of_St._Maria_Formosa_reflected_on_water.jpg

* Files uploaded by a user (newest images first)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&foruser=Magnus_Manske&mode=user_files&before=20061109094531

* Category view (newest images first)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&mode=category&category=Canals_of_Venice

* Welcome screen (as me, though there's no real login)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=Magnus_Manske

* Search results
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=Magnus_Manske&mode=search&query=stern&doit=Search

Notes:
* Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
* No login or upload (yet?)
* Normal blue links stay in Flommons, light-blue links go to Commons

The thing is a single Perl script. Maybe I should go and rewrite
MediaWiki like that. Oh wait... (anyone aroung long enough to get this
joke?)

Magnus

P.S.: Comments always welcome :-)


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> The AC has done this for a while anyway - "Principles" are the AC
> trying to sensibly state what they think the rules are.

The principles are usually statements (sometimes interpretations) of
existing policy, AC doesn't create new policy with them. AC will only
refer to something in the principles if it is already accepted as
policy.


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are
> simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your
> role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role?
> Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months
> of work?

Ah!  Good questions but I think we have experience and therefore good
answers.

There is *tension* between the two, to be sure.  I am sometimes yelled
at for not taking an active enough role, and sometimes for being too
active.  And I don't take that as a sign that I am doing everything
right, but as a sign that I can and do make errors in both directions.
I do have the great virtue of boring reasonableness, though, so I
generally don't go too far in any one direction.

Here is an experience: I used to be (years ago) the only person who
could ban people.  I never delegated that power to Larry Sanger, in part
because he would have banned people who were good contributors who
simply had the audacity to disagree with Larry.  (Cunctator was a prime
example.)

We wondered: gee, what can we do, who else would have the symbolic
authority to wade in and finally ban a difficult user?  And we came up
with a community institution to handle it: the ArbCom.  And there was
fear about this: I had proven myself to be basically non-insane with
banning policy (though of course not everyone agreed with everything,
but I don't think anyone seriously thought I was a total tyrant nor a
troll coddler)... but would an ArbCom go out of control?

Over time we have slowly built the ArbCom into a viable institution that
works reasonably well.

In a case like this one: we can think, gee, but who could wade in and
put a delay and ask for a broader community vote on a major policy.  And
I think the answer is again: institutionalization of a process.

But, you know, institutionalization really really sucks in some major
ways.  So we like to keep it lightweight and as free from rules
lawyering as possible.  So we need to experiment and have the ability to
turn back from experiments that went wrong.

> Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch.
> If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new
> leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many
> deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is
> a very good thing to have.

My daughter said something fun to me the other night.  We were playing
and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world."

Me: "Hmm?"
Her: "Wikipedia.  I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new
founder of Wikipedia."

Well, she's 6 years old, but maybe we could have a hereditary
constitutional monarch.  (This is just me joking around, please no
panic.  But be nice to Kira if you ever meet her. ha ha.)

Seriously, could we have an elected President who could take such
actions?  Wow, that is really hard for me to imagine.  I would not wish
such a job on anyone.  It would be all the bad parts of being the Jimbo
of the Wikipedia and none of the good parts.

> If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your
> rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective
> it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?

Yes.  Absolutely.  We have no other mechanism right now to say when
something is or is not law.

Of course, England has the same thing.  The Queen has to approve each
law.  The monarch has done so without exception since, well, I don't
know right now, but you could look it up in Wikipedia.

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

> Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case
> for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work
> is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".

I don't think any work was wiped out at all!  At the present time the
only change from yesterday at this time is that WP:V and WP:NOR do not
redirect to sections in WP:ATT, but instead declare themselves to be
merely explanatory whereas WP:ATT is canonical.

Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a
slight editorial change.

--Jimbo


body:
This bit of exchange happened at the end of a longer email but I wanted
to feature it more prominently in case other people had the
misunderstanding that I have somehow "wiped out months of work".

The removal of two redirects does not amount to wiping out months of work.

Steve wrote:
 > Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case
 > for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work
 > is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".

I don't think any work was wiped out at all!  At the present time the
only change from yesterday at this time is that WP:V and WP:NOR do not
redirect to sections in WP:ATT, but instead declare themselves to be
merely explanatory whereas WP:ATT is canonical.

Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a
slight editorial change.

--Jimbo


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Where Jimbo has taken a peculiar stand on an
> issue diplomacy is warranted.

And diplomacy is something that works very well.  I have many faults,
but refusal to listen is not really among them.  I make mistakes, but I
am calm and educable.  I try to land in the center on most issues,
rather than staking out any sort of extreme positions.  And I try to
represent all parts of the community's interest in the broad building of
consensus as being better than gang warfare.


from_name: Sam Blacketer

body:
James Farrar james.farrar at gmail.com writes:
> On 21/03/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Since 1708 (last Bill refused Royal Assent was to allow a Scottish nobleman
> > to set up a private army, incidentally). The House of Lords analogy is a
> > good one but poorly timed since last night they knowingly broke one of their
> > few self-imposed rules and vetoed a Bill at second reading.
>
> Actually, the [[Salisbury Convention]] does not apply as the Fraud (Trials
> Without a Jury) Bill was not a manifesto commitment.

I was referring to their voting against any Bill at second reading. This happens
only very rarely.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15


body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:

> In the future, we would be quite happy when look back to this day. I
> am certain we will say that this was all a "good thing" for the project.

With a lot of recent issues, I've been questioning the maturity of the
project.  We're suffering some odd growing pains, and I think that this is
one of the results of our inconsistencies and our immaturity as a project
overall.  To hear the guy who's responsible for keeping WP:IAR in business
not only press for a better process for policymaking, but suggest a poll,
is somewhat mindblowing to me.

I mean, maybe it's time to be honest with ourselves?  Dare I say that
"consensus" as we know it may not be the best route for a lot of these
decisions?  That perhaps "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" needs to be
"Wikipedia sometimes has to be a bureaucracy, even if it wishes it didn't
have to be?"

We have a hard enough time keeping up with reality as is - we're getting
poor press in the webcomic community AGAIN because of the DRV about the
comics book edited by Ted Rall today, we still can't bring ourselves to
use the same sources ABC does, etc etc - is this a symptom of that?

I don't know.  But it's something we might have to seriously look at and
stop sweeping under the proverbial rug.

-Jeff


from_name: Slim Virgin

body:
On 3/21/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Slim Virgin wrote:
>
> > Not so. We posted to NOR and V that ATT would go live soon *so long as
> > there were no major objections*.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&diff=108889776&oldid=108877841
> >
> > That was one day *after* you first posted to the ATT talk page. So you
> > did know about it in plenty of time to object, and anyone with those
> > pages on their watchlist would have seen those notices.
>
> I had the *opportunity* to know about it, yes.  But I didn't, not that it
> mattered, because I had no major objection.
>
Okay, that was all I wanted to establish. Notices were posted in
places that were on your watchlist, and you took part in a talk page
discussion about it, saying you thought it was "excellent," *before*
it went live. And yet now you say you didn't know about it.

Look, I'm not having a go at you, and I'm sorry you're the person I'm
focusing on. But I find this whole thing both funny and sad. People
*did* know about this, and people *did* support it. Months later,
Jimbo sees that NOR and V have the word "superseded" on them, and he
worries that it sounds too close to "deprecated," so he removes those
tags and expresses his concern that two important pages about separate
concepts seem to have disappeared in some sense, and he wants to know
whether this was discussed widely enough. This is a perfectly
respectable position to take. I wasn't particularly keen on the word
"superseded" myself.

But because it's Jimbo, a bunch of people turn up wanting to agree
with him, and then in fact go further than he went, saying they didn't
know about it either, and if they had, they might have objected. Then
we find out they *did* know about it, and didn't object at all.

I'm getting the impression that if Jimbo had turned up and said what a
marvellous innovation it was and how he loved it, the pages of the
authors would be full of barnstars today, possibly given by the same
people who are now complaining. I'm not including you in that, Jeff,
or Guy who posted earlier along the same lines, because I know you'd
both be saying this regardless and I respect your opinion. But there
are others who I know are just swinging with the wind, and it's really
annoying. This was a good merge of two key policies, and it should be
looked at on its merits, and not supported or derided based on who
else is doing the same.

Sarah


from_name: Bennett Haselton

subject: [WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated

body:
By the way, since these list archives are public, I'm assuming that
anything that someone said in response to my query is basically OK to quote
them on for an article?  Please let me know if you said anything you would
*not* like to be quoted on.  Mainly I'd just like to give proper credit in
some cases where something sounded like a good idea, like Sheldon's
proposal to have users with verified credentials stamp the stories that
they have "approved".

	-Bennett


body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>> HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends
>> a good
>> deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that
>> do for
>> overall consensus?
>
> Have you checked WP:ATT?

Yeah, I finally found it in February.

>
> What do you think of the work done there? Is it useful, or not? Does
> it advance the project or not? Does it make it easier for newbies to
> understand, or not?

I don't think it's an improvement or a step backward.  My preferences are
to keep them apart, but that's purely cosmetic, and that's no reason to
oppose something anyway - when the concepts are broken and out of date, it
doesn't matter how you present them if the insides are still the same.

>
> Those are *better* questions than the one you asked.

Yeah, but those questions didn't matter by the time I saw ATT - the
process was already said and done.

-Jeff


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"David Gerard" wrote

> > So you're suggesting that ArbCom have a role in policy making similar
> > to the role Bureaucrats have in RfAs? They come along after all the
> > discussion and determine if a consensus exists? I like that idea, it's
> > very easy to implement and would solve quite a lot of the confusion
> > that almost always surrounds changes in policy.

> The AC has done this for a while anyway - "Principles" are the AC
> trying to sensibly state what they think the rules are.

AC Principles are

(a) things the AC is actually prepared to act on to set remedies (rather than aspirational stuff)

that

(b) resembles policy in that they pitched in general terms

and

(c) have a role in the interpretation of existing policy, and sketching things perhaps missing from policy

which

(d) provide, with findings of fact, some sort of explanation of conclusions in a case

without

(e) having legislative force, or setting firm precedents.

AC Principles are more important for their value as precedent than as policy (i.e. once passed in a case, they presumably will get paased another time). But they don't even bind the AC, let alone constitute firm policy. If you take them as communicating the AC's thinking, yes, that is enough for most people.

Charles

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
> Of course, Jimbo's best solution for dealing with the growing distance between him
> & the average Wikipedian is to travel & meet more -- which he is doing. But Jimbo
> is one person, life is short, & the number of Wikimedians is great.

If I was in Jimbo's position and was wanting to improve my understanding
of the average Wikipedian, I think a relatively easy way to do it would
be to get myself a sock puppet account and do a little editing _as_ an
average Wikipedian. I'd try out the things that are the sources of
controversy, such as AfD or the use of certain types of sources. Get
into disagreements with some average Wikipedians and see what they think
policy and standard practice really are. Continuing the monarchy
analogy, this would be sort of like the Prince and the Pauper.

Perhaps he already does this. In which case, never mind. :)


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/21/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy.
>
> Ec

I think we should credit John with the original discovery.

--
geni


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> So I'm learning Perl now. So I needed a project to sharpen my
> programming claws with. So I remembered people not happy with the
> MediaWiki commons interface. So I thought I'd steal from the best and
> wrote a new one.
>
> Flickr-Like cOMMONS = Flommons

Nice work

> * Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
How does MW handle that then? Or do you mean on the toolserver? (=poke DaB)

> * No login or upload (yet?)
> * Normal blue links stay in Flommons, light-blue links go to Commons
You should add red-links (or is it light-red?) for non-existing pages
(as most image talk).

> The thing is a single Perl script. Maybe I should go and rewrite
> MediaWiki like that. Oh wait... (anyone aroung long enough to get this
> joke?)
easy: [[Mediawiki#History]]
But wait... how is it you're learning Perl *now*?

> Magnus
>
> P.S.: Comments always welcome :-)

Is it viewable?  common.php?common_source=flommons.pl is blank ;)

PS: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} images doesn't show license, i guess they
pd? :D


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at wikia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 01:01 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
>
>jf_wikipedia wrote:
>> (a) What was done that we should not have done;
>
>The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make
>the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that
>such a fundamental change was about to take place.  Many have reported
>being baffled and unhappy with the change.
>
>> (b) What was not done that we should have done;
>
>A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion
>to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or
>"vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
>
>This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious
>assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and
>a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed.
>All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes
>democratic rather than power struggles.
>
>> (c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
>
>We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
>
>> (d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does
>> not happen again?
>
>I think this would be a good thing, yes.  I do not want to have a veto
>over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of
>all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept
>it at all of course :) ).  But I think it is important that for really
>major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
>
>--Jimbo

This suggestion is an elaboration of a principle that was developed in an arbitration case. Policy doings need to be closed, just like a Request for Deletion. Someone, or a small group, needs to evaluate the depth and breath of the policy discussion and if there is consensus, proclaim the policy as adopted. And, I might add, consider whether a fundamental policy such as NPOV, is diminished or violated by the new policy.

Fred


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

> Not so. We posted to NOR and V that ATT would go live soon *so long as
> there were no major objections*.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&diff=108889776&oldid=108877841
>
> That was one day *after* you first posted to the ATT talk page. So you
> did know about it in plenty of time to object, and anyone with those
> pages on their watchlist would have seen those notices.

I had the *opportunity* to know about it, yes.  But I didn't, not that it
mattered, because I had no major objection.

-Jeff


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Hoi,
Given that the argument why only American people were included was the
cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the
study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the
United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with
respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will
not reflect how this project works.

When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true
to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people.
Thanks,
     GerardM

Robert Brockway schreef:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>> US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language
>> Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with
>> small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all
>> subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for
>> does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be
>> missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
>>
>
> He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
> Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United
> States.
>
> I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a
> bias in the study.  Let me give another example that might make this
> clearer.  If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly
> studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a
> bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study.  Similarly
> if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be
> about left handed US residents.  This does not imply any bias in the
> study.  Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it
> comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that
> is done.
>
> It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this
> study clearly isn't doing that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at wikia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:40 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR
>
>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michael_Langan&diff=116513802&oldid=116432075
>>
>> What the hell is going on here? Some of the sentences Jimbo removed:
>> "In 2002 the owners of the Mega Society, a high IQ society, filed suit
>> against Langan and his wife, Gina LoSasso, for unauthorized use of the
>> society's trademarks and trade names.[29][30][31]"
>>
>> This is original research?
>
>Yes.  To my knowledge, this has never been written up in any newspaper,
>magazine, or book.  It was discovered by reading websites that I think
>we would all agree are not themselves reliable sources and by
>referencing official court documents.  The case, what happened in it,
>the outcome, are all matters of interpretation involving original
>research, and indeed the question of whether or not this is important
>enough to include (raising questions of undue weight) is in this case
>original research.
>
>> Why remove this stuff? I find this drive-by management style of
>> Jimbo's so frustrating - how can this level of chaos, disruption and
>> confusion be worth whatever is being gained? He arrives on an article,
>> removes text in this "I am so right and you are so wrong" manner, then
>> disappears again.
>
>Disappears?  I am right here, all day every day.
>
>I made no policy declarations.  I responded to an ACTIVE WP:BLP
>complaint by taking an action perfectly within policy and which required
>no special authority or dictatorship powers by anyone.  Anyone could
>have made the same removal, for the same reason, and caution and a
>desire for upholding our traditional policies should lead everyone to be
>very cautious in this area.
>
>--Jimbo

Yep, he did what any editor should do. This is well established, if not always observed, policy and the conclusion the arbitration committee came to when we considered the case and banned the subject and his wife from editing it. If they can't edit it, others should not be allowed to turn it into a hatchet job. No way is this a radical definition of original research, although it may be a bit subtle...you shouldn't use Wikipedia to beat on people.

There is all this authority behind Jimbo. There are a couple of problems: there is a drive-by aspect to it, it's Jimbo and you feel you should defer; the other problem is much more serious, by doing this Jimbo doesn't have the experience of being an ordinary editor that people feel they can ignore, of vainly citing policy and being told, forcefully, with the threat of a block, that he's just "trolling".

Fred


list: wikitech-l

from_name: thomas Armstrong

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to include RSS feeds of history pages

body:
Hi.

Working with MediaWiki v1.6.10, I'd like to include RSS feeds of
history feeds (similar to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MP3&action=history&feed=rss )

How to implement it?

Thank you very much.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I think that I serve a useful role in, for example, this situation with
> WP:ATT.  A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge
> number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted.  I
> view my role in Wikipedia as being primarily about the defense of the

<snip>

> is completely unnecessary.  It is my intention to fade into a purely
> symbolic position over time.

IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are
simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your
role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role?
Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months
of work?

Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch.
If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new
leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many
deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is
a very good thing to have.

> In a case like the present one, there is actually no really good answer
> about how policy shifts become official.  In the case of 3RR, we had an
> excellent approach... a broad disucssion, a community vote, and then my
> personal certification that policy had changed.  This led to a clear and
> definable policy shift, without a wheel war or factions fighting endlessly.

If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your
rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective
it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?

> But we don't have to solve all the big picture constitutional questions
> when we can simply move forward usefully in the meantime.

Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case
for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work
is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".

Steve


body:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I have long suspected that Brits implicitly get the governance model
> here better than Americans do.  I think we Americans tend to want an a
> priori constitution which defines everything, and we pretend that
> "convention" in the British sense doesn't play a role in our government
> (though it does).

Heh. I'm Australian - we're theoretically governed by a monarch from
another country! So I'm certainly comfortable with a mostly symbolic
figurehead who nevertheless wields a very big stick. But let's just be
clear on how big the stick is, and how much we need to pheer it. I
think this conversation has done much to clarify the answer to that
question.

Steve


body:
Hoi,
Steve please tell me /why /I am wrong in stead of resorting to a
personal attack, not nice.

Thanks, for your recommendation to Harvard. However, given that I am of
an age that working is more likely than studying, I hope that your
recommendation is also good for Google.. :)

Thanks,
    GerardM

Steve schreef:
> By golly I suppose you'd better just call Michigan State University
> and tell them the bad news.
>
> Surely, when they read this INTERNET CONVERSATION they will surely see
> their folly in conducting this study. Gerard I think you'd better
> contact Harvard, too. Keeping your great wisdom from them is inhumane.
>
> -S
>
> On 3/21/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Given that the argument why only American people were included was the
>> cost of international telephony, your argument sucks. By restricting the
>> study to the United States it is explicitly about Wikipedia usage in the
>> United States. When you want to come to a conclusion on any subject with
>> respect to policies in the English language Wikipedia, the result will
>> not reflect how this project works.
>>
>> When you study left handed people, you will find only what is only true
>> to left handed people by comparing the results to right handed people.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>> Robert Brockway schreef:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> US Wikipedians will probably all be working on the English language
>>>> Wikipedia. It means that all the skills and experience associated with
>>>> small communities, working on an encyclopaedia that does not cover all
>>>> subject matter. Working on languages where the community it is done for
>>>> does not know what Wikipedia is, it is that experience that will be
>>>> missing. In that way it will hardly cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He doesn't claim to be attempting to cover the breadth of Wikipedia.
>>> Implicit in the post is that it concerns Wikipedia usage in the United
>>> States.
>>>
>>> I find it is common for people to mistake limits placed on a study with a
>>> bias in the study.  Let me give another example that might make this
>>> clearer.  If a study concerns left handed people (one of the most commonly
>>> studied groups) then failing to include non-left handed people is not a
>>> bias in the study, it is a function of the limits of a study.  Similarly
>>> if a study wanted only left handed US residents then the study would be
>>> about left handed US residents.  This does not imply any bias in the
>>> study.  Any study worthy of the name will go in to great detail when it
>>> comes to methodology of subject selection and any subsequent testing that
>>> is done.
>>>
>>> It will be great when smaller WP communities are studied too but this
>>> study clearly isn't doing that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Rob


body:
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > (b) What was not done that we should have done;
>
> A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion
> to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or
> "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.

Broad is the keyword here. To really get everyone notified, a specific
announcement should be made to this list, to Village pump/policy, and
probably several other key on-wiki discussion pages (including User
talk:Jimbo Wales). And probably on the IRC server too. Notifications
during the discussion phase, and during the !voting phase.

> > (c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
>
> We do not have a simple clear definition of this.

Yeah. Newbies' opinions should somehow not be given equal weight.

> it at all of course :) ).  But I think it is important that for really
> major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.

Definition of "major shift of policy", anyone? :)

Steve, who admits to having been "baffled" but not "unhappy" by the
change to WP:ATT. ymmv.


body:
>When we were developing BLP, there was no committee, no poll, no
>seeking of specific authorization from Jimbo. It was clearly a good
>proposal, clearly needed in some form, and everyone who posted about
>it wanted it in broad terms. It was then just a question of filling in
>the details and making sure it was consistent with the other policies.

>Sarah

In the case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], Jimbo was very much behind it, and had a good head of steam on. Perhaps this was not visible to folks who were not a part of the arbitration committee, but that was the case. Thus you knew you had Jimbo behind you.

This can be contrasted with [[Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises]] which has languished without any serious attention, other than a Free Republic activist's. While I tried to interest Jimbo and Brad, I was unsuccessful with either of them.

Fred


body:
Slim Virgin wrote:

> Okay, that was all I wanted to establish. Notices were posted in
> places that were on your watchlist, and you took part in a talk page
> discussion about it, saying you thought it was "excellent," *before*
> it went live. And yet now you say you didn't know about it.

You seem to misunderstand me, then.  This discussion was apparently
ongoing for four months, and I found out that it was going to move forward
the day after I first hear about it.

That's not me knowing about it.  That's like saying I watched the baseball
game because I checked the score in the 9th inning and saw it was 8-1.

> Look, I'm not having a go at you, and I'm sorry you're the person I'm
> focusing on. But I find this whole thing both funny and sad. People
> *did* know about this, and people *did* support it. Months later,
> Jimbo sees that NOR and V have the word "superseded" on them, and he
> worries that it sounds too close to "deprecated," so he removes those
> tags and expresses his concern that two important pages about separate
> concepts seem to have disappeared in some sense, and he wants to know
> whether this was discussed widely enough. This is a perfectly
> respectable position to take. I wasn't particularly keen on the word
> "superseded" myself.

I don't mind being the target, or I'd duck out of this.  I think his
concern is valid - when we preach about the core concepts so often, and he
feels as if these core concepts have been changed in a way that even he
didn't notice, he sees a problem.  That's valid - again, I had no clue
about these changes until the changes were imminent, and JzG and mikkalai
have both expressed similar concerns.

Some of this might be what Pilotguy (I think) said earlier - maybe Jimbo
doesn't know what's going on very well anymore.  I have a hard time
arguing it, seeing recent activity, but it harkens to a greater issue as
to whether, when we're talking about the main issues that govern the site,
we're actually getting a *true* consensus of the active editors, or simply
a self-selecting consensus of those that show up.  A self-selecting sample
may work well at, say, WP:MUSIC, because it's ultimately only going to
affect those editors who work within music guidelines.  But when
well-established - and in the case of folks like JzG, well-respected -
editors feel blindsided by a change to the core policy (even if the change
is cosmetic), there's a problem with our consensus building techniques.
Whether we got it right with ATT doesn't mean the road we took was proper.

> But because it's Jimbo, a bunch of people turn up wanting to agree
> with him, and then in fact go further than he went, saying they didn't
> know about it either, and if they had, they might have objected. Then
> we find out they *did* know about it, and didn't object at all.
>
> I'm getting the impression that if Jimbo had turned up and said what a
> marvellous innovation it was and how he loved it, the pages of the
> authors would be full of barnstars today, possibly given by the same
> people who are now complaining. I'm not including you in that, Jeff,
> or Guy who posted earlier along the same lines, because I know you'd
> both be saying this regardless and I respect your opinion. But there
> are others who I know are just swinging with the wind, and it's really
> annoying. This was a good merge of two key policies, and it should be
> looked at on its merits, and not supported or derided based on who
> else is doing the same.

Well, yes, it works both ways on this.  The "Cult of Jimbo" as I
affectionately call it is always fine, as long as you're part of it, hehe.
 I know you know where I'm coming from, and I understand your frustration
here as well.  But I think we're not taking this as an opportunity to
improve things for later - if it's a good idea, it'll happen, and it'll
take longer, and I'll even get involved.  But that doesn't mean we can't
have a significant discussion as to how to improve the visibility of these
issues so people who spend more time thna they should on this project know
that they're on top of what's going on.

-Jeff


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 21/03/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > "In 2002 the owners of the Mega Society, a high IQ society, filed suit
> > > against Langan and his wife, Gina LoSasso, for unauthorized use of the
> > > society's trademarks and trade names.[29][30][31]"
> > >
> > > This is original research?
> > Yes.  To my knowledge, this has never been written up in any newspaper,
> > magazine, or book.  It was discovered by reading websites that I think
> > we would all agree are not themselves reliable sources and by
> > referencing official court documents.  The case, what happened in it,
> > the outcome, are all matters of interpretation involving original
> > research
>
> I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document
> stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original
> research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
>
> You can argue that it's a notability problem if the only source is the court
> document, but poor notability is not original research.

It is, in a way; it implies the conclusion that the obscure material
we discuss and cite is significant, and when no secondary source
touches on this point, there may well be good reasons for that.

It's the problem with so many of our articles - someone comes along
and adds a "controversy" section on the one thing they care about, and
cites it and tidies it, and in the end you have a stub saying
"MegaCorp is a global multinational financial services industry with a
twelve billion dollar turnover. [Three pages on How Their Director Had
A Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit Filed]" All accurate and all, but giving
a very wrong impression when viewed holistically.

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Feature request: Random article in specified
	category

body:
demute wrote:
> It would be really nice if wikipedias Special:random-function could take
> arguments, making it possible to get a random article from user-specified
> categories.
> A suggestion to do this is as follows. When a user click on the "random
> article" link the random article is loaded with a comment on the top of the
> page saying something like "you requested a random article. click here to
> view options" and so the the user can mark which categories the article
> should come from. The settings can either be stored in a cookie or they can
> be sent in the URI.
> Everyone would love this feature!

I would perhaps find it useful sometimes, but I doubt I would love it as
described. I have [[Special:Random]] set as my browser's homepage and
having a pastel-shaded banner appear at the top of the page every time
ala [[Clippy]] would become quite annoying.

I'd suggest leaving the default behavior of [[Special:Random]] alone and
 make this behavior a new option. It might make a good addition to the
search page.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document
>stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original
>research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.

Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way.  Wrong in
the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary
source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is.  How hard
will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that?  If you can't,
then it probably *is* trivial.

Further down we have a discussion of a subject for which *no*
secondary sources yet exist, and which is compiled explicitly and with
due acknowledgement from primary sources alone.  I find that a problem
as well.  How do we know what the reaction of the relevant academic
community is if they have not yet published a single review paper?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re:  WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:59 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>Part of the problem is that it is very hard these days to contact a
>significant section of the communiy other than say through
>MediaWiki:Watchdetails.

Maybe we should hook into a meta page or something, like with the
fund-raising drive.  Proposals for significant change to policy get
flagged up in an info bar, and stay there until you click-through or
dismiss the thing.

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


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
On 3/21/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Flommons could be the interface for people who don't care about wikis,
> > and just want to find interesting content.
>
> Yeah, and great work. If this were to be presented to some users, it'd
> be nice to get away from looking too much like Flickr.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

{{copyvio}}
*chuckles*


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
Looks great. Pity you can't edit etc. from it. This would require a
login :( Maybe also a flickr like authentication system should be
implemented :) [1]

But wouldn't big parts not be implementable as a skin?

Bryan

[1] http://www.flickr.com/services/api/misc.userauth.html

On 3/21/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > So I'm learning Perl now. So I needed a project to sharpen my
> > programming claws with. So I remembered people not happy with the
> > MediaWiki commons interface. So I thought I'd steal from the best and
> > wrote a new one.
> >
> > Flickr-Like cOMMONS = Flommons
>
> Nice work
>
> > * Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
> How does MW handle that then? Or do you mean on the toolserver? (=poke DaB)
>
> > * No login or upload (yet?)
> > * Normal blue links stay in Flommons, light-blue links go to Commons
> You should add red-links (or is it light-red?) for non-existing pages
> (as most image talk).
>
> > The thing is a single Perl script. Maybe I should go and rewrite
> > MediaWiki like that. Oh wait... (anyone aroung long enough to get this
> > joke?)
> easy: [[Mediawiki#History]]
> But wait... how is it you're learning Perl *now*?
>
> > Magnus
> >
> > P.S.: Comments always welcome :-)
>
> Is it viewable?  common.php?common_source=flommons.pl is blank ;)
>
> PS: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} images doesn't show license, i guess they
> pd? :D
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


body:
On 3/21/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial*
> bill exactly once.  If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against
> Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people
> would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first
> opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
>

Such a bill isn't constitutionally possible. Parliament doesn't have
the power to declare war. Declaration of war is still a Royal
Prerogative which in practice means it is up to the prime minister not
Parliament. Mind you under the current set up even he can't directly
order the use of nuclear weapons.

--
geni


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:05:05 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>But there's the problem - such a fundamental change, one could attest,
>WASN'T known.  I wasn't under a rock for the five months that this was
>discussed, and I had WP:V and WP:RS on my watchlist, yet I had no clue.
>How does that happen, exactly?

Precisely.

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


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:51:35 -0700, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com>
wrote:

>These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you
>missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free
>Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR
>and RS,  it was announced on the Village Pump...

Post-facto, yes.  I had no idea it was subject to a promotion debate,
or even /active/ any more, prior to the announcement on the admin
noticeboard that it was now policy replacing NOR, V and RS.

And I have not been hiding under a rock either.

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


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:44:21AM +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> Scientific papers are primary sources.
> >
> >Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
> >observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
>
> The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary
> source.

This lack of agreement has come up on WP talk:Notability recently and is
clear evidence that the distinction that some policies and guidelines
make between primary and secondary sources is meaningless. As someone
else said, this distinction is not used by scientists. I make a
distinction between journal articles and review articles, but even the
latter increasingly contain new research from the authors group. We
should be very carefull about building anything on the distinction
between primary and secondary sources. At best some of us will not
understand the difference. At worst it is meaningless.

Brian.

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


from_name: darthvader1219 at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/21/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> With regards to Carmen's age I'm assuming that the question of her
> editing her own article is not a factor, and that here _claim_ to be 19
> is properly documented to be a claim.  I'm also assuming that there is
> no direct statement that she lied about her age, and all that is really
> said is that her birth certificate establishes her age as 26.
>
> It strikes me as unethical to retain information which we know to be
> wrong simply because the document which establishes the correct
> information is not in an acceptable format.  If we are to remove the
> information about her correct age we must also remove the information
> about the age which we know to be false.
>

Would the information really be wrong though? We're stating that she claims
she's 19. Our having direct knowledge of the fact that she's 26 does not
alter the fact that she claims that she is 19, so I don't see how the
inclusion of the statement is any more unethical than it was before it was
verified false, so long as it is phrased "Carmen is 19 according to <insert
link to interview or some other source>" and not "Carmen is 19". People lie
all the time; if we quote anyone what we're quoting is only as reliable as
the you would consider the person to be.

--

Dycedarg


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> According to Walter Bagehot's, the English Constitution the monarch has
> three main powers:
>
>
>    - the right to be consulted;
>    - the right to warn;
>    - the right to advise.
>
> He or she also has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister if the Prime
> Minister no longer has the confidence of the parliament.
>
> Bagehot's view was the British monarch would have to sign his or her death
> warrant if parliament were to pass legislation authorising it.

Effectively, that's true, but legally, I don't know of anything in
writing that says the Queen can't withhold Royal Assent from a bill.
If she tried for any reason other than the PM going insane the UK
would become a republic extremely quickly (How exactly you get royal
assent for the bill that abolishes the monarchy, I'm not sure, it
would probably require a weapon of some sort...).


from_name: Nathaniel Krause

subject: [WikiEN-l] OFFICE (was: Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?)

body:
darthvader1219 wrote:

: There's only one other thing that I can think of. See WP:OFFICE. He is one of two : people on the English Wikipedia empowered to perform unrevertable office actions.

Just to clarify, Office Action is a power granted to certain people by the Foundation, correct? Does it therefore extend to all editions of Wikimedia projects, or is it limited to the English Wikipedia?

Cheers,

Nathaniel Krause

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
> There's a big difference here.  Court proceedings are published, unlike
> birth certificates, and are certainly not confidential, like medical
> records.  These are both published documents.  How can the use of published
> documents, to verify that they said what they are reported to have said, be
> said to be "original research" or, for that matter, "investigative
> journalism"?

Stating a simple fact from a simple primary source is not a problem.
Putting together an entire history of a case from multiple primary
sources is OR. A history is more than just the sum of the events -
which events you choose to include and which you don't, how much
emphasis you put on each one, etc, all change the way the reader will
interpret the facts, that's what makes it OR and an NPOV violation.


from_name: Jim Wilson

body:
How about keeping the default behavior and adding an optional URL param.
Vis a vis:

wiki/index.php?title=Special:Random&category=Awesome_Stuff

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)

On 3/21/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> demute wrote:
> > It would be really nice if wikipedias Special:random-function could take
> > arguments, making it possible to get a random article from
> user-specified
> > categories.
> > A suggestion to do this is as follows. When a user click on the "random
> > article" link the random article is loaded with a comment on the top of
> the
> > page saying something like "you requested a random article. click here
> to
> > view options" and so the the user can mark which categories the article
> > should come from. The settings can either be stored in a cookie or they
> can
> > be sent in the URI.
> > Everyone would love this feature!
>
> I would perhaps find it useful sometimes, but I doubt I would love it as
> described. I have [[Special:Random]] set as my browser's homepage and
> having a pastel-shaded banner appear at the top of the page every time
> ala [[Clippy]] would become quite annoying.
>
> I'd suggest leaving the default behavior of [[Special:Random]] alone and
> make this behavior a new option. It might make a good addition to the
> search page.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:59 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Part of the problem is that it is very hard these days to contact a
> >significant section of the communiy other than say through
> >MediaWiki:Watchdetails.
>
> Maybe we should hook into a meta page or something, like with the
> fund-raising drive.  Proposals for significant change to policy get
> flagged up in an info bar, and stay there until you click-through or
> dismiss the thing.
>
> Guy (JzG)

there would be a very high risk of it being abused.

--
geni


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Slim Virgin" wrote

> I think editors to some extent have to be responsible for keeping
> themselves informed. We can post in all the right places, but we
> can't ensure people notice it, read it, remember it, fully understand
> what it means, and we can't be blamed if some don't.

Hmmm. Isn't 'you were kept informed' anyway a classic bureaucratic ploy, to justify a fait accompli?

Let's not get too black-and-white about this, if at all possible. Maybe hundreds were literally involved in the development process, but that doesn't mean they all support all of the final out-turn. I think that isn't even how democracy works.

I think sometimes one accepts two steps forward and one back as progress.

Charles

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


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
On 3/21/07, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > So I'm learning Perl now. So I needed a project to sharpen my
> > programming claws with. So I remembered people not happy with the
> > MediaWiki commons interface. So I thought I'd steal from the best and
> > wrote a new one.
> >
> > Flickr-Like cOMMONS = Flommons
>
> Nice work

Thanks.

>
> > * Can be slooow at times, since there's no index on img_user/img_user_text
> How does MW handle that then? Or do you mean on the toolserver? (=poke DaB)

It doesn't. I don't see a link on commons that says "user gallery".
It's only relevant for pages that show files uploaded by a single
user. Also, the search uses MySQL LIKE "%" stuff, which tends to be
long even on an index.

> > * No login or upload (yet?)
> > * Normal blue links stay in Flommons, light-blue links go to Commons
> You should add red-links (or is it light-red?) for non-existing pages
> (as most image talk).

Good idea.

> > The thing is a single Perl script. Maybe I should go and rewrite
> > MediaWiki like that. Oh wait... (anyone aroung long enough to get this
> > joke?)
> easy: [[Mediawiki#History]]
> But wait... how is it you're learning Perl *now*?

Yeah... I kinda avoided that by rewriting everything in PHP the other day ;-)

> Is it viewable?  common.php?common_source=flommons.pl is blank ;)

Not yet, which is good, because it contains my database pwd in plain text ;-)

> PS: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} images doesn't show license, i guess they
> pd? :D

Currently, all categories that contain "PD" or "GFDL" or "CC-" are
considered licenses ;-)

Magnus


subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

references:
<fab0ecb70703210910r5d54fda2p34da02ad8a951500@mail.gmail.com>
	<etro80$c57$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<fd5886130703211158o7b561adfx24edaa8f9fea0fb9@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 3/21/07, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks great. Pity you can't edit etc. from it. This would require a
> login :( Maybe also a flickr like authentication system should be
> implemented :) [1]

Of course, I can have you enter username and password for commons on
flommons, and just shove it ot commons to do something. But, how many
would feel comfortable with that? (of course, I could just offer it,
and leave it up to da people;-)

> But wouldn't big parts not be implementable as a skin?

I doubt that. The skins just define layout and colors and the like.
They can only display the content served my core MediaWiki in a
different way. I don't think any of the views flommons offers is
offered by MediaWiki, at least not like that (well, maybe categories).

Magnus


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/21/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> How could it be abused, Geni?

Everyone with any kind of message insists they must be allowed to use
it to contact to the community.

With the proper safeguards this could be got around (say make it
bureaucrats only).

Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are
not the best first line of aproach.
--
geni


body:
Slim Virgin wrote

> This leaves us not knowing how policy is supposed to be developed.

Oh, organically, you know. There seems to be a lot of debate here over whether a three-leaved clover is one leaf or three. We need to go to the end of that debate, is all. This time it is clearly not going to be a seamless transition.

Charles

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


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com>
wrote:

>That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not
>widely know".

I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea -
none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the
other policies.  Where have I been all that time?  In the usual
places.

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


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:52:03 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Hmmm. Isn't 'you were kept informed' anyway a classic bureaucratic ploy, to justify a fait accompli?

Whoa, I know where that's going: it was in a locked filing cabinet in
a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the
leopard"...

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re:  [Possible spam]Re: WP:V, WP:RS,
	WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:03 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are
>not the best first line of aproach.

When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?

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


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for advice

body:
I'm consulting wikitech-l because I can't think where else to ask!

One of the more active bureaucrats on cy.wikipedia has posed me the
following question:

"Currently, the Welsh wikipedia's default settings mean that all
intrawiki (mewnwici) links are underlined without having to roll the
mouse over them. It's different from all the other wikipedias, and it
looks a little ugly. It can be changed by going to "fy newisiadau"
(there's a detailed explanation about it in Y Caffi), but as a
bureaucrat, I was wondering if there was a way for you to change the
default settings of the site so that it looks more professional for
everyone."

("fy newisiadau" = "my preferences", and the detailed explanation in "Y
Caffi" is in Welsh but it's quite well summarised here - cy.wikipedia
appears to be the only one with this default action). I'm not familiar
with how the default appearance is set - can someone advise, please?

--
Arwel Parry


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document
> >stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original
> >research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
>
> Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way.  Wrong in
> the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary
> source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is.  How hard
> will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that?  If you can't,
> then it probably *is* trivial.

Fine, it's trivial.  Trivial isn't the same thing as original research.

If the source makes a statement, repeating the same claim made in the
statement is *not* a matter of interpretation.  Stretching the definition of
original research and "interpretation" to claim that repeating something
verbatim or near verbatim is "interpretation" makes about as much sense as
saying that growing wheat for your own use is interstate commerce.  You end
up with a policy that has no relation to what the words actually mean, and
which can be used to cover anything and everything without limit.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Possible spam]Re: [Possible spam]Re: WP:V, WP:RS,
	WP:NOR and WP:ATT

body:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:05:03 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Generaly though solutions that require a change to the software are
> >not the best first line of aproach.
>
> When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
>

Board elections perhaps.

If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without
becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.

--
geni


body:
I'm no Jimbo of any sort, but let's not kid ourselves about there being
consensus on WP:ATT.  I had several objections to it, many of which were
answered very poorly.  (I'm still scratching my head over people saying that
false information will not in practice be attributable even in the face of
examples where it was.)

And it definitely seemed as if the policy was rammed through.  There were two
phases.  During the first phase, there was discussion about fixing
inconsistencies between policy and practice.  This got nowhere; there's too
much resistance to any and all change.  There was a second phase where the
goal was to combine the policies without fixing anything, and attempts to
get fixes made were answered with "we're just trying to combine the
existing material".  I'm sure a lot of people forgot about WP:ATT after it
became clear the first phase was dying, and never even realized anyone started
up a second phase.

I'm also not convinced that it means anything that WP:ATT was accepted as
policy so soon.  It takes a certain level of Wikipedia-bureaucracy
sophistication to even realize that WP:ATT is not a done deal and rejecting
it is not just spitting against the wind.  Most Wikipedia editors would
accept it as a policy merely because it looks like a policy and is presented
as one; they'd *never* think "hey, they need a consensus and if enough people
like me don't think it counts, then it won't count".  And most Wikipedia
editors probably wouldn't be in situations where the difference between
WP:ATT and the previous policy matters, anyway.


from_name: Ronald Chmara

body:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:

> I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of
> any and all
> levels of experience and involvement.  In-depth, one hour
> interviews will be
> conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27.  Compensation
> for your
> time will be provided ? a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com.  Must
> be 18+
> and U.S. resident.

How would you like to verify my age?
Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV
digits? Birth certificate? SSN?

Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.

-Bop


body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:47 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>> When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?

>Board elections perhaps.

>If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without
>becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.

Right.  So using the banner code would not be such a bad thing, then.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> It strikes me as unethical to retain information which we know to be
> wrong simply because the document which establishes the correct
> information is not in an acceptable format.  If we are to remove the
> information about her correct age we must also remove the information
> about the age which we know to be false.

This, oddly, combines two threads, because this very point was one of my
disagreements with WP:ATT.  There was a discussion about whether
attributable but false information must remain.  The result...  it was
impossible to gain consensus for it being permissible to delete such
information.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, John Lee wrote:
> > Stretching the definition of
> > original research and "interpretation" to claim that repeating something
> > verbatim or near verbatim is "interpretation" makes about as much sense as
> > saying that growing wheat for your own use is interstate commerce.  You
> > end
> > up with a policy that has no relation to what the words actually mean, and
> > which can be used to cover anything and everything without limit.
> Basically, as I understand it, the reason we ought not to have included the
> lawsuit is not because it's a novel interpretation of the facts, but because
> the facts have not been published by a secondary source. In theory, we could
> have articles about every lawsuit ever filed, but I think many people, even
> inclusionists, would balk at that - and for good reason. Like it or not,
> "notability" still plays a role (albeit a rather undefined one) in how we
> think about the encyclopaedia. And although we may not say it outright, it
> seems the present established status quo is that we establish sufficient
> notability by the existence of secondary sources.

Basically, as I understand it,
1) you're correct.  Information from a court document that hasn't been
published in a secondary source isn't notable.
2) Jimbo didn't say it wasn't notable, instead, he stretched original
research to claim that even mentioning that A sued B is an "interpretation".


body:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:19:47 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> When was the last time we did anything quite this far-reaching?
>
> >Board elections perhaps.
>
> >If the foundation statement on copyright moves out of beta without
> >becomeing largely meaningless that would be another one.
>
> Right.  So using the banner code would not be such a bad thing, then.
>

except you have the problem of getting people to stick to that.
Perhaps whenever WP:CSD gets changed people will want to put up a
notice. Perhaps when we get yet another guideline tuning up.

Unless you are careful this will happen because it will be seen as
only one click.
--
geni


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-22

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20611).

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!


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
darthvader1219 at gmail.com wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>> With regards to Carmen's age I'm assuming that the question of her
>> editing her own article is not a factor, and that here _claim_ to be 19
>> is properly documented to be a claim.  I'm also assuming that there is
>> no direct statement that she lied about her age, and all that is really
>> said is that her birth certificate establishes her age as 26.
>>
>> It strikes me as unethical to retain information which we know to be
>> wrong simply because the document which establishes the correct
>> information is not in an acceptable format.  If we are to remove the
>> information about her correct age we must also remove the information
>> about the age which we know to be false.
>>
>
> Would the information really be wrong though? We're stating that she claims
> she's 19. Our having direct knowledge of the fact that she's 26 does not
> alter the fact that she claims that she is 19, so I don't see how the
> inclusion of the statement is any more unethical than it was before it was
> verified false, so long as it is phrased "Carmen is 19 according to <insert
> link to interview or some other source>" and not "Carmen is 19". People lie
> all the time; if we quote anyone what we're quoting is only as reliable as
> the you would consider the person to be.
>

Hmmm....

If the article read "Carmen claims to be 19 years old.", that would seem
to be more or less stating that there is at least some question as to
her age.

If her (false) birth date were listed (as is typical), with a reference
to some statement she herself made, quoted from a "reliable source", but
we know it to be false, how reliable is that source?

If her (false) birth date were listed without a source, and we have a
source (primary) that shows it to be false, then it seems we must at
least remove the incorrect and unsourced birth date.

Am, I missing a significant scenario?

-Rich


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
On 3/21/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not
> > >widely know".
> >
> > I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea -
> > none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the
> > other policies.  Where have I been all that time?  In the usual
> > places.
>
> This was my impression as well.  I didn't mind it, but it did suprise me.

I missed out on it until just before it was about to 'go live' as well
- and I'm on the freaking Arbcom.  Had a quick read and liked the idea
at least of not having contradictory policy pages, and it seems it was
handled pretty well albeit conservatively.

> Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass.  We now
> have more things going on more quickly than the existing static
> process can adequately track and keep people aware of.

Wikipedia quite a long time ago exceeded the size where anyone
reasonably active knew all the important details. It's finally got to
the point that reasonably active people can miss big freaking huge
details because they're not going on in their corner of the site.

> In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive
> and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process
> consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process
> management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.

Many of which don't actually help but give the executives and
management something to do, but anyway ...

Personally, I largely trust the Wiki process, and believe that it's
unlikely that anything that big will go through without a few sane
people getting involved and sorting it out, even if I'm not one of
them.

-Matt


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users,
	and users who engage banned users

body:
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> * 2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
>
> I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this
> policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like
> Barbara Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that
> the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in
> and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified
> as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it (as defined
> in policy). Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their
> ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks.
> Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We
> can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy
> states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and
> bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that
> some allow banned users...

Generally we don't require that admins HAVE to perform administrative
actions; I'd be uncomfortable with mandating that users or admins must
not speak with certain individuals.  The outcry over freedom of speech
would be counterproductive, IMO.

-Matt


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Commons-l] Flommons!

body:
On 22/03/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Flommons could be the interface for people who don't care about wikis,
> and just want to find interesting content.

Yeah, and great work. If this were to be presented to some users, it'd
be nice to get away from looking too much like Flickr.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 21/03/07, demute <mannet at kth.se> wrote:
>
> It would be really nice if wikipedias Special:random-function could take
> arguments, making it possible to get a random article from user-specified
> categories.
> A suggestion to do this is as follows. When a user click on the "random
> article" link the random article is loaded with a comment on the top of the
> page saying something like "you requested a random article. click here to
> view options" and so the the user can mark which categories the article
> should come from. The settings can either be stored in a cookie or they can
> be sent in the URI.
> Everyone would love this feature!
>
> regards,
> Manne Tallmarken

You can request features at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
This feature has already been requested:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2170

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

body:
On 3/22/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > > >I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court
> > document
> > > >stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving
> > original
> > > >research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
> > >
> > > Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way.  Wrong in
> > > the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary
> > > source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is.  How hard
> > > will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that?  If you can't,
> > > then it probably *is* trivial.
> >
> > Fine, it's trivial.  Trivial isn't the same thing as original research.
> >
> > If the source makes a statement, repeating the same claim made in the
> > statement is *not* a matter of interpretation.  Stretching the
> definition
> > of
> > original research and "interpretation" to claim that repeating something
> > verbatim or near verbatim is "interpretation" makes about as much sense
> as
> > saying that growing wheat for your own use is interstate commerce.  You
> > end
> > up with a policy that has no relation to what the words actually mean,
> and
> > which can be used to cover anything and everything without limit.
>
>
> Basically, as I understand it, the reason we ought not to have included
> the
> lawsuit is not because it's a novel interpretation of the facts, but
> because
> the facts have not been published by a secondary source. In theory, we
> could
> have articles about every lawsuit ever filed, but I think many people,
> even
> inclusionists, would balk at that - and for good reason. Like it or not,
> "notability" still plays a role (albeit a rather undefined one) in how we
> think about the encyclopaedia. And although we may not say it outright, it
> seems the present established status quo is that we establish sufficient
> notability by the existence of secondary sources. If it hasn't been
> covered
> by a secondary source, it probably isn't worth writing about.
> Encyclopaedias
> are tertiary sources.

The point isn't writing an article about a lawsuit, it's a matter of
including an explanation for the distinction between the Mega Society, the
Mega Society East and the Mega Foundation, especially since the article has
ample links to the Mega Foundation website.  Since the subject of the
article was once actively involved with the Mega Society, and after
splitting with them founded the Mega Society East, it all gets very
misleading.  Since the subject of the article was successfully sued over the
Mega Society East name, but it continues to show up in various bios (e.g.,
http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php ), it's in Wikipedia's interest
to make the distinction clear.  We don't include disclaimers, and shouldn't
- but we should make sure that we are not misleading people.  Until the
section about the law suit was introduced, I couldn't figure out the
difference between the groups (both the [[Mega Society]] and the [[Mega
Foundation]] had Wikipedia articles at some point in the not too distant
past).


from_name: Plyd

body:
On 3/21/07, demute <mannet at kth.se> wrote:
>
> It would be really nice if wikipedias Special:random-function could take
> arguments, making it possible to get a random article from user-specified
> categories.
> A suggestion to do this is as follows. When a user click on the "random
> article" link the random article is loaded with a comment on the top of the
> page saying something like "you requested a random article. click here to
> view options" and so the the user can mark which categories the article
> should come from. The settings can either be stored in a cookie or they can
> be sent in the URI.
> Everyone would love this feature!

yep, the one I'd like is the random feature article :)
and a maybe a random nice developper :D

Plyd


from_name: Keith Old

body:
On 3/22/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power
> > > unspecified.
> >
> > The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill
> > exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the
> > steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
>
> Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial*
> bill exactly once.  If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against
> Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people
> would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first
> opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
>
> I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United
> Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980.  We're
> still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may
> have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a
> leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

G'day folks,

According to Walter Bagehot's, the English Constitution the monarch has
three main powers:

   - the right to be consulted;
   - the right to warn;
   - the right to advise.

He or she also has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister if the Prime
Minister no longer has the confidence of the parliament.

Bagehot's view was the British monarch would have to sign his or her death
warrant if parliament were to pass legislation authorising it.

In short, while there are things we can learn from the British monarch, the
situation is not directly analogous.

Regards

Keith Old


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
on 3/22/07 7:24 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

> As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
> large volunteer organisation.

David,

Please expand your thoughts on this a bit.

Marc


from_name: Jossi Fresco

body:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 4:24 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
> large volunteer organisation.
>
> Are there relevant antecedents to what we're doing here? The OED ran
> (and runs) on volunteer contributions, but doesn't have an emergent
> bureaucracy of volunteers.

We are breaking new ground. There has never been a project like this
before  of similar size, reach and principles.

As they say: "we are on our own, baby". And we better accept that as
a fact, if we want to move forward and not stall, that is.

-- Jossi


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?
	-	"nofollow"decision

body:
on 3/22/07 7:33 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales at wikia.com wrote:

> We have a group of friends working under "rough
> consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed
> and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of
> respect and thoughtfulness.

Jimmy,

This type of informality may have worked in the developmental stage of WP,
but is it capable of sustaining the Project as it becomes more complex?

Marc Riddell


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20612]
	trunk/phase3/includes/Article.php

body:
On 22/03/07, 80686 at svn.wikimedia.org <80686 at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 20612
> Author:   80686
> Date:     2007-03-22 00:19:47 -0800 (Thu, 22 Mar 2007)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> fixed bug in call of hook ArticleViewHeader

This non-critical fix was first applied to a release branch and the
committer failed to update the release notes in both the branch and
trunk.

Did the release manager give consent for this?

Rob Church


from_name: Steve

body:
Hmm... nope. Wasn't like that at all.

-S

On 3/22/07, Ronald Chmara <ron at opus1.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Benjamin Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> How would you like to verify my age?
> Oh, you want me to send credit card info? Billing zip code? CCV
> digits? Birth certificate? SSN?
>
> Studies like these are a nightmare to set up.
>
> -Bop
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
Danny,

I wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Your contributions to
the Foundation and all of the projects in general
stand on their own merit. You have a lot to be proud of, and have left a
lasting mark in the hearts of all of us that your life
has touched.

Love ya,

Jeff

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>Hello,
>
>First, I would like to thank those people who have contacted me privately,
>expressing concern about the events of the past few days. I truly value your
>friendship and support.
>
>
>That said, at present, I am unwilling to discuss the  reasons for my
>resignation from the WMF office team. I plan on remaining an  active editor on various
>projects, as I have always been, even before I began  working for WMF. To
>ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of power, I ask
>that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.  If I feel I can
>help as an admin, I will ask to be reelected by the normal  process. I look
>forward to this opportunity to reenter the community as a new  user and to share
>in the building of free  knowledge.
>I would also like to announce that I plan on running for the Board of
>Trustees in the June elections for the seats currently held by Kat, Oscar, and
>Erik. At that time, I will make known my position on how the Wikimedia  Foundation
>should operate, and what mistakes I perceive are being made at  present.
>So let's leave the gossip and second-guessing behind us and get on with  the
>real task at hand--building the largest and most reliable repository of
>knowledge ever created.
>Danny
>
>
>
>************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
> Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>Hello,
>
>First, I would like to thank those people who have contacted me privately,
>expressing concern about the events of the past few days. I truly value your
>friendship and support.
>
>That said, at present, I am unwilling to discuss the  reasons for my
>resignation from the WMF office team. I plan on remaining an  active editor on various
>projects, as I have always been, even before I began  working for WMF. To
>ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of power, I ask
>that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.
>
I hope that this will not prevent us from meeting again in Taipei.

Ray


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Denny Colt

body:
On 3/22/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > * 2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
> >
>
> Generally we don't require that admins HAVE to perform administrative
> actions; I'd be uncomfortable with mandating that users or admins must
> not speak with certain individuals.  The outcry over freedom of speech
> would be counterproductive, IMO.
>
> -Matt
>


body:
On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you
> do so on all their edits anyway?
> If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking
> at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later
> on.
> Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the
> project.

Well... if they post anonymously, or on a pseuodnym, sure. But if a John
Smith or Jane Doe are banned by name, and they post anything and I.D.
themselves by name... and we allow the posts to stand... what was the point
again to having banned them?

The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
> edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so
> being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be
> true
> and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they
> won't be sanctioned for removing it.
>
> Mgm

The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them (they
announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
shouldn't they be nuked on sight? If not... why have a banning policy at
all?

--
- Denny


body:
On 3/22/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
> (they
> > announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
> > shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
>
> They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their
> bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on
> Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
>
> Jay.

Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are
determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc
Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt
at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts on
the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.

Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?

--
- Denny


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
You probably know already, but if you require respondents to be US residents
you won't get a representative cross-section of the userbase of the English
language Wikipedia...

Mgm

On 3/21/07, Benjamin Keith Johnson <john2429 at msu.edu> wrote:
>
> I am a researcher seeking to interview Wikipedia contributors of any and
> all
> levels of experience and involvement.  In-depth, one hour interviews will
> be
> conducted over the phone or email beginning March 27.  Compensation for
> your
> time will be provided: a $10 gift certificate to Amazon.com.  Must be 18+
> and U.S. resident.  Contact Benjamin Johnson, Department of
> Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media, Michigan State
> University,
> by email at john2429 at msu.edu or by phone at 517.230.1272.
>
> Thanks!
> Benjamin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 3/21/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just
> focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent
> Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of
> policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two
> questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned_users.2C_and_users_who_engage_banned_users
>
> I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page
> isn't too active at all...
>
>
> * 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
>
> The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be
> reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits
> themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia
> pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and
> say
> "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?

Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you
do so on all their edits anyway?
If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking
at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later on.
Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the
project.

The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so
being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be true
and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they
won't be sanctioned for removing it.

Mgm


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for advice

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

Arwel Parry wrote:
> "Currently, the Welsh wikipedia's default settings mean that all
> intrawiki (mewnwici) links are underlined without having to roll the
> mouse over them. It's different from all the other wikipedias, and it
> looks a little ugly. It can be changed by going to "fy newisiadau"
> (there's a detailed explanation about it in Y Caffi), but as a
> bureaucrat, I was wondering if there was a way for you to change the
> default settings of the site so that it looks more professional for
> everyone."

I'd say take a look in:
http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWici:Monobook.css

There are several rules about text-decoration on links, offhand I'm not
sure how they're meant to interact but probably one of the underlines
should be taken out. :)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGAol4wRnhpk1wk44RAi1hAKCJakpfuFEKwQJv/WZTW3yuGYBodgCg2kLd
kbYyJoX6K4afjPP5eJCHGbM=
=tfmd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----