body:
On 3/21/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at this article, I think the main problem is that it is /not/ about
> the organization, but about the organization's arguments. The whole "Safe
> Speed's Claims" and "Opposition and Criticism" examples could be summarized
> in a few sentences.

Having now looked at the article, it actually has quite a few
problems. It has various points of view sprayed all over it. Some
examples:
--
(Intro para): Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits, only
against their enforcement by automated means, because their view is
that sticking to a speed limit does not guarantee safe driving, and
that all motoring laws should be enforced appropriately and
proportionately.
...
The group has links with libertarian groups. One prominent supporter
(presented as giving academic support to Safe Speed's claims) is Dr.
Alan Buckingham, a specialist in family life and relationships at Bath
Spa University College and a contributor to The Centre for Independent
Studies.
...
Although Smith has always used the word "we" when discussing Safe
Speed on the website, it is very much his idea and his organisation.
...
The Safe Speed website makes the claim that if any fact can be proven
to be incorrect, it will be removed. One page was removed following
criticism by Jocksch, whose work was cited, but subsequently
reinserted with similar content..

--

Perhaps there is not much that is interesting and encyclopaedic that
can be said about this group. At the moment, this article really
doesn't paint Wikipedia is a good light. It gives far too much detail
to the claims (claims by *any* single group should never be given that
much detail, regardless of validity), and falls into the classic
"claims / criticism" trap. There are also very few sources even for
the claims (which ought to be easily sourcable from the website).
There is also general bloat, featuring remarks about the history of
motoring regulation, which clearly don't belong in this article.

My last question is: Who the hell is Paul Smith? The article begins
"Safe Speed is a UK web-based road safety organisation run by Paul
Smith." and only has this to say about him: "Smith ran the project as
a hobby from his home in Scotland for some time but in 2003, following
a period of illness in which his self-employed computer engineering
business ran down, he took it up full time at some significant
personal cost. Although Smith has always used the word "we" when
discussing Safe Speed on the website, it is very much his idea and his
organisation. Smith is also a member of the motorists' pressure group
Association of British Drivers (ABD)."

Are we to be led to believe that this whole article is about some
angry British motorist running a website from home?

Steve


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rich Morin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Links to previous / next image on image pages?

body:
At 11:40 PM +0100 3/21/06, Jofi wrote:
> I would like to know if it is technically possible to add links to the
> previous and next image (in alphabetical order) of an image on its page.
> Or would it need too much resources to find the next image in the
>database?
> It would be especially useful for scans of books, where the user could
> directly go from one page to the next with such links. At presence the
> links have to be added manually. A lot of work for books with 1,000+
>pages.

img_name is the primary key for the table, so using SQL to find a page's
neighbors by sort order should be relatively inexpensive.  However, if you
are doing this in a program, you might want to

  *  load the sorted information into an array

  *  walk the array, creating "next" and "prev" hashes

This would let you do an in-memory lookup of the neighbors, which should
run a bit faster.  Of course, this assumes that you have enough memory to
hold these data structures, but RAM is cheaper than fingers. See:

  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_table
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RichMorin/mw_image

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm            Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume     rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog     +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>All of which is to say that in Wikipedia we shouldn't ever be
>attempting to determine the actual worth of something prima facie -
>instead, we should only be including the comments of experts.
>
Would you consider the qualifiers of presentation, publication, or
testimony based on the credentials of experts?

For example, compare the scholarly method against scientific methods for
authenticity. The later does not really "comment" about the content, but
the former does.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Our Featured Article of the Day Contains Probable
 Copyright Violations

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>geni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery
>>>>>>itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the
>>>>>>subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those
>>>>>>images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It
>>>>>>has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not
>>>>>>been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a
>>>>>>copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article.
>>>>>>It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
>>>>>>2. It's on the frickin' main page right now
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use
>>>>>>and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most
>>>>>>Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use
>>>>>>review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public
>>>>>domain?  It was released in 1935!!!  1935 + 70 = 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ec
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
>>>>
>>>>Further details:
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=42060761&oldid=41976931
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee
>>>of the German government. The talk page for the article cites
>>>http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyPropertyAct1953pt1.cfm
>>>"Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of
>>>Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in
>>>Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party"  The 70 year clock for
>>>government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made
>>>public.  The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of
>>>foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy
>>>properties.  The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
>>>
>>>What "wrong country" are you talking about?
>>>
>>>Ec
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German
>>government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny
>>this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf
>>being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
>>
>
> See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.pdf
>
> There is no reason why this would not also apply to Mein Kampf.  The
> state goverment of Bavaria claims that it owns the copyright, although
> at least one Swedish court has denied that claim while simultaneously
> saying that it was still protected even if the owner could not be
> identified.  The net effect is that the German language edition is in
> the public domain in the United States.  All four English translations
> are still protected.  The three American ones were all properly renewed
> for the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston.  Murphy, the British
> translator, IIRC died in 1946, and his version would thus be protected
> until the end of 2016.  A person with a lot of time on his hands could
> safely do a new translation that could be released under GFDL. :-)
>

Doesn't this fall under the scope of Project Gutenburg?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060321/f6008366/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

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

Philip Welch wrote:
>> I thought we were talking about a call from someone who has just
>> experienced a personal tragedy.  You offer them automated responses
>> from
>> Big Brother to emphasize the insignificance of what they are
>> feeling.  I
>> would hardly want to live in a world that is so insensitive to the
>> human
>> condition.
>
> Wikipedia is not a support group for the distraught.

Add that to [[WP:NOT]]

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEIJT5vCEYTv+mBWcRAgOnAJ9Yv0Ki296l5Y7NmcF74gpcBZFYlwCghXZO
C+mMbrkpBXakol2ehCvAbR8=
=DMYv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Open warfare on nl.wikipedia

body:
Muijz in his bid to force me of wikipedia is busy editting articles on
Thailand because he doesn't agree on their style. He is randomly picking
articles and changing links etc. I am desperate as nl.wikipedia has no
arbcom. This is terrorism in it's purest form.

I have worked on those articles for over 2,5 year and I like to put in
red links on subjects I know I am going to write about preventively.
Muijz takes them out and changes the total setup of them all. He is now
destroying my work of 2,5 years. I have worked fine with tens of other
people on these articles. They respected the work I dod.

I am desperately pleading to the Board. Please please please install an
arbcom on nl: . Force it on there please.

A desperate Waerth/Walter


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

body:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:06:20 +0100, you wrote:

>Strangely, he has actually been cited by a couple of reputable
>publications, including the BBC, which perhaps mistook him as a
>spokesperson for motorists? Really a very strange character though,
>especially the constant references to having spent 5000 hours
>"researching". He also claims to be an "advanced road safety
>enthusiast"...whatever that is.

Smith is a strange one alright. He was OK up until a three-month
disappearance from the usual Usenet forums he frequented - presumably
the illness which killed his one-man business - but since then he has
rebranded himself as a "full time road safety campaigner".  This is
also what ran up the debts which - incredibly - his supporters are
paying off for him.  If he's telling the truth about that, of course.

He always worked back from the conclusions, as many activists do, but
what really gets me is this bizarre "one third of fatalities" claim,
which is very eyecatching and has got him a lot of publicity.

Now he can point to some successes for the anti-camera brigade (which
of course he claims as vindication) like issues with hand-held camera
accuracy and the Government bringing in the three-coffin rule, it
gives an impression of a solid campaign headed for success.  Even a
stopped clock is right twice a day, of course, but you can almost see
the goalposts shifting as he takes you from "some cameras are faulty"
to "cameras are faulty" to "camera convictions are unjust" to "use of
cameras is wrong".  Another favourite is to go from "speeds less than
the limit can be dangerous" through "1mph over the limit is not
inherently dangerous" to "speeding is not dangerous", all the time
justifying it with careful interpretation of figures which say the
exact opposite :-)

One TRL report - an experimental accident reporting technique, is
Solid Gold Gospel Truth, because it gives speed as a minority cause of
collisions (which is a misrepresentation anyway, as many other causes
also implied excessive speed) but all the TRL reports which say
driving too fast is dangerous - i.e. all of them - are "flawed" and
even "fraudulent".  His absurdities are not held up to scrutiny
because we have no mechanism for official sanctions against lies told
on the Internet.  He reports camera partnerships to the Advertising
Standards Authority, who would have a field day with his website, but
they can't touch him because he has never published a brochure, flyer,
poster, paid advert or anything else they regulate.

He has stated that 100mph plus on single-carriageway roads is
"perfectly safe", that there is nothing wrong with parking in disabled
bays, that he can't see why the disabled should get special treatment,
and so on.  And as usual with this kind of person, proving him wrong
never actually results in him stopping saying something.  So even
after the charts and figures were analysed in great detail and it was
shown that his supposed loss in trend applies only to road users and
roads unlikely to be affected by cameras, he still carried on (and
carries on) making the claim.  Old Lenin knew what he was talking
about when  he coined that phrase about a lie told often enough :-)

But you can see why he's popular with a certain class of driver,
because there is *so* much evidence that they are dangerous and
selfish that they will latch onto anything which says otherwise.

And to be fair most of our articles on road safety and speed limits
are affected by the same libertarian mindset.  The constant references
to the fastest roads being the safest (with qualifications noting that
this is the result of design, grade separation, very few junctions and
so on being quietly removed), the way it's always Germany's Autobahns
which are held up as a model, although the speed-limited British
motorway network is far safer, and the M25 with its variable speed
limits safer still - well, you know all this stuff.  Sometimes it
makes me ashamed to be a driver.  Ah well.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/21/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> But we can note, if it is true, that it is not currently adopted by
> any authorities, that no tests of it have been done, and that it has
> been soundly ignored by experts in the field.
>
> It's not easy to define what is or is not a "consensus" in a field
> (the lack of published controversy does not indicate consensus at
> all), people with a reasonable familiarity with the literature of a
> field can usually give a good sense of how something has been received
> or ignored or what-have-you.
>
> I think the fact that this hasn't been taken up by any recognized
> experts in the subject is a verifiable fact, and telling enough for
> most people.

Ok, having now also looked at the website and looked for references to
it in the news, I can conclude that it's mostly a case of bad science
with a lot of fast talking. One of the guy's major arguments against
speed cameras is, believe it or not, that the rate in reduction in
road deaths slowed down since their introduction.  You might wonder
what he expected to happen if road deaths every hit zero.

Strangely, he has actually been cited by a couple of reputable
publications, including the BBC, which perhaps mistook him as a
spokesperson for motorists? Really a very strange character though,
especially the constant references to having spent 5000 hours
"researching". He also claims to be an "advanced road safety
enthusiast"...whatever that is.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/21/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> abnormality. An expert on brains though would know that superficial
> analysis like this, relying only on two images at that (there are many
> types of "normal"), is practically worthless, and certainly that
> someone without training in neuroscience is not qualified to even make
> sense of such images. The anthropologist calls this sort of evidence
> "expert images," in that they give one the impression of being an
> expert, though real experts find them unclear and contestable. Anyway,
> I bring this up as just an analogy -- I think primary sources often
> serve as "expert sources" or something along those lines for Wikipedia
> users, which is why I am so cautious about people using them.

This is one of the scarier things about juries. I saw a documentary
once that detailed a real murder case with expert evidence to do with
DNA testing (and various other sorts) some remains after a couple of
years. Members of the jury were interviewed afterwards, and made
remarks like "oh, I didn't see how the evidence could have lasted that
long"...even though the expert witness had just been telling them that
it could.

All of which is to say that in Wikipedia we shouldn't ever be
attempting to determine the actual worth of something prima facie -
instead, we should only be including the comments of experts.

Steve

>
> If we stick with secondary sources, then we dodge the problem
> alltogether. Furthermore, if Wikipedia cites a secondary source, it
> will never be "wrong" (viz. Nature) in a factual sense -- our greatest
> sin would then be one of picking the wrong sources or giving too much
> attention to marginal ones (which is a real question in and of itself,
> of course).
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: WikiTimeline

body:
Hi Jesse, I commented on the page.  This is a fine idea, though not
one that (at the moment) needs its own domain and capital-P Project.
There are only a few hundred different timelines at present (most of
them use EasyTimeline and so are listed here:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TimelinesIndex.htm ), so I agree there
is a real need for a timeline initiative to add these visuals.

SJ

On 3/21/06, Jesse Nickles <jselkcin at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello, I'm proposing a new project called WikiTimeline
> that focuses on simple timelines of key events. This
> is due to the fact that most wiki pages do indeed list
> some dates and years in regard to important
> developements when relevant, but often in a very
> disorganized or hard to decipher fashion. Visit the
> proposal page here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTimeline
>
> I'm not very experienced with Wikimedia but at least a
> bit of light can be shed on this issue via this
> proposal so that a discussion can determine how
> feasible or necessary such a project is. Thank you,
> Jesse
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: WikiTimeline


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [Foundation-l] Ta bu shi da yu is getting married

body:
On 3/20/06, ! Chris Sherlock <ta.bu.shi.da.yu at gmail.com> wrote:

> To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not
> ask her in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)

Well, good, because admins shouldn't feel they have any more control
over that sort of thing than ordinary editors; it's unwiki. :-)

(Congratulations!)

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast
upward. For there you have been and there you will always be."
- Leonardo da Vinci


from_name: Candido Rodriguez

subject: [Wikitech-l] UserComments: new extension available

body:
Hi there,
I've finished my first hack in Media Wiki and I've coded a new
extension: User Comment [1]. The main purpose of this extension is that
users can write some comments about the subject of a page, for posting
tips or annotations.
Well, I usually read the online manual of PHP [2], and sometimes it's
more important the information you've found in a comment that the
explanation of a function. So I think you could improve your wiki with
this feature! You can see in action this extension in a Spanish Wiki of
LDAP [3].
Anyway, how can I update the Category:Extensions in meta.mediawiki.org
for including this one?

Cheers!

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kan/UserComments
[2] http://www.php.net
[3] http://sugus.eii.us.es/siledap/WikiLDAP:DN


from_name: Jtkiefer

body:
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, ! Chris Sherlock  wrote:
>
>
>> Just a short note to let people know that on Saturday 18th March, 2006
>> Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu asked his girlfriend to marry
>> him, and she said yes!
>>
>
> I felicitate you heartily on your good fortune  :-)
>
>
>> To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not
>> ask her in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)
>>
>
> Yet I must ask, why not?  Does not the admin heart beat with passion?
> Are not the rare administrative capacities -- to protect, to expunge
> injury, to merge two different histories into one, and (with all due
> bureaucratcy) to christen with a new name -- the very powers offered
> to and expected of a spouse?
>
> Warmly,
>    SJ
>
ALRIGHT, who let SJ into the champagne before the wedding.  I guess
you've proved your a true wikipedoholic when you can accurately compare
getting married to an admin task.

-Jtkiefer


body:
! Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Just a short note to let people know that on Saturday 18th March, 2006
> Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu asked his girlfriend to marry
> him, and she said yes!
>
> To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not
> ask her in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)
>
> Chris
> TBSDY
>
Congratulations, I assume your going to exchange your vows on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Vows

-Jtkiefer


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] [OT] how many articles can you write about Pokemon?

body:
On 3/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Remember that discussion about how it wouldn't be possible to have
> more than 20 or so articles on a single pokemon character etc etc.
> Well, I just discovered bulpapedia
> (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page). It currently has
> 2700 pages relating to Pok?mon.
>
> You should each make some time in your day today to reflect upon that fact.
>
> Steve

Perhaps but it contains stuff like this:

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/SeasonShipping

Still 2688 articles 395 pokemon= 6.8 articles per pokemon. However
that ignores any human characters.
--
geni


body:
Hi all,
  Remember that discussion about how it wouldn't be possible to have
more than 20 or so articles on a single pokemon character etc etc.
Well, I just discovered bulpapedia
(http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page). It currently has
2700 pages relating to Pok?mon.

You should each make some time in your day today to reflect upon that fact.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Access the Content of Wikipedia from extern

body:
Hello together,
I would like to know if it is possible to get the content to a
specific request from extern, that means NOT from the Wikipedia
Website.
The constellation would be: Fill a Form (Text Area) with the Word I am
searching for in my Website or a program or something like this. This
Website, Program, etc.. connects (however) to the Wikipedia website
and returns the content (if the word is specific enough) to the
website, program, etc...
I hope I formulate the case in a understandable way. Now the concrete
questions are:

- Is there a Wikipedia API-Specification in order to reach my goal?
- If yes, how can I be able to get it?
- If no, which alternatives are there?

Thank you in advance!

Gab


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> It's hard to imagine a quotation from anywhere that isn't
> cherry-picked.  Reviewing Darwin's work to differentiate between what
> was used in secondary literature, and what is an original usage is
> itself as much original research as the result.  Either Darwin is a
> quotable author or he isn't; there's no point to creating a large amount
> of weasel room that would allow us to opt out when what he says does not
> conform to one's individual point of view.

Well it depends on the claims, of course. It is pretty easy for
someone familiar with the secondary literature to spot Darwin quoted
out of context or a misrepresentation of Darwin's views (according
secondary literature, of course). The question really only becomes
absolutely pressing when people try to press controversial or
unorthodox opinions through on the basis of appeals to primary source.
It is an unfortunate reality that OR is really only visible when there
is something to contrast it with and someone available to do the
constrasting.

The nature of copyright makes Wikipedia editors participate in OS
(Original Synthesis)every time they write something up, and certainly
some OR slips in there unconsciously, no matter who is writing the
article.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources

body:
On 3/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> If Darwin was responding to the work of others than his book can no
> longer be considered a primary source.

"Primary" and "secondary" refer to how information is used. And most
secondary sources become primary sources over time, anyway (Darwin's
_Origin_ is now taken less as a scientific work than as an artifact of
the 19th century evolutionary thought).

> I think you have it all backwards.  I do agree that reading the original
> is often much more difficult, and that secondary works fulfill a
> simplifying function.  But any secondary interpretation imposes
> additional views, or creates distortions of the original material, or
> begins the cherry-picking process.

Of course it does. The goal is that the *experts* should be the ones
doing the distortion and cherry-picking of the source material, not
the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians. That's the point of WP:NOR.

> Oh!  It seems as though this approach only reinforces the socally
> acceptable POV.

It gives it primacy, yes. But that's the point of WP:NPOV. We're not a
place to launch theories, we are just a mirror.

> What you are seeking is more than a simple acknowledgement of the
> difficulty of using primary sources.  When you put this in terms of
> patient explanations you are going much further and presuming him to be
> wrong.

I don't quite follow you on this part. But if you're talking about the
courtroom analogy, it is just an analogy. The book itself, if you are
curious, is Joseph Dumit, "Picturing Personhood." It's quite good.

FF


from_name: Jofi

body:
I would like to know if it is technically possible to add links to the
previous and next image (in alphabetical order) of an image on its page.
Or would it need too much resources to find the next image in the database?
It would be especially useful for scans of books, where the user could
directly go from one page to the next with such links. At presence the
links have to be added manually. A lot of work for books with 1,000+ pages.

Jofi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls in office

body:
On 3/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> I thought we were talking about a call from someone who has just
> experienced a personal tragedy.  You offer them automated responses from
> Big Brother to emphasize the insignificance of what they are feeling.  I
> would hardly want to live in a world that is so insensitive to the human
> condition.
>
> Ec

You already live in that world (try calling whatever your local
equiverlent of the inland revinue is. We are not the samaritans.

--
geni


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-22

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Basic section headings... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Handling of sections up to level 6 and beyond... FAILED!
Running test Resolving duplicate section names... FAILED!
Running test Template with sections, __NOTOC__... FAILED!
Running test Link inside a section heading... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 275 of 297 tests (92.59%) FAILED!


from_name: ! Chris Sherlock

subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 25

body:
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 3/17/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What really brought my attention to this matter is an image recently
> >>proposed as a featured image on enwiki:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunbathe_Buttocks.jpg ... Now it
> >>may be that the image was created with the consent of the subjects, I
> >>don't intend to criticize this particular image...   But really, lets
> >>consider such an image with identifiable subjects who didn't know the
> >>image had been taken.  What if she were to return to her dorm room and
> >>find the Wikipedia article on sunbathing stapled to it?   Were the
> >>image taken without her consent it's quite possible that she'd be
> >>pissed, and I believe that she'd be justified. There is no reason that
> >>illustrations like this in Wikipedia can't be ones which are created
> >>with the subjects consent.  So even ignoring any possible legal issues
> >>with such images, I think we're breaking good ethics to use images
> >>like this without the subjects consent.
> >>
> >>
> >In a case like the one you give, I agree.  Wikipedia should respect
> >people's right to privacy (which applies in cases where the identity
> >of the person is not important for any educational/newsworthy
> >purpose).
> >
> What is unclear about the picture is whether the subject is
> identifiable.  She has a towel (or something) over her head which would
> hide her identity.
>
> Ec

I would just like to point out that the lady to the left is flipping the
bird at the camera-man. Might not be too happy to have her photo on
Wikipedia I think.

TBSDY


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>John Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple
>>>>user.  For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a
>>>>maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed
>>>>that length of time.  Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for
>>>>the amount of the excess time.  I would not go so far as to support
>>>>having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that
>>>>aren't should be clearly defined.  Where an admin has removed a clearly
>>>>libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Anyway, I think those ideas are terrible. Process is important, but it
>>>should not be fetishised. Blocking people for being pricks is one thing,
>>>but lying about it and using the excuse of "blocking for imposing a
>>>block exceeding 24 hours" is stupid and crazy.
>>>
>>>
>>24 hours is enough to cover off any possible urgency to an admin's
>>unilateral action.  It gives others time to review the block, and extend
>>it if that's appropriate, perhaps based on a recommendation by that
>>admin.  Admins should know the rules better than a newbie, so why
>>shouldn't those rules be applied equally?  I don't see where lying
>>enters into the picture at all.
>>
>>
>So, if someone finds an open proxy/Willy on Wheels/communism vandal,
>they're only allowed to block for 24 hours? At which point /another/
>admin must waste precious time re-doing the first action? That's about
>as silly as making admins tag speedies instead of just shooting them on
>sight.
>
If the culprit is that far gone, I'm sure that more than one admin would
be aware of the situation, and they could collectively find a longer
term solution.

>>>Has everyone gone mad
>>>over the [[literal rule]] lately? Whatever happened to the [[mischief
>>>rule]]? Our policies exist only because there tends to be a 1:1
>>>correlation between the targets of their remedies and people being
>>>dicks. Now people seem to think this correlation can hold, even if we
>>>start developing policies with loopholes begging for trolls to demand
>>>someone be sanctioned for "violating policy". In the end, process exists
>>>as a guide to ferreting out the dicks in the community. It is not meant
>>>to be used to find people you can label dicks and then sanction for
>>>doing something else entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>The mischief that such a rule would address is admins who are being
>>dicks by imposing excessive blocks before another admin even has a
>>chance to look at the problem being addressed.
>>
>>
>So, you'd rather punish 500+ good admins for the sake of a few bad ones?
>
I think you've got the numbers the wrong way about.  The good admins
likely accept such a thing easily.

>>>I should also remind you that blocks are not meant to be punitive.
>>>
>>>
>>Absolutely, and that's exactly the problem that is being addressed.
>>
>>
>I'm not sure I follow you.
>
A good disciplinary system will focus on being remedial rather than
punitive.  It will encourage appropriate behaviours that integrate the
wrongdoer with the community rather than exiling him with harsh punishments.

>>>I find the idea of punishing an admin for a mistake by blocking utterly
>>>ludicrous. Either the admin made a mistake, is compulsively a
>>>mistake-maker/dick acting in good faith (not going to name names...), or
>>>is just a plain dick acting in bad faith. The latter should be dealt
>>>with by the arbcom or common sense; the two former categories *may* be
>>>dealt with in a similar manner, but not always.
>>>
>>>
>>Common sense tells me that this would get the message across to rogue
>>admins much more quickly than a lot of wangling at arbcom.
>>
>>
>And then pretty soon admins will be afraid to use the admin tools at
>all, for fear of being dragged off to Arbcom.
>
Fantastic!


body:
On 3/22/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm shocked people even know the number of those.... things. Eurgh. No
> offence to the Pokemon people, of course ;)
>
> --NSLE

Not really. The orgininal games let you know the number (minus
Missingno) just by looking at the pokedex (I have younger brothers). I
assume it is posible to do the same thing with later games.

--
geni


from_name: freakofnurture

subject:
[WikiEN-l] major groupthink on [[WP:CASH]] (California state
 highways)

body:
Nlu is clearly out of line. Three times (in as many days) he attempted to
give SPUI a week-long block, over nothing. This, after he stated he wasn't
interested in wheel-warring.

freakofnurture
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/major-groupthink-on-WP%3ACASH-%28California-state-highways%29-t1315704.html#a3529129
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthere

body:
! Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Just a short note to let people know that on Saturday 18th March, 2006
> Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu asked his girlfriend to marry
> him, and she said yes!
>
> To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not
> ask her in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)
>
> Chris
> TBSDY

Congrat Tabu !

Next step is *actually* getting married ;-)

ant


from_name: Gregory Price

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 550

body:
On 3/20/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> [on wikipedia-l]
> The real situation is that our current blocking system sucks. A lot. And if we
> just "flipped a switch" it would suck *MUCH WORSE* because it would be virtually
> impossible to actually block anyone -- just create a bunch of accounts and
> you're immune until someone laboriously tracks them all down.
>
> So, it'll take more options and rethinking and generally some better, clearer
> idea of what blocking's supposed to do.

Here's one proposal.  Please comment.

In any case, we leave in place the option to block an IP entirely.
Whatever other, softer notion of blocking we introduce is
just another option, to be used as a first choice but with
hard blocking available as always if necessary.

A first cut at "soft blocking" is to block anon edits
but permit logged-in users to edit.  As you say,
the trouble is that vandals can make accounts too.
There are two ways to make an account: by hand
or with a bot.  So we can say that to edit from a
soft-blocked IP, you must have two "real user" bits set:
 - you've confirmed an email address
 - you've passed a captcha[1]
The captcha makes it very difficult for a bot
to make accounts that can edit from behind a soft-block.
The email confirmation makes it take a couple of minutes
to make each account by hand.

If necessary we can add a couple more provisos:
 - the same email address can't be used to confirm many accounts
  (or many accounts that can edit from behind a soft-block)
 - if the IP is from AOL and it's soft-blocked, the confirmed email
  must be an AOL address.  Since these cost money,
  this proviso and the last one together limit the number of accounts
  any AOL user can edit with when AOL is soft-blocked.
  One could imagine generalizing this to other ISPs --
  the hard part is cataloguing the IP range <-> email domain mapping --
  but even a special case for AOL would be valuable.

None of this need affect people who just want to make an account,
to read logged in, or set their preferences; the only thing
an account that hasn't met the conditions need be barred
from doing through a soft-block is editing.

I see that Christian Siefkes has partially implemented
a similar proposal (comment 50):
  http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550
so the task is to finish it and give it whatever specific behavior
is deemed most useful.

I have some time and could implement this feature
if there's consensus we should have it.

Greg
(User:Gnp)

 [1] Of course for the sake of people who can't see the captcha
     we allow people to contact a human and ask for this bit to be set.


from_name: Paweł Dembowski

body:
Congratulations!

(What's her edit count?)

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] hosting problems

body:
Depends on your location, in my opinion. For instance, I prefer using
a UK-based host because I live there.

As a stopgap measure, if you don't have shell access, try phpShell
(http://mgeisler.net/php-shell) which provides a wrapper/emulator.
However, it might be your crappy host doesn't allow the functions this
needs in order to work.

Rob Church

On 21/03/06, Vedant Lath <vedantlathetc at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> My hosting provider is very crappy. One of the basic things, i.e. shell
> access, is not available. This has many disadvantages because I cannot
> run almost
> any maintenance scripts. I found that I could use cron scripts to replace a
> shell, (it does what I would do in a shell), but it is very tedious and has
> been the cause of many problems. I had to import something to the wiki and
> ran the scirpt through a cron script but forgot to remove it and it kept
> importing it over and over till i saw that some pages that were deleted
> again came up.
>
> moreover, the server is in such a location that cvs update is
> neversuccessful. In my computer, cvs update updates the code within 20
> or 30
> times, but in that server, it has never updated. I made a script to keep
> updating it till it succedded and it updated only once in 24 hours. This
> definately caused problems to the host, and they temporarily suspended my
> account. So I see no way out of this except change my hosting provider.
>
> Does anybody know a good hosting provider that suites my needs?
>
> vedant
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Guten Tag Rich Morin,

am Mittwoch, 22. M?rz 2006 um 01:58 schrieben Sie:

RM> At 2:28 PM -0800 3/21/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> G at B wrote:
>>> - Is there a Wikipedia API-Specification in order to reach my goal?
>>
>> Not at this time.
>>
>>> - If no, which alternatives are there?
>>
>> If you're a nice person: open a web browser and point it at Wikipedia.

RM> That's approximately what I do in my web pages.  My text is rife with
RM> links to WP (to the point that $WP is defined in the PHP code :-).  In
RM> fact, the ability to use WP as a source of explanatory footnotes is a
RM> very big win for me.

RM> However, I can imagine situations where this would not be an optimal
RM> solution.  For example, someone might wish to present the user with
RM> tooltips, image-mapped diagrams for context and navigation, etc.  So,
RM> the web site would display derived information (probably linking to
RM> WP, as well).

RM> This sort of analysis requires intimate familiarity with the structure
RM> of the input data.  So, definitions, consistency, and stability are
RM> important requirements.

RM> At 11:25 PM +0100 3/21/06, G at B wrote:
>> - If no, which alternatives are there?

RM> Here are some possibilities I've considered:

RM>   *  screen scraping

RM>      UI design is hard enough without trying to keep things convenient
RM>      for use by programs.  So, most developers (let alone contributors)
RM>      won't optimize for this use.

RM>      XHTML, if used, helps with some low-level syntax issues (XML
RM>      parsers work :-), but the structure may still be chaotic and
RM>      subject to unannounced changes.

RM>      Nonetheless, I've suggested that Semantic WP (SWP) tags be part
RM>      of the generated XHTML, to enable analysis (etc) by browsers.

RM>   *  XML/SOAP/...

RM>      Quite possible, assuming that WP will allow it and someone can do
RM>      (or support) the necessary standardization and implementation.
RM>      The SWP folks will be forced to do something like this, if nobody
RM>      gets there first.  In any case, it won't be trivial to do right.

RM>   *  RDBMS (eg, MySQL)

RM>      Assuming that read access is available, a script can easily send
RM>      off queries and evaluate the replies.  WP could, in fact, allow
RM>      this, but caution would be worthwhile, as this level of access
RM>      might create new openings for DDoS attacks, etc.  OTOH, if access
RM>      were controlled, correct behavior could be enforced by fiat.

RM>      Otherwise, you fall back to Brion's suggestion of keeping a mirror.
RM>      The last time I checked, this was not a turnkey procedure, but the
RM>      situation may be different now.  Is mirroring automated now?

RM>   *  code-level (e.g., PHP) access

RM>      If you have access to the MW code base, you can grab any data you
RM>      like.  However, this puts you in the role of maintaining a forked
RM>      version of MW.  Of course, if your changes are deemed useful and
RM>      safe, you might get them into the MW code base.  In fact, putting
RM>      XML access and/or SMW facilities into MW is an example of this.

RM>   *  command-line access

RM>      If you have command-line access on a machine where MW is running,
RM>      and appropriate permissions, you can access data in a number of
RM>      ways.  For example, you could look directly into the MySQL files
RM>      or behind MW's back at generated files, etc.  (However, YMMV!)

RM> In summary, there are a variety of options.  My own approach is to use
RM> mediated database access (eg, via Perl's DBI module).  This shields me
RM> from implementation details and reduces portability issues.  With the
RM> exception of the DB structure, I can treat MW largely as a "black box".

RM> Although I'm not sure I'll need it, DBI-Link provides a way to access
RM> arbitrary databases via PostgreSQL.  So, if PostgreSQL can provide
RM> facilities that MySQL (or whatever) does not, it can be used as a
RM> "wrapper":

RM>   ??? -> PostgreSQL -> PL/PerlU -> DBI-Link -> Perl DBI -> MySQL (etc)

RM> I would be happy to hear of other possibilities, etc.  TMTOWTDI!

RM> -r

Thank you for your advices guys. I hope in future there will be a more
comfortable way to get the data. For me would be comfortable to have
the solution (for example) in Java, considered that a lot of Web
Technologies are beiing developed in this area (see JSP, JSF, etc..).
Well another question to Rich Morin:
Can you please give the url to you page in order to see how does "the
wiki implementation" look and work?

--
BR

Gab


from_name: Darren Ray

subject:
[WikiEN-l] False accusations of Sock Puppetry by Ambi,
	David Gerard etc

body:
Dear Wikipedians,

Yesterday, I was blocked from using Wikipedia on the grounds that I am a
sockpuppet master of two accounts, 2006BC and AChan.

There is a big problem with this. They are two living, breathing people who
had previously already identified themselves on their user page and
elswehere.

They have both already complained about this separately although Ambi, her
friend David Gerard and others are sticking to their guns despite the
absurdity of their position being pointed out. Ambi is a former member of
the Arbitration Committee, and her friend David Gerard seems enjoy a similar
high position. Has anyone else had experience of dealing with these people?

I don't know what to do other than to request to be unblocked but it seems
that there is little likelihood of justice being done.

Ambi had previously filed a Request for Arbitration against me and I was
going to respond with one relating to her abusive conduct and POV editing.

I would appreciate any ideas people had about what to do. My knowledge of
Wikipedia policies is pretty good in theory but has clearly come up short in
practice as I have been completely banned for no good reason.

Thank you

Darren Ray


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

body:
I'm shocked people even know the number of those.... things. Eurgh. No
offence to the Pokemon people, of course ;)

--NSLE

On 3/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >   Remember that discussion about how it wouldn't be possible to have
> > more than 20 or so articles on a single pokemon character etc etc.
> > Well, I just discovered bulpapedia
> > (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page). It currently has
> > 2700 pages relating to Pok?mon.
> >
> > You should each make some time in your day today to reflect upon that
> fact.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Perhaps but it contains stuff like this:
>
> http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/SeasonShipping
>
> Still 2688 articles 395 pokemon= 6.8 articles per pokemon. However
> that ignores any human characters.
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia: Admins abusing their authority

body:
On 3/20/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So that's a "no", you don't have independently-verifiable logs then.
>

This whole thread is some of the worst trolling I've seen in awhile. Someone
identifying himself as "Gay Muslim" wanting to clean up all the "ridiculous
POV" in our articles should be the first red flag. Why are we even
responding? Can we ban this guy off the mailing list too please?

Ryan


from_name: Philip Welch

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review
	Tackles Nature Methods

body:
On Mar 22, 2006, at 7:41 AM, SJ wrote:

> Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
> customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
> accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
> review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
> and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.

This confirms it. We have reached GandhiCon 3:

1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you
4. And then you win.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Rich Morin

body:
At 8:08 AM +0100 3/22/06, G at B wrote:
> Well another question to Rich Morin:
> Can you please give the url to you page in order to see
> how does "the wiki implementation" look and work?

I'm not sure what you are requesting.  In any case, my own work
in this area is still exploratory, so I don't have any working
examples to show off.  Thus "my own approach" translates to "an
idea I'm pursuing" (:-).  Sorry for any confusion.

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm            Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume     rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog     +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: WikiTimeline

body:
Jesse Nickles schrieb:
> Hello, I'm proposing a new project called WikiTimeline
> that focuses on simple timelines of key events. This
> is due to the fact that most wiki pages do indeed list
> some dates and years in regard to important
> developements when relevant, but often in a very
> disorganized or hard to decipher fashion. Visit the
> proposal page here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTimeline
>
> I'm not very experienced with Wikimedia but at least a
> bit of light can be shed on this issue via this
> proposal so that a discussion can determine how
> feasible or necessary such a project is. Thank you,
> Jesse

You might be interested in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Timeline_of_Human_History

greetings,
elian


subject: [Foundation-l] Proposal: WikiTimeline


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Slightly OT] Answers sues Babylon

body:
The only fact which makes this posting not totally OT here is that
Wikimedia has both connections to Answers and Babylon. Answers.com is
using Wikipedia content on answers.com and Babylon just recently
offered Wikipedia content in their toolbox (18 month after they had
released a section of Wikipedia content for the "Olympic Games"). In
the first attempt, they failed to meet the requiremens from the GFDL.
-- Mathias

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=13132

Answers.com owner sues Israeli tech firm
by Amanda Fung

Answers Corp., the Manhattan-based creator of Answers.com, said
Wednesday that it sued an Israeli company to stop it from using
technology that links a user's computer with a central database over
the Internet.

The lawsuit, filed with the Tel-Aviv District Court, claims that
Babylon Ltd. infringed on Answers' Computerized Dictionary and
Thesaurus Applications patent. Answers got the patent in 2004, nine
years after it first applied.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/tm.site/news/BREAKING%20NEWS/190036/
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060308/ukw014.html?.v=45


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] major groupthink on [[WP:CASH]] (California state
	highways)

body:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:40:54 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>Nlu is clearly out of line. Three times (in as many days) he attempted to
>give SPUI a week-long block, over nothing. This, after he stated he wasn't
>interested in wheel-warring.

Really?  You don't think that, as a serial and frequently blocked
vandal (to say nothing of the blatant trolling on his userpage), SPUI
might actually merit a longer block than the 24 hours which has thus
far failed to deter his various idiocies?

Nlu applied a block.  Someone else undid it without discussing with
Nlu.  Who's the wheel warrior here?   It takes two.  SPUI is a problem
user, 24 hour blocks have failed to address that, a one week block
seems entirely defensible, even if other admins would not themselves
have chosen that particular duration.

And in the end SPUI has achieved exactly what he wants: he's wasted
more of our time and got more attention, without measurably
restricting his ability to disrupt the project.  Way to go.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: SJ

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review Tackles
	Nature Methods

body:
Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.

==================================================

>> Because you're a valued Britannica customer, I'm writing to you today about
a subject that has received widespread news coverage - it is a subject
that's being taken very seriously by all of us at Encyclop?dia Britannica
and one on which we have worked extensively with our editors, contributors,
and advisors for many weeks.

In one of its recent issues, the science journal Nature published an article
that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclop?dia Britannica
with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of
knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject.
Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but
Nature's article claimed that Britannica's science coverage was only
slightly more accurate than Wikipedia's.

Arriving amid the revelations of vandalism and errors in Wikipedia, such a
finding was, not surprisingly, big news. Perhaps you even saw the story
yourself. It's been reported around the world.

Those reports were wrong, however, because Nature's research was invalid. As
our editors and scholarly advisers have discovered by reviewing the research
in depth, almost everything about the Nature's investigation was wrong and
misleading. Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not
inaccuracies at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not
even in the Encyclop?dia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and
its findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.

Since educators and librarians have been among Britannica's closest
colleagues for many years, I would like to address you personally with an
explanation of our findings and tell you the truth about the Nature study.

Almost everything Nature did showed carelessness and indifference to basic
research standards. Their numerous errors and spurious procedures included
the following:

*       Rearranging, reediting, and excerpting Britannica articles. Several
of the "articles" Nature sent its outside reviewers were only sections of,
or excerpts from Britannica entries. Some were cut and pasted together from
more than one Britannica article. As a result, Britannica's coverage of
certain subjects was represented in the study by texts that our editors
never created, approved or even saw.
*       Mistakenly identifying inaccuracies. The journal claimed to have
found dozens of inaccuracies in Britannica that didn't exist.
*       Reviewing the wrong texts. They reviewed a number of texts that were
not even in the encyclopedia.
*       Failing to check facts. Nature falsely attributed inaccuracies to
Britannica based on statements from its reviewers that were themselves
inaccurate and which Nature's editors failed to verify.
*       Misrepresenting its findings. Even according to Nature's own
figures, (which grossly exaggerated the number of inaccuracies in
Britannica) Wikipedia had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. Yet the
headline of the journal's report concealed this fact and implied something
very different.

Britannica also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
data on which the study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they
declined.

The Nature study was thoroughly wrong and represented an unfair affront to
Britannica's reputation.

Britannica practices the kind of sound scholarship and rigorous editorial
work that few organizations even attempt. This is vital in the age of the
Internet, when there is so much inappropriate material available. Today,
having sources like Britannica is more important than ever, with content
that is reliable, tailored to the age of the user, correlated to curriculum,
and safe for everyone.

Whatever may have prompted Nature to do such careless and sloppy research,
it's now time for them to uphold their commitment to good science and
retract the study immediately. We have urged them strongly to do so.

We have prepared a detailed report that describes Britannica's thorough
(7,000 words) analysis of the Nature study. I invite you to download it from
our Web site at www.eb.com.

==================================================


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica Review
	Tackles Nature Methods


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

body:
Hello sirs. I've been in communication with a user who feels that my block of
his IP address is inappropriate. E-mail correspondence follows.

----
On 3/21/06, Wwwwolf wrote:

Hello,

213.216.199.14 (Tuira-P1.suomi.net) is currently blocked, with the reasoning
being that it's suspected to be an open proxy.

This is indeed a proxy (but not an open one - or at least it's not
*supposed* to be, I think), used by my ISP (Oulun Puhelin Oy, a.k.a. Oulu
Telephone Company, Oulu, Finland). The thing is, it's a transparent proxy
that the ISP uses by default, and I'm not aware of any way for the users to
disable it (aside of using any other port besides 80, of course).

The proxy has been blocked a few times before on fi.wikipedia for vandalism.
The host name suggests it's a proxy for the users of Tuira region in Oulu,
and since I'm not that close to Tuira, I take an educated guess it handles a
huge chunk of the  northern Oulu (remember, I'm not really that familiar
with the ISP's inner working, just guesses). I'd *hate* to drag every luser
in this big neighborhood out of their homes and ask them nicely, with a
baseball bat, if they have been adding crap to WP. There *has* to be a nicer
solution to this than that, right?

There's an unrepentent vandal in the neighborhood. What a scary thought.
Maybe I should move to Siberia. Meanwhile, maybe I need to edit from the
university =(

----
On 3/22/06, freakofnurture wrote:

If what you said was true, I would not have been able to perform this edit
through it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=44333667

Sorry, your IP is a Tor proxy.

----
On 3/22/06, Wwwwolf wrote:

All right, so my guess is there's some Bloody Idiot in the neighborhood who
runs a Tor node, 80/tcp traffic comes out of that host and gets intercepted
and forwarded by the ISP's proxy (that *every* customer is forced to use, I
remind you again).

In other words, the blocked IP is, in my educated guess, *not* the Tor node.
It just unwittingly hides a Tor node behind it.

So what exactly are we going to do here? Call the ISP (who are a Phone
Company, I remind you again) and ask them to remind people that
running Tor is very, very stupid because it makes rest of the customers
unable to edit Wikipedia? Or ask them to take fascist measures to make the
people not to run Tor exit points from home? Or move to Siberia; goodbye,
cruel world?

I'm not questioning the wisdom of blocking the thing if Tor traffic really
goes through here; all I'm saying this causes a lot of collateral damage.
And what am I supposed to do now? Look like a Chinese dissident and use
Privoxy, the most incomprehensible program devised by mankind since the
advent of Sendmail? I would rather not try to specifically avoid IP bans
even if I'm supposedly the innocent party.

----
On 3/22/06, Wwwwolf wrote:

Still on the open proxy issue:

It seems that the proxy does provide a valid X-Forwarded-For header. I made
a small script on my web host that spits out the HTTP remote address and
X-Forwarded-For header, and got 213.216.199.14 (Tuira-P1.suomi.net) and
82.128.217.58 (addr-82-128-217-58.suomi.net) respectively, latter of which
appears to be my correct IP.

Now please don't tell me Mediawiki can't block based on X-Forwarded-For.
This is the year 2006, after all... =)

----
[end of correspondence]
----

So, I'm wondering whether this is a shaggy dog story, or blatant trolling,
or possibly an alibi with plausible technical merit. I was about to post
this to [[WP:BJAODN]], but a fellow administrator referred me to this list.
All I know is... if *I* was able to make a sandbox edit of "Tor proxy ~~~~"
using his IP, anybody could just as easily the IP for abusive purposes.
Suffice it to say I don't know what to tell the guy.

--freakofnurture
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tor-and-%22X-Forwarded-For%22-t1325932.html#a3538731
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] ROUGE ADNMIN - the game

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

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

body:
At 10:58 AM -0800 3/22/06, freakofnurture wrote:
> Meanwhile, maybe I need to edit from the university =(

You may be able to edit _through_ the university, by means
of SSH port forwarding.

-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm            Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume     rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog     +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Solution to the Image Problem

body:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images.  2000 of them are uploaded
every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an
incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.

A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove
the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the
"upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]].  If users have
to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully
read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they
can find on Google Image Search.

Thoughts?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text, XML, DocBook, PDF

body:
Note: I cross-posted this to several lists, because I think this is of
interest to many; please reply on wikitech-l only.

A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
It uses the same method to replace templates.

The generated XML can now be converted into other formats. For
demonstration [1], I offer "plain text" and DocBook XML.

What I cannot demonstrate (due to limitations of my hosting service) is
the subsequence conversion to HTML or PDF from the DocBook XML. However,
it is quite easy to set up an automatic conversion locally if you have
the necessary DocBook files installed.

As an example, I have generated a PDF [2] by
1. Entering the titles of the articles I want to have
2. Chosing "DocBook PDF" as output format
3. Clicking "Convert"
4. Waiting for the PDF to open
Really, that easy! :-)

I am well aware of some shortcomings of the example PDF, however, most
of them (no left margin, gigantic tables, misshaped images) are flaws of
DocBook, or of the default stylesheets I use. I'm not really familiar
with DocBook and hope for help by people that are.

While the converter seems to work pretty well, I'm sure there are lots
of fun bugs to find. If you do find a page that breaks, please mail me
the title so I can find the bug, or even better, fix it yourself! The
code is in CVS, "wiki2xml" module, "php" directory (ignore the old C
code in the main directory;-)

A word about speed: Yes, the process of creating a PDF takes some time.
However, most of it is DocBook at work, and of course the loading times
for articles and templates. Converting the example from wiki markup to
XML to DocBook XML to PDF takes 2 minutes 20 seconds total, but the
actual conversion wiki-to-XML is done in just 8 seconds.

Apart from bug fixing, my next priority is ODT (OpenOffice) format
output. Also, I would like to extend Special:Export in MediaWiki so it
can return a list of authors, which can then be added automagically to
all converted files.

Awaiting your feedback,
Magnus

[1] http://magnusmanske.de/wiki2xml/w2x.php
[2] http://magnusmanske.de/wiki2xml/Biology_topics.pdf (3.7 MB!)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060322/5e95b6bc/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text, XML, DocBook, PDF

body:
Note: I cross-posted this to several lists, because I think this is of
interest to many; please reply on wikitech-l only.

A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
It uses the same method to replace templates.

The generated XML can now be converted into other formats. For
demonstration [1], I offer "plain text" and DocBook XML.

What I cannot demonstrate (due to limitations of my hosting service) is
the subsequence conversion to HTML or PDF from the DocBook XML. However,
it is quite easy to set up an automatic conversion locally if you have
the necessary DocBook files installed.

As an example, I have generated a PDF [2] by
1. Entering the titles of the articles I want to have
2. Chosing "DocBook PDF" as output format
3. Clicking "Convert"
4. Waiting for the PDF to open
Really, that easy! :-)

I am well aware of some shortcomings of the example PDF, however, most
of them (no left margin, gigantic tables, misshaped images) are flaws of
DocBook, or of the default stylesheets I use. I'm not really familiar
with DocBook and hope for help by people that are.

While the converter seems to work pretty well, I'm sure there are lots
of fun bugs to find. If you do find a page that breaks, please mail me
the title so I can find the bug, or even better, fix it yourself! The
code is in CVS, "wiki2xml" module, "php" directory (ignore the old C
code in the main directory;-)

A word about speed: Yes, the process of creating a PDF takes some time.
However, most of it is DocBook at work, and of course the loading times
for articles and templates. Converting the example from wiki markup to
XML to DocBook XML to PDF takes 2 minutes 20 seconds total, but the
actual conversion wiki-to-XML is done in just 8 seconds.

Apart from bug fixing, my next priority is ODT (OpenOffice) format
output. Also, I would like to extend Special:Export in MediaWiki so it
can return a list of authors, which can then be added automagically to
all converted files.

Awaiting your feedback,
Magnus

[1] http://magnusmanske.de/wiki2xml/w2x.php
[2] http://magnusmanske.de/wiki2xml/Biology_topics.pdf (3.7 MB!)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060322/5e95b6bc/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] ROUGE ADNMIN - the game

body:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:39 +0000, you wrote:

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

Now linked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rouge_admin :-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 550

body:
On 3/22/06, Gregory Price <gprice at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Here's one proposal.  Please comment.
>
> In any case, we leave in place the option to block an IP entirely.
> Whatever other, softer notion of blocking we introduce is
> just another option, to be used as a first choice but with
> hard blocking available as always if necessary.

Yep.

> A first cut at "soft blocking" is to block anon edits
> but permit logged-in users to edit.  As you say,

Agree.

> the trouble is that vandals can make accounts too.

I suggest that for a first attempt, we simply disable account creation
from soft-blocked IPs. That's still an improvement on the current
situation.

Then, if as you say, you have the time to implement captchas etc, then
I would say "go for it":) The part about requiring an email will
definitely be contentious. I'm not sure *why*, since pretty much every
other site on the internet that you can have an account with requires
an email address (notably phpBB forums...grr). But people will
complain.

Steve


body:
On 3/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> And in the end SPUI has achieved exactly what he wants: he's wasted
> more of our time and got more attention, without measurably
> restricting his ability to disrupt the project.  Way to go.

IMHO, SPUI is that class of divisive troll whose aim is to skirt the
very limits of acceptable behaviour, in order to get some people with
power on his side, and some people with power against him. I've seen
them before. They are a total nightmare for everyone, and end up
wasting everyone's time and causing huge amounts of angst and upset
between those who see them as annoying trolls who deserve punishment,
and those who insist they haven't technically broken any rules.

Fortunately they are rare. I believe the only real solution is "nuke
from space". But failing that, just agree to agree with whatever
remedies are put in place, ignore the troll and move on.

Steve


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text,
	XML, DocBook, PDF

body:
On 3/22/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
> MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
> relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
> list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
> It uses the same method to replace templates.

This sounds brilliant. However, I must ask a stupid question: If it
can take text from *any* mediawiki based site (ie, one not running the
.PHP script), then why is it written in PHP? Could you explain how you
deploy it?

Steve


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 3/22/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/22/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
> > > customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
> > > accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
> > > review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
> > > and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.
> >
> > Where?
>
>
> http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

Heh, some of the Britannica responses are quite amusing:

"Article: Pheromone
Reviewer comment: One might get the impression that a pheromone is a
substance, while it usually consists of several in a blend.
Britannica response: We do not accept this criticism. This article
does not even discuss the composition of pheromones."

What exactly is the article supposed to discuss, then?

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Jorge S�nchez Seijo

subject: [Wikitech-l] Workflow

body:
Hello

I'm quite new in the Wiki world, so please excuse me for my ignorance.
I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about a Wiki supporting workflow.
Certainly, documents go through different stages since they are created
until they are filed or removed.
Is there an existing solution for this? Have you ever thought about it?

Regards

Jorge


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Workflow

body:
"Jorge S?nchez Seijo" <jorseijo at hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:BAY105-F34223EB0C296F9FF90BC1DC2D90 at phx.gbl...
> Hello
>
> I'm quite new in the Wiki world, so please excuse me for my ignorance.
> I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about a Wiki supporting workflow.
> Certainly, documents go through different stages since they are created
> until they are filed or removed.
> Is there an existing solution for this? Have you ever thought about it?

There is a tasks extension which is in development, I think by Magnus
Manske, but I don't know what stage it's reached.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
> "internet database anyone, without specific qualifications can edit"
> is a jab...

Notice how they carefully don't refer to WP as an "encyclopedia"
at all.

> I'm having a hard time with the idea of sending them a "nice" message.

But that's the point.  The nastier someone is, the more
devastating it can be to be nice in return.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Phone calls

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>
>>On 3/14/06, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps all pages in template space should be semi-protected by default:
>>>templates are an advanced feature that probably does not make sense for
>>>new users to experiment with, in any case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>More complexity is probably less desired than more simplicity.
>>
>
> It follows that replacement of templates by real text should be e3ncouraged.
>

I can put a nice message explaining why someone has been reverted onto
their talk page with a single mouse click. If I wrote a personalised
message for each schoolkid ("One test message per child"?), RC patrol
would be a lot worse than it is now. Of coure, having bots working RC
patrol helps...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060322/c296ee91/attachment.pgp


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] MediaWiki converter to Plain Text,
 XML, DocBook, PDF

body:
Steve Bennett schrieb:
> On 3/22/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>> A long, long time ago, I started writing a PHP script to convert
>> MediaWiki markup into XML. I believe it is now feature-complete and
>> relatively reliable. Not only can it process a single wiki text, but a
>> list of articles, taking the text from any MediaWiki-based site online.
>> It uses the same method to replace templates.
>>
>
> This sounds brilliant. However, I must ask a stupid question: If it
> can take text from *any* mediawiki based site (ie, one not running the
> .PHP script), then why is it written in PHP?
It is currently a standalone application. I wrote it in PHP so it can be
easily integrated into MediaWiki as an extension one day.
> Could you explain how you
> deploy it?
>
I run it on my local Apache/PHP environment. It accesses the MediaWiki
installation I want through the web, retrieving text via "&action=raw".
I plan to change that to access via "Special:Export" soon.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060322/ae7dbc56/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki converter (follow-up)

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I have added an option to Special:Export that will add a list of all
> contributors of a page to the XML output. The list is distinct (each
> contributor mentioned only once). I also expanded the XML converter to
> use this. (Brion et al.: please put the new Special:Export on the live
> sites soon)

That would be way too expensive, no can do.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060322/3fe52871/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 3/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Rudy Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
> > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > > Wikipedia's got a problem with images.  2000 of them are uploaded
> > > every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an
> > > incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
> > >
> > > A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove
> > > the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the
> > > "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]].  If users have
> > > to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully
> > > read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they
> > > can find on Google Image Search.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Given the experience I just had with a new user, I'd think that
> > disabling uploading for users without a userpage and/or new users (1
> > month?) would be a good idea.
> >
> Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't
> accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading
> harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the
> side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.

All that will do is force users to provide whatever the software is
looking for as a "source".  We're seeing this already with copyright
tags: people are sticking license tags, usually "fair use" and
"CopyrightedFreeUse" license tags, on images in a desperate attempt to
keep the images safe from the "no license" patrol.  You can see this
in the responses to OrphanBot's notifications: many are of the form
"What license tag should I stick on my image to keep it from being
deleted?".

When trying to solve the image problem, there are some fundamental
things you need to keep in mind:
*Joe User doesn't care about "correct"
*Joe User doesn't care about "copyright"
*Joe User doesn't care about "source"
*Joe User doesn't care about "policy"
All Joe User wants is pictures in his article.

--
Mark


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
Interesting ruling from the High Court in England, which could have
implications for our talk  pages.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html

Sarah


subject: [Wikitech-l] Workflow

body:
Phil Boswell schrieb:
> "Jorge S?nchez Seijo" <jorseijo at hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:BAY105-F34223EB0C296F9FF90BC1DC2D90 at phx.gbl...
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm quite new in the Wiki world, so please excuse me for my ignorance.
>> I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about a Wiki supporting workflow.
>> Certainly, documents go through different stages since they are created
>> until they are filed or removed.
>> Is there an existing solution for this? Have you ever thought about it?
>>
>
> There is a tasks extension which is in development, I think by Magnus
> Manske, but I don't know what stage it's reached.
>
Woring demo at
    http://magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php/Main_Page
Note the "tasks" tab and the "open tasks" list in the sidebar.

IMHO it's working OK, but it has never been field-tested.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060322/69a0fc28/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 3/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> >And then pretty soon admins will be afraid to use the admin tools at
> >all, for fear of being dragged off to Arbcom.
> >
> Fantastic!
>
and then, teh tehrorrists^Wvandals will have won


from_name: THD

subject: [Foundation-l] Ta bu shi da yu is getting married

body:
Congratulation!!

Theodoranian

2006/3/21, ! Chris Sherlock <ta.bu.shi.da.yu at gmail.com>:
>
> Just a short note to let people know that on Saturday 18th March, 2006
> Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu asked his girlfriend to marry
> him, and she said yes!
>
> To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not
> ask her in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)
>
> Chris
> TBSDY
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>Wikipedia's got a problem with images.  2000 of them are uploaded
>every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an
>incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
>
>A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove
>the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the
>"upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]].  If users have
>to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully
>read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they
>can find on Google Image Search.
>
Not to be too cynical about the abilities of some of our editors,
but I bet simply moving upload under Special pages will cut the
number of bad uploads in half. Or make the link appear only if you
set the "allow uploading" preference correctly.

Requiring as little as a week of WP experience will also cut down on
bad uploads. There are an amazing number of logins whose complete
list of contributions is the uploading of one or two copyright
violations, and maybe an attempt to actually edit an article, all
within the space of an hour.

Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] Workflow

body:
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote in
message news:44214BAF.60009 at web.de...
> Phil Boswell schrieb:
> > "Jorge S?nchez Seijo" <jorseijo at hotmail.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:BAY105-F34223EB0C296F9FF90BC1DC2D90 at phx.gbl...
[snip]
> > There is a tasks extension which is in development, I think by Magnus
> > Manske, but I don't know what stage it's reached.
> WorKing demo at
>     http://magnusmanske.de/wikipeerdia/index.php/Main_Page
> Note the "tasks" tab and the "open tasks" list in the sidebar.
> IMHO it's working OK, but it has never been field-tested.

Does it necessarily include the "review" feature, or are they separate?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creating an account and legal stuff

body:
On 3/22/06, Rudy Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
> The "create account" currently currently does not display any (lack of)
> rights people are entitled to when they create an account. Shouldn't
> this screen at least need to display that accounts will not be deleted
> and may be even have a box that needs to checked, stating that people
> accept Wikipedia's privacy policy?

Wikipedia's privacy policy applies to the Wikimedia Foundation itself
and its employees and agents.  It does not apply to Wikipedia users
and editors.

I don't think we need such a thing.

-Matt


from_name: - Essjay -

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 550

body:
I was under the impression that account creation from *any* blocked IP was
disabled; I know it has been in the past, because I helped brion test it a
couple months back when we were having vandalbot username-creation attacks.

Essjay

On 3/22/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/06, Gregory Price <gprice at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Here's one proposal.  Please comment.
> >
> > In any case, we leave in place the option to block an IP entirely.
> > Whatever other, softer notion of blocking we introduce is
> > just another option, to be used as a first choice but with
> > hard blocking available as always if necessary.
>
> Yep.
>
> > A first cut at "soft blocking" is to block anon edits
> > but permit logged-in users to edit.  As you say,
>
> Agree.
>
> > the trouble is that vandals can make accounts too.
>
> I suggest that for a first attempt, we simply disable account creation
> from soft-blocked IPs. That's still an improvement on the current
> situation.
>
> Then, if as you say, you have the time to implement captchas etc, then
> I would say "go for it":) The part about requiring an email will
> definitely be contentious. I'm not sure *why*, since pretty much every
> other site on the internet that you can have an account with requires
> an email address (notably phpBB forums...grr). But people will
> complain.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Captcha word quiz

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>>On 3/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Initialy you could just use plain speach and rely on the issue that
>>>no one else uses them so no one is going to bother makeing a bot.
>>>More advanced aproaches could involve spoting male and female voices
>>>against background noise.
>
> That could work, though automated (unattended) text-to-speech synthesis
> has not significantly improved in my lifetime. (Read: it's terrible.
> Yes, even IBM's whizzo-prang stuff. Horrendously disjointed and
> considerably more difficult to use as a "test" of something's humanity
> than would be desired, I feel.)

Yes, but the nice thing is that we don't really need speech synthesis
for this, since recordings of spoken words are plentiful and easily
available.  In fact, we already have a perfect source: the Spoken
Wikipedia project.

Cutting the recordings up to build a decent library of a few thousand
words (with a dozen or more recordings of each) does take some work, but
could be semiautomated (given that we have access to the written
version) and easily done by volunteer contributors.

Background babble can be generated automatically by mixing random
segments from the same recordings.  Other noises can also be included:
anyone with a laptop and a microphone can easily contribute practically
limitless amounts of digitally recorded noise.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Birger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Subpages in main namespace?

body:
Why is the option to make subpages in the main namespaces not enabled by
default? Is there something wrong with making subpages into the main
namespace?


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

body:
Anything can be authority abuse; I've been accused of breaching the 3RR
policy by blocking Deathrocker for 4 days


from_name: Gregory Price

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chatroom libel ruling

body:
On 3/22/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting ruling from the High Court in England, which could have
> implications for our talk  pages.
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html

Thank goodness American libel laws are less powerful.

The plaintiff indirectly acknowledges this, saying "I considered suing
Yahoo! but their discussion board is hosted in the US and falls
outside UK law."

But certainly if an editor's in the UK and says nasty things
about someone else in the UK, this ruling could be dangerous for them...
well, we can just accept this as putting some teeth behind [[WP:NPA]]. =)

Greg
Gnp


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
At Wikipedia-en there is a policy against it. For a human-readable
encyclopaedia it's a bit of a tacky way of organising sub topics.

Steve

On 3/22/06, Birger <bweynants at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is the option to make subpages in the main namespaces not enabled by
> default? Is there something wrong with making subpages into the main
> namespace?


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and "X-Forwarded-For"

body:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:58:30AM -0800, freakofnurture wrote:
> So, I'm wondering whether this is a shaggy dog story, or blatant trolling,
> or possibly an alibi with plausible technical merit. I was about to post
> this to [[WP:BJAODN]], but a fellow administrator referred me to this list.
> All I know is... if *I* was able to make a sandbox edit of "Tor proxy ~~~~"
> using his IP, anybody could just as easily the IP for abusive purposes.
> Suffice it to say I don't know what to tell the guy.

Well, for what my opinion is worth (I'm not a Wikimedia admin, but I've
been on the net for about 23 years) the writer doesn't sound like a) an
idiot, or b) a kook.  He may be slightly uninformed technically (though
I'm not sure I even think that), but...

Let me make sure I'm following your perception: he says the HTTP proxy
which is blocked a) isn't his, b) isn't easily avoidable  c) causes
collateral damage and d) is "safe", and you believe one or more of
those assertions to be factually inaccurate?

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

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/22/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Below is a letter that Britannica sent out today to some of its
> customers, in response to the December Nature article comparing the
> accuracy of articles in Wikipedia and Britannica.  A more detailed
> review of the Nature study, including responses to each alleged error
> and omission, is linked from the front page of www.eb.com.

Where?

--
geni


from_name: charles matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Fatally Flawed" -- Internal Britannica
	ReviewTackles Nature Methods

body:
 "Mathias Schindler"  wrote

> This is pretty important and from all I've read so far, one could be
> in the situation to support Britannicas call to Nature to retract the
> story and make a better one.

Yes, it's interesting.  I thought at the time of the Nature article that the
main point was not that Wikipedia did well, but that B did badly.

Anyway, I'm sure we want to console  the EB folks.  After all, we're all in
the same business.  We should send them some pleasant message, sympathising
with the unpleasant, picky results of that survey.  Something short and to
the point, like the words "watch" and "Swiss".

Charles


from_name: Hsiang-Tai Chien

body:
Congratulations to Ta bu shi da yu! (Is it a Japanese name?)

First time to post in [Foundation-l]. :)

H.T.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ! Chris Sherlock
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:40 PM
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Ta bu shi da yu is getting married

Just a short note to let people know that on Saturday 18th March, 2006
Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu asked his girlfriend to marry him,
and she said yes!

To clarify (I've been pinged on this before) - obviously he did not ask her
in his capacity as a Wikipedia admin :-)

Chris
TBSDY
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___________________________________________________  ??? Yahoo!?????? 7.0???????????  http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/


from_name: SJ

subject: [Wikitech-l] bug 550

body:
On 3/22/06, Gregory Price <gprice at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> Here's one proposal.  Please comment.
>
> In any case, we leave in place the option to block an IP entirely.
> Whatever other, softer notion of blocking we introduce is
> just another option, to be used as a first choice but with
> hard blocking available as always if necessary.

Makes sense.

> or with a bot.  So we can say that to edit from a
> soft-blocked IP, you must have two "real user" bits set:
>  - you've confirmed an email address
>  - you've passed a captcha[1]
> The captcha makes it very difficult for a bot
> to make accounts that can edit from behind a soft-block.
> The email confirmation makes it take a couple of minutes
> to make each account by hand.
> If necessary we can add a couple more provisos:

You may want to add a throttle here on the rate of account creations
from a single IP -- again, only for this class of soft-blocked IPs,
perhaps at most two every five minutes.

> None of this need affect people who just want to make an account,
> to read logged in, or set their preferences; the only thing
> an account that hasn't met the conditions need be barred
> from doing through a soft-block is editing.

I like this part.

SJ


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Nicholas Moreau wrote:
>
>
>>Africa was brought up in discussion of verifiability. This raises an  important question, should/can we be lax references for African content  in en?
>>
>> Suppose a tribes' elder writes an article on his village, he'll do it  based on oral history, or one-off documents. This information may be  recorded in books, but these books are stashed away in libraries miles  upon miles away.
>>
>> What happens then? It's true information, but there's little or no available sources for the writer to cite.
>>
>>
>Welcome to my challenge: writing articles about Ethiopia (& neighboring
>countries) where I can provide adequate sources. The short report on this
>challenge is that sometimes I'm successful, & sometimes I'm not; compared to
>a number of other topics one could write about for Wikipedia, verification
>is currently harder, & for the forseeable future will likely remain so.
>
Oral histories have a role to play.  In Canada the Supreme Court has in
the past given credence to oral histories in establishing land claims of
the First Nations of British Columbia.

>The longer report on this challenge is as follows. The problem of
>"oral history" isn't as insurmountable as it might first appear: a large
>number of field researchers spent the 20th century combing Africa &
>recording oral historical traditions, so a lot of material that one might
>expect to find in an encyclopedia is in print, & can be verified. Getting
>ahold of the printed accounts might pose a challenge of one kind or
>another: for example, I own a copy of Richard Pankhurst's quite informative
>_Economic History of Ethiopia_ (which covers the years 1800-1935), but it
>had a first printing of 4,000 copies, so I don't know if someone else could
>easily verify any material I might draw from it.
>
Hmmm!  Published in Addis Abeba in 1968.  (not exactly the best place to
publish if you want high circulation. :-) )  4 copies available through
Abebooks, with the cheapest at US$59.37.  The pre-1800 volume was
published in London and can be had for $14.31

>But that is a problem with
>every specialized discipline. (Anyone else on the list own a copy of
>_Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament_? It's another
>valuable work, but not one found in the average public library.)
>
32 copies available through Abebooks with the cheapest being for US$75.00

The point for me is that these are easy to track down, and I'm confident
that I could verify the material if I took an interest in the subject.

Ec