body:
On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> There may be many people volunteering their time. There is a great lack of
> people for specific functions.
>
> Yes, volunteers are given tasks/responsibilities. It is however up to them
> to decide what they want to do and when they do them. They are volunteers,
> they cannot be told. The notion of relying on a specific task to be done in
> a certain time frame is something you CAN demand of an employee not from a
> volunteer.
>
> PS I have some sort of official capacity; I am a member of the language
> committee. Some people say that we take our time. I would argue that this is
> not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

I understand what you're saying about volunteers not being obligated
to the foundation and that even trusted volunteers may have a tough
time justifying getting out of bed in the morning for the Foundation,
but I think the level of obligation many of our users feel to the
project is comparable to the the obligation felt by an employee and
could be put to use.

If a volunteer strongly believes in the work of the foundation, has
shown commitment to the project through positions of trust, has shown
that they will do at least X hours a day, and has assumed much
responsibility then I think they could be trusted with a position.

I agree, there are some critical jobs with time-sensitivity that
cannot be left to volunteers, but volunteers should be used as
extensively as possible.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Foundation-l] Update of Foundation organization


list: wikien-l

from_name: Andrew Cady

subject: [WikiEN-l] Correction to New Yorker Article

body:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:44:39AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> We do not have them for user pages, and it does not strike me as
> irregular that a fictitious persona would have a fictitious biography.

I find it disturbing that so many here accept this characterization of
the falsified credentials.


list: foundation-l

body:
On 05/03/07, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a
> university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort
> of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible
> for them to put in more than a few hours a week. So you could say: why not
> hire a lot of volunteers that just do a little bit of work? The problem
> there is that lack of communication, variety of approaches to solving tasks
> compounded by geographic diversifcation will make it very unlikely that such
> an arrangement can be effective and efficient. This holds especially for the
> kind of jobs Florence was talking about. Unless we're talking about small,
> well-contained tasks, volunteers just won't be able to do them in a speedy
> manner.

I certainly agree that managing 12 volunteers doing a few hours a week
would be more difficult than 2 employees, but as a not-for-profit
charity there's no harm in exploring the feasability of relying on
volunteers.

You mention communication. Volunteers given these positions would be
aware that they're doing an important job: they should feel obligated
to working a particular number hours of week and should also feel
obligated to inform the Foundation when they are unable to fulfil
this. The Foundation could contact them over the phone or by e-mail: I
can't see it being hard to contact volunteers.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I
	made	nearly 2 years ago

body:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 8:10 PM, geni wrote:

> Given it's Amazon it won't be open and may well be unlawful to create
> our own. They probably have a patent covering it.

Don't think so. They have a TM on the mark "RealName", but that is
it. Anyone can setup an indentity validation system: all online
shopping carts do: there is a subsystem called AVS
([[Address_Verification_System]]) in which a credit card is used to
validate name and address of the person making a purchase online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_Verification_System

-- Jossi


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On 3/5/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/
> > > 1172868789933.html
> >
> > Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote
> > in another thread:
> >
> >                  Kids take notes.
> >
> > Marc Riddell
>
>
>
> Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?

Yes, he's the server administrator for Conservapedia.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Michael Billington

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Accountability: bringing back a proposal I made
	nearly 2 years ago

body:
There have been many calls for accountability, and they all seem like a good
idea. (including this proposal, of course)

However, I am a tad worried that users who wish to stay anonymous may be
treated as less important than those who have credentials which have been
verified, etc. I know we can say that users are equal, despite
accepting/refusing to do this (optional) verification, but it's a lot like
'optional' RFA questions (which aren't really very optional at all) - at
least in my view.

That's only a minor concern however, and I think that this is a good move
despite that. Particularly, I'm hoping that something like this could do
wonders for public opinion of Wikipedia's reliability and credibility,
especially considering recent events. Has a request been filed in the
Mediazilla yet?

--Michael Billington


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a week.
An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the organisation.
An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option to
say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".

These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that I
did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial list.
When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where we do
not have the volunteers to do these tasks.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Florence Devouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > * we wish to involve people from all over the world, not restricting
> > > employees to USA only. Currently, those working "offshore" have to be
> > > their own employers (they are contractants). This is not sustainable
> in
> > > the long run, so we have to explore more international employment
> issues.
> > [snip]
> >
> > First off, I'm terrified to raise this point in public because I know
> > that there are people here who will scream that I'm some kind of
> > nationalist bigot for bringing this up. But I think it's a very
> > serious matter which demands the input and understanding of a wide
> > audience.
> >
> > It is my understanding that if we have true employees in a nation that
> > our organization will have a legal presence in that nation. If we have
> > a legal presence in that nation, we will be subject to the
> > jurisdiction of that nation.
> >
> > It would be ideal that our activities would generally be so far away
> > from the ambiguous grey areas of the law that the differing legal
> > behavior would not be a substantial issue for us. However, this just
> > isn't the case today. We benefit substantially from detailed aspects
> > of US law in the areas of libel, copyright, and privacy.
> >
> > *Does operating the foundation with regular employees in a nation
> > create a jurisdictional issue as I described?
> > *How can we avoid this risk while maintaining the agility to hire
> > useful people from any part of the world?
> > *What are the qualities and risks of various jurisdictions?
> > *How can we deal with the impact of being subject to multiple
> jurisdictions?
> >
> > I fear that in the worst case being directly subject to the laws of
> > many nations we may find our entire method of operation (open access
> > Wikis) to be too risky.
>
> A related question: what would an online employee bring to Wikimedia
> that online volunteers couldn't? If the answer is not much, then
> perhaps resources could be better spent elsewhere. This is not to say
> that I don't look forward to the day when the Foundation has employees
> in several countries with different backgrounds, perspectives and
> skills, but the expense of acheiving this must be justified.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 05/03/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I understand what you're saying about volunteers not being obligated
> > to the foundation and that even trusted volunteers may have a tough
> > time justifying getting out of bed in the morning for the Foundation,
> > but I think the level of obligation many of our users feel to the
> > project is comparable to the the obligation felt by an employee and
> > could be put to use.
> >
> > If a volunteer strongly believes in the work of the foundation, has
> > shown commitment to the project through positions of trust, has shown
> > that they will do at least X hours a day, and has assumed much
> > responsibility then I think they could be trusted with a position.
> >
> > I agree, there are some critical jobs with time-sensitivity that
> > cannot be left to volunteers, but volunteers should be used as
> > extensively as possible.
>
> In my opinion, there's no question but that volunteers who are able to
> consistently deliver can accomplish many things.
>
> There are also things that they can't reliably accomplish, because
> family, work, and other aspects of "having a life" will prevent them
> from focusing 20-30 hours on a particularly hard problem.  There are a
> few exceptions - retired people, independently rich people, and
> unemployed spouses come to mind - but in general, we cannot expect
> people to dedicate work-like effort to the project on a volunteer
> basis.

I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited
resources, it is something that should be explored and discussed. I am
aware that some employees are necessary: some tasks are too critical,
time sensitive or large to be left to volunteers. Where do we draw
this line? When does it become too much work to use volunteers for a
particular task?

> Adding internal employees is not taking work away from volunteers,
> it's enabling the community as a whole to get some things done that
> require more time and focus than volunteers can bring to the role.

My concern wasn't that work will be taken away from volunteers: I'm
sure the Foundation wouldn't create positions willy-nilly.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 05/03/07, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> With communication, I was particularly referring to communication between
> volunteers when they share a task. Let's say there's some sort of work that
> could be estimated to take 10 man hours. If you have 5 volunteers doing
> that, the loss of productivity due to the necessity to communicate between
> them is immense unless the task is ridiculously mundane. These aren't
> theoretical guess either, there's tons of literature out there that show
> projects that failed due to the complexity of communication involved.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
> P.S. Of course, you can always argue that something "shouldn't" be this way
> or that people "should" behave in a certain manner, that alone won't make it
> happen though, especially with volunteers. The relationship between a
> volunteer and his superior is rather different from that of an employee and
> his superior. In the former, motivation to perform can change much more
> subtly and requires additional efforts which, in the case of the foundation,
> isn't feasible since its precisely the lack of staff that caused this
> discussion.

I think the main issues I wanted to discuss is when does a task need
an employee to be completed? At what point does it cost too much time
and efficiency to use volunteers for a particular task? There isn't a
clear-cut answer to this question, but it is worth talking about.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:

> Hi all,
> Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/
> 1172868789933.html

Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote
in another thread:

                  Kids take notes.

Marc Riddell


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Kasimir Gabert

subject: [Wikitech-l] AJAX and .aspx as technologies for MediaWiki?

body:
Virgil,

I agree completely with what Rob Church said.  If you want to add more
AJAX items to MediaWiki, then you should start your changes from the
inside -- begin to submit patches into the MediaWiki system, as
opposed to trying to hand code an ASP version of the already mature
code.

Kasimir

On 3/5/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would be unacceptable.  The Wikimedia Foundation has (successfully)
> > made every effort to build its infrastructure using only open-source
> > software: Apache, lighttpd, Squid, and so forth.  It would, as far as
> > I'm aware, not be willing to use any kind of proprietary software
> > without good reason.   Switching from Apache to IIS (mod_aspdotnet is
> > apparently unsupported) would require a really, really good reason.
>
> Even more passionate than the dear old Foundation are most of its
> users, who will see ".aspx" and start blogging about the Microsoft
> takeover.
>
>
> Rob Church
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Kasimir Gabert


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l]Hidden tragedy: requests in limbo (dezas sekrè: demand nan okenn kote)

body:
Hoi,
We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not interested in
talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it functions.
When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things carefully. The lack
of having message files for all languages is one of the major shortcomings
in the current localisation procedures.

You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is that the
developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past (for instance
for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have to
have message
files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that are
incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be done again when
a new project is requested in the same language.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult situation
> and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
>
> It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they are
> required to have a message file.
>
> These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
> these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will proceed
> further with considerations for your Wiki."
>
> These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually told
> them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
> would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if anyone
> had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
>
> - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of speakers is
> entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it has
> 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
> creation (there was only one person who did).
> - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much Twents
> people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
> already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
> nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
> request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
> this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
> (nds-nl)
> - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of native
> speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
> want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on this
> project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
> incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to be
> approved by anyone.
> - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
> Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
> rm.wp and fur.wp.
> - Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions of
> speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles. I'm
> sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime, I
> agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the project.
> - Kab - same as stq.
>
> Others you failed to mention:
>
> - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> - Crh - same situation as stq.
> - Dsb - same situation as stq.
>
> It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to be
> created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that _nobody
> knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much impact
> as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the persons
> and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
> This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy will
> have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have shown
> up because you have not advertised it much.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> > >
> > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language proposal
> process.
> > >
> > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language Committee
> > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where they
> > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > >
> > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an authority
> > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > >
> > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were uncontroversial
> > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > >
> > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that they
> > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals for
> > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > > proposal process, despite its having been around for several months
> > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
> > >
> > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about time we
> > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do something?
> > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all we
> > > know, that could take years.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > Hoi,
> > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the power
> > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
> > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines as a
> > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
> > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> >
> > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress in
> > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
> > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for granting a
> > new language a project.
> >
> > We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly about
> > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
> > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We do
> > not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
> > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> >
> > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that has
> > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> >
> > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable
> proposal ?
> > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it .. Is
> > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > localisation of the messages
> > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > sufficient length.
> > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > sufficient length.
> > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess the
> > localisation of the messages.
> >
> > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files are
> > not there. They are required.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
> >
> >
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/
> > 1172868789933.html
>
> Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote
> in another thread:
>
>                  Kids take notes.
>
> Marc Riddell

Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?


body:
Hoi,
There may be many people volunteering their time. There is a great lack of
people for specific functions.

Yes, volunteers are given tasks/responsibilities. It is however up to them
to decide what they want to do and when they do them. They are volunteers,
they cannot be told. The notion of relying on a specific task to be done in
a certain time frame is something you CAN demand of an employee not from a
volunteer.

PS I have some sort of official capacity; I am a member of the language
committee. Some people say that we take our time. I would argue that this is
not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a
> week.
> > An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the
> organisation.
> > An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option
> to
> > say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".
> >
> > These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that
> I
> > did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial
> list.
> > When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where
> we do
> > not have the volunteers to do these tasks.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of
> volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little
> difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract
> volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why
> the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be
> trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a
> contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be
> asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Sebastian Moleski

body:
On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of
> volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little
> difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract
> volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why
> the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be
> trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a
> contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be
> asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.

I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a
university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort
of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible
for them to put in more than a few hours a week. So you could say: why not
hire a lot of volunteers that just do a little bit of work? The problem
there is that lack of communication, variety of approaches to solving tasks
compounded by geographic diversifcation will make it very unlikely that such
an arrangement can be effective and efficient. This holds especially for the
kind of jobs Florence was talking about. Unless we're talking about small,
well-contained tasks, volunteers just won't be able to do them in a speedy
manner.

Regards,

Sebastian


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
geni wrote:

>On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Interesting.  What issue is the RfC going to solve?
>>
>>
>Provideing backup for the assertion that claiming credentials that you
>don't have is a bad idea. Aditional it is never posible to tell what
>records are going to be needed in future.
>
Not really.  However long the RfC turns out to be it's not going to
change the simple fact that EssJay is still only one person.  The lack
of evidence that others have done this only tells me that this is a
one-off situation.

Ec


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 3/5/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> In response to the EssJay scandal, I want to bring back an old proposal
> of mine from 2 years ago for greater accountability around credentials:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022085.html

I think it's a great idea. I've drawn this up into the bones of a
proposal, at [[Wikipedia:Credentials]]:

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

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Hoi,
I will be happy to see that you are right once the message files exist.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
> aware of this requirement.
>
> The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated, if
> they knew that this requirement existed, you can be sure that it would
> be fixed right away.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not interested in
> > talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it
> functions.
> > When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things carefully. The
> lack
> > of having message files for all languages is one of the major
> shortcomings
> > in the current localisation procedures.
> >
> > You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is that the
> > developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past (for
> instance
> > for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have to
> > have message
> > files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that are
> > incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be done again
> when
> > a new project is requested in the same language.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult situation
> > > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> > >
> > > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they are
> > > required to have a message file.
> > >
> > > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
> > > these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will proceed
> > > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> > >
> > > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually told
> > > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
> > > would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> > > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if anyone
> > > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> > >
> > > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of speakers is
> > > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it has
> > > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
> > > creation (there was only one person who did).
> > > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much Twents
> > > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
> > > already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
> > > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
> > > request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
> > > this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> > > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
> > > (nds-nl)
> > > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of native
> > > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
> > > want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on this
> > > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
> > > incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to be
> > > approved by anyone.
> > > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
> > > Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
> > > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions of
> > > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles. I'm
> > > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime, I
> > > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the project.
> > > - Kab - same as stq.
> > >
> > > Others you failed to mention:
> > >
> > > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> > >
> > > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to be
> > > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that _nobody
> > > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much impact
> > > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the persons
> > > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
> > > This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy will
> > > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have shown
> > > up because you have not advertised it much.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language
> proposal
> > > process.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language
> Committee
> > > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point where
> they
> > > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an
> authority
> > > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were
> uncontroversial
> > > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and have
> > > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said that
> they
> > > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no proposals
> for
> > > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > > > > proposal process, despite its having been around for several
> months
> > > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some more.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about
> time we
> > > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the Lower
> > > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our Wikipedia
> > > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do
> something?
> > > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For all
> we
> > > > > know, that could take years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the
> power
> > > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published our
> > > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these guidelines
> as a
> > > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has not
> > > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> > > >
> > > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in progress
> in
> > > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is mandatory.
> > > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for
> granting a
> > > > new language a project.
> > > >
> > > > We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly
> about
> > > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> > > > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked at
> > > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board. We
> do
> > > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do not get
> > > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages that
> has
> > > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > > >
> > > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable
> > > proposal ?
> > > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the moment,
> > > > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it ..
> Is
> > > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> the
> > > > localisation of the messages
> > > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> the
> > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > > sufficient length.
> > > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> the
> > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of a
> > > > sufficient length.
> > > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> the
> > > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot assess
> the
> > > > localisation of the messages.
> > > >
> > > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message files
> are
> > > > not there. They are required.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
On 3/5/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/5/07, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was
> interesting:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/
> > > > 1172868789933.html
> > >
> > > Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I
> wrote
> > > in another thread:
> > >
> > >                  Kids take notes.
> > >
> > > Marc Riddell
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?
>
> Yes, he's the server administrator for Conservapedia.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert

Well his mom is on the *Right Screws Left* hit list just like Brandt;

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left

anyone who doesn't toe the party line just doesn't seem to have much a
chance of making it in Wikipedia.


body:
On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I certainly agree that managing 12 volunteers doing a few hours a week
> would be more difficult than 2 employees, but as a not-for-profit
> charity there's no harm in exploring the feasability of relying on
> volunteers.
>
> You mention communication. Volunteers given these positions would be
> aware that they're doing an important job: they should feel obligated
> to working a particular number hours of week and should also feel
> obligated to inform the Foundation when they are unable to fulfil
> this. The Foundation could contact them over the phone or by e-mail: I
> can't see it being hard to contact volunteers.

With communication, I was particularly referring to communication between
volunteers when they share a task. Let's say there's some sort of work that
could be estimated to take 10 man hours. If you have 5 volunteers doing
that, the loss of productivity due to the necessity to communicate between
them is immense unless the task is ridiculously mundane. These aren't
theoretical guess either, there's tons of literature out there that show
projects that failed due to the complexity of communication involved.

Regards,

Sebastian

P.S. Of course, you can always argue that something "shouldn't" be this way
or that people "should" behave in a certain manner, that alone won't make it
happen though, especially with volunteers. The relationship between a
volunteer and his superior is rather different from that of an employee and
his superior. In the former, motivation to perform can change much more
subtly and requires additional efforts which, in the case of the foundation,
isn't feasible since its precisely the lack of staff that caused this
discussion.


from_name: Florence Devouard

subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Wiki Podcast from India!]

body:
fyi

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wiki Podcast from India!
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:29:29 +0100
From: The Wikipedia Documentary <info at wikidocumentary.org>
To: anthere at anthere.org

Hi there, documentary fans-

Currently traveling the world shooting the documentary "Truth in
Numbers: The Wikipedia Story", director Nic Hill makes it to Chennai,
India, where he and his small crew from Underdog Productions meet up
with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.  There they rock the first ever
Indian WikiCamp (http://wikicamp.in), an "UnConference" where wiki
enthusiasts from all over the country gather to "harness the power of
Wikis."

In the spirit of that harnessing, check out the 'making-of' podcast and
join in on the first-ever "crowd-sourced" documentary here:
www.wikidocumentary.org

Thanks!
-WikiDoc

_____________________________
Change address / Leave mailing list:
http://ymlp.com/u.php?Ferrisito+anthere at anthere.org
Hosting by  YourMailingListProvider


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 3/5/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> A quick development question.
>
> If an AJAX-enabled, or "next-gen" MediaWiki were to be built, would it be
> acceptable for it to have been made in a format such as .aspx (i.e. built
> using Microsoft Visual Web Developer)? I was wondering if this might have
> some kind of clash with GFDL/Copyleft principles, or accessibility or
> compatibility. Would web pages in the .aspx format be acceptable as the
> output of the software that Wikipedia runs on?

It would be unacceptable.  The Wikimedia Foundation has (successfully)
made every effort to build its infrastructure using only open-source
software: Apache, lighttpd, Squid, and so forth.  It would, as far as
I'm aware, not be willing to use any kind of proprietary software
without good reason.   Switching from Apache to IIS (mod_aspdotnet is
apparently unsupported) would require a really, really good reason.

As Rob says, though, good luck trying to write an MW2 from scratch by
yourself that has a genuine superset of the functionality MW1 has
accumulated over a few years with a number of developers.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 05/03/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited
> resources, it is something that should be explored and discussed. I am
> aware that some employees are necessary: some tasks are too critical,
> time sensitive or large to be left to volunteers. Where do we draw
> this line? When does it become too much work to use volunteers for a
> particular task?

Someone to coordinate volunteers is the way to go. A big reason to
hire Brad as legal counsel is because we could get all the pro bono
assistance we need (WMF has *lots* of friends) - but having in-house
counsel to coordinate them is the only way to go. Sandra is doing more
coordination of volunteers (and getting them to phrase things etc)
than doing press herself. Etc.

I'd apply for the job myself but being a sysadmin pays too well ;-p

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Accountability: bringing back a
	proposal I made nearly 2 years ago

body:
On 05/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> The only thing that causes real problems is when people claim to have
> credentials they don't have to the press.
> I think we should only require such verification from people who talk to the
> press.

Something like this is in progress.

> I see no point in requiring admins who make such claims since having a
> degree in biology doesn't affect your ability to perform admin duties. -

Essjay got every trusted position available through 20,000 good
administrative edits, not 600 to articles.

- d.


from_name: Michael Noda

body:
On 3/5/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > In response to the EssJay scandal, I want to bring back an old
> > proposal
> > of mine from 2 years ago for greater accountability around
> > credentials:
>
> There are two issues that I believe are being mixed in this
> discussion, and that may require a different treatment.
>
> 1. Identity
> 2. Credentials
>
> 1. Identity -- The Amazon.com RealName (TM) is designed to guarantee
> the *indentity* of the person, by the simple means of providing a
> credit card account that Amazon uses to verify the account holder
> name via CSV.
>
> The main idea behind RealName is that if you are willing to put your
> real name up there with your comments, reviews, etc. you will be
> extra careful on what you write, and readers of your reviews will
> take that into account when reading them.
>
> A "Confirmed Identity" system could be easily added to WP. If we had
> such a system in place, the Essjay scandal would have never
> happened ... TNY fact checking team would have only needed to run a
> check on Essjay "RealName"... rather that take his user page at face
> value.
>
> This "Confirmed Identity" can be displayed alongside the username in
> edit histories, as well as an icon on the user's page. Implementation
> is quite simple.

This sounds much more like what we might want.  Is Amazon's system
open, or will we have to craft our own?  It seems like the sort of
thing that would be useful in more online settings than WMF projects,
so we could likely get coding support from the wider FLOSS community,
if we publicised the project.

If we really want to implement something like this, I can see a call
for mandating Confirmed Identity for all positions of trust higher
than Admin (adminship, whether or not it's still "not a big deal", is
probably not a big enough deal to require Confirmed Identity from all
1000+ admins.)  I think requiring Confirmed Identity from all future
press contacts is a no-brainer, at this point.

> 2. Credentials -- <snipped>

I think any direct confirmation of credentials would be problematic,
and possibly erode community values that have served us well.  Any
effective confirmation of credentials will confirm identity as a
side-effect; we shouldn't require superfluous effort from either
editors or the office.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:06:49 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>It's hit DRV, where the lynch mob are now asserting that anyone who
>doesn't agree with them is too biased to comment:

Interesting.  What issue is the RfC going to solve?  What ongoing
editing problem with Essjay is it trying to fix?  What is the desired
outcome?  A community ban of a departed editor?  An ArbCom case to
desysop someone who's already desysopped?  Or perhaps just to gaze
deeper still into our Wikinavels?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 05/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:06:49 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >It's hit DRV, where the lynch mob are now asserting that anyone who
> >doesn't agree with them is too biased to comment:

> Interesting.  What issue is the RfC going to solve?  What ongoing
> editing problem with Essjay is it trying to fix?  What is the desired
> outcome?  A community ban of a departed editor?  An ArbCom case to
> desysop someone who's already desysopped?  Or perhaps just to gaze
> deeper still into our Wikinavels?

Why don't you ask them? I'm sure they'll be most informative on the subject.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:05:03 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>You can't reason people out of being upset and wanting to talk or vent about it.

But not on an RfC.  RfCs are for fixing problems with editor
behaviour.  This editor has left the building, what problem can we
fix?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

references:
<fbad4e140703050711o45cde41fid4db190e07f14200@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EC3843.6070000@scissor.com>
	<3459.69.21.252.114.1173108951.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<fbad4e140703050751m6f15e790j891ded3052f3c436@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EC3EEB.4070804@scissor.com>
	<bdhou2l6mb6bvmm6kicjn6h9v30lrpo3su@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703051006l68381a9aybcc2d20e59cd98c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<o38pu21qcm2nc14jai6rb7h6rl6uvbrsdn@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703051505m1fc4d458o3f8eeee56d2597ca@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:05:48 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Why don't you ask them? I'm sure they'll be most informative on the subject.

I did.  I confidently expect to be attacked for it.  Seems that there
are not very many of us who want people to allow Essjay to depart with
any dignity whatsoever.

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/5/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>> [snip] ... Second, BLP rightly doesn't apply to talk pages. BLP is to prevent our
>> hopefully neutral, factual articles from being distorted with opinion
>> and lies.
>
> Just a quick FYI, William. BLP applies throughout the website.

Could be problematic if this were true in practice, since my user page
utterly fails to meet BLP's standards and I expect the vast majority of
other user pages are the same - I don't think I've ever seen a user page
with a references section. I've also made assertions about myself on
article talk pages from time to time that I never bother to cite.

Since IMO policy should make at least some effort to match actual
practice, and since an effort to remove uncited claims from peoples'
user pages would be quixotic at best, how about adding a note to the BLP
page exempting the user namespace? That'd eliminate a major
inconsistency in one fell swoop.


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Kasimir Gabert wrote:
> Most web servers that run wikis are run using open source technology.
> ASP.NET is closed source and run by Microsoft, and so I doubt that it
> would get far in this community.

For the record, a fine open-source implementation of ASP.NET exists in Mono.

We're not terribly likely to wander over to it, though.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF7O0nwRnhpk1wk44RAmouAKCk/ze5rbCVLgDCGZ4l01fs1q1ctQCgvHef
6JzNgg45IJPCzck514itfFs=
=tGge
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
There's no point to this RFC.
Jimbo is handling the Essjay situation himself.
It's already been discussed and an RFC will have no useful effects apart
from destroying what dignity he's got left. We should just let it die. If we
allow endless discussions about this our critics are gonna have us for
lunch.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

references:
<fbad4e140703050751m6f15e790j891ded3052f3c436@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EC3EEB.4070804@scissor.com>
	<bdhou2l6mb6bvmm6kicjn6h9v30lrpo3su@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703051006l68381a9aybcc2d20e59cd98c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<o38pu21qcm2nc14jai6rb7h6rl6uvbrsdn@4ax.com>
	<38a7bf7c0703051505t63473e1aw1a1fb4068046c508@mail.gmail.com>
	<oq8pu295hvu0hfal4ee1ctdtis138qb4hd@4ax.com>
	<38a7bf7c0703051523t44e4fc3ak3b1e6374c267ce90@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:23:55 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>What's ended up happening is, perhaps both typically and tragically,
>Wikipedia standard controversy reaction - it's up, it's down, it's
>back up, it's moved, it's moved again, it's speedy deleted then
>restored then deleted and up for DR and sideways with sugar on top and
>can I please have a little more, sir?

All the more reason to go back to my proposal of many reiterations: no
article on any event until at least a year after it has happened, to
allow time to form a proper historical perspective.

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


body:
The only thing that causes real problems is when people claim to have
credentials they don't have to the press.
I think we should only require such verification from people who talk to the
press. Any credentials someone has do not override WP:OR or WP:V so for the
purpose of writing articles they're next to useless. People who claim to be
an expert on an article could be asked to have them verified by other
editors, but basic policies should come first.

I see no point in requiring admins who make such claims since having a
degree in biology doesn't affect your ability to perform admin duties. -
~~~~

Mgm

On 3/5/07, Deathphoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/5/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I've provided enough context to fully explain the
> > > proposal. The idea is not to _require_ anything, but to only ask for
> > > confirmation if people make the claim _themselves_, and then only for
> > > people in positions of trust, or those whose credentials have been
> > > called into question. Anyone is free to reach any level of trust
> > > without professional credentials.
> >
> > Frankly, this proposal is impractical and unworkable.  I am not about
> > to go through all this nonsense to verify stuff - all it's going to do
> > is to make people less willing to state things about themselves on
> > their user pages.
> >
> > For instance, I have a B.Eng. in Computing from Imperial College,
> > London.  I have stated this on every job application I've submitted
> > throughout my professional career (thirteen years or so by now) and
> > have NEVER been asked to verify it.  To be honest, I'm not sure I
> > could, easily; I don't know where my actual degree certificate is.  I
> > suspect my parents have it, actually.  I guess I could phone up the
> > college and ask them to fax something, but this is way too much of a
> > pain in the behind to actually be worth doing for uncompensated
> > volunteer effort at Wikipedia, especially since it's of complete
> > irrelevance to what I'm actually doing here.
> >
> > If we start requiring that admins must verify every single statement
> > about themselves they make - or even if this is restricted to only
> > claims of professional expertise - this is going to result in the
> > following:
> >
> > 1. Admins will simply remove any statements that aren't worth the
> > effort of verifying. Net gain for the project: zero.
> > 2. People with expertise won't want to become admins, widening an
> > already-existing gulf.  The perception in some circles that people
> > become admins because they don't write articles will increase.
> > 3. Only those seeking greater authoritativeness than their writing and
> > argumentative skills already command will find the cumbersome process
> > attractive.  Thus, the querulous, the trolls, and those with dubious
> > qualifications will be the ones getting that 'verified' badge to wear
> > to use as a stick in arguments.
> >
> > I am, since I occupy a position of responsibility, quite willing to
> > verify my identity to the Foundation/Jimbo in private - but verifying
> > other stuff is frankly not worth my scarce time and effort.
> >
>
> I'd be perfectly willing to verify the degrees I say I hold on my user
> page,
> but only to the Foundation. In other words, I'd prefer that my simple
> statement of holding degrees in Engineering and Applied Arts be the one
> thing I mention about my education, but am willing to provide proof to the
> Foundation that my degrees are with accredited institutions. In other
> words,
> I don't want to get specific about my academic credentials in public, but
> am
> willing to verify it (and my identity) in private to the Foundation as
> long
> as the documents I send for verification remains private and unpublicised.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited
>> resources, it is something that should be explored and discussed. I am
>> aware that some employees are necessary: some tasks are too critical,
>> time sensitive or large to be left to volunteers. Where do we draw
>> this line? When does it become too much work to use volunteers for a
>> particular task?
>
> As a first answer, when the Board figures that it needs something done
> badly enough to start suggesting that they need to hire someone.  8-)
>
> The Board can explain in more detail their thinking on this, and it's
> probably a good idea for them to do so.  My impression from the
> outside is that they're probably right and that it's probably about
> time to do so, if not past it.  But I'm not involved in a lot of the
> community activities intimately, so I don't know how accurate my
> impression is.
>
> I agree that this is a good conversation to have.  Both more employees
> and more effeciently focused volunteer efforts on problem areas will
> both help.  Information flow on the percieved trouble spots helps
> everyone see what needs to be done.

Gerard already listed some of those reasons to hire someone rather than
to rely on volunteers. All these reasons are correct. To these reasons,
I will add two more reasons.

One is simply that we may need a person full time, with certain
professional skills. These skills may not exist within the community, or
may exist only part time.
Greg raised the issue of the implications of employment of people
outside from the USA. To answer such question and to work on setting up
a system with international employees, we need certain skills, that it
seems are not available in the volunteer pool.
Similarly, it does not seem that we have a professional in fundraising
in the USA.
Or we do not seem to have a professional working on brand strategy.

What are we to do when such needs become critical ? Several things.
Search even harder in our volunteer pool (something which may be done by
a board member or staff simply raising the issue on the mailing list) or
having a volunteer coordinator whose job is to hunt such skills in the
project.
Or hire someone.
Or seek probono help.
Or pay a contractor.

The second reason is related to responsability. Such as financial
responsability. Imagine someone is taking care of your accounting, and
make a mess (a real big mess). If he is an employee, you can make him
accountable. There may be insurance. You can sue him. Not so cool, but
you have ways to act. If he is a volunteer, far less so.
This may be applicable as well in the legal area typically. I do not
know if it is true in the USA, I know it is in France, but if you have a
lawyer going to court for you, he must be hired or contractor.

What decides that we are ready to hire someone ? Either because in an
area we want to develop/improve, or because we are dying under the
weight of what needs to be done.

Hiring Sandy to in particular take in charge press issues was a much
needed addition. Journalists kept calling the office to request
information, and were impairing the quality of the work of the other
people in the office. Could have we relied on a volunteer ? Probably
yes, to the condition that he be in the USA, rather on the east coast
(to fit with most requests). Available any time. Ready to contact any
one who could help, to coordinate answers, to ensure his answers fit
with the internal messaging... in short, a full time job.
Sandy is not the only one answering the press, very far from it. At
least a dozen people answer the press on a daily basis. But by answering
in the office, setting up press contact database, drafting press
releases, trying to coordinate press interviews, working on PR crisis,
she is of unvaluable help. And we are happier because we are *sure*
someone is taking care of this. That's a weight lifted. We still need a
lot of volunteer help, but she is really reducing concerns for many of us.

A guideline for knowing when to hire is when the board is doing the job
because nobody else want to do it, when volunteers quit because of
burnout, when critical tasks are just left alone rotting.

Developing/improving an area. I think business development around brands
is probably one of the clear examples. If we do little right now, it
will perhaps not be a big issue. No harm done. No one will scream.
However, with a bit of thinking, one can realise this is one of the ways
the Foundation can become sustainable and support the projects and more
without needing a fundraising every couple of weeks. Working on the
brand strategy is an investment in the future. It is not terribly urgent
and it does not require a full time employee, so it makes more sense to
think of (paying) counselling, and preferably pro-bono help.

Note that this is because we realise volunteers are a huge pool of help
that we are currently seeking a volunteer coordinator :-)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally	problematic
 conflict of interest?

body:
William Pietri wrote:
> Someone who does extensive work in CS can edit the 99% of CS articles
> where the do not have a strong conflict of interest. I have absolutely
> asked passionate topic experts, no matter how qualified, to not edit on
> their personal pet projects. There are areas where I have strong
> expertise that I don't touch for the same reason: I'm a partisan.

I have two articles on my watchlist where editors that I know have a
conflict of interest have made significant contributions to the current
version. Having checked out those contributions to make sure they were
NPOV and otherwise within Wikipedia guidelines, I've seen no problems
and so have largely left them be. The net result is a positive increase
in Wikipedia's quality.

I can also think of at least one article on my watchlist where an editor
with a strong conflict of interest showed up and made a mockery of NPOV
and other such guidelines with his contributions. In that case I and
some other editors worked to make sure the article conformed to policy
and ultimately wound up driving off the problem editor (we tried to fix
him first, of course, but it just wasn't going to happen with this guy).
I'm sure there are many other such examples like this, it's just the one
case that pops to mind right now.

So IMO conflict of interest is a condition that can be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis, I don't feel it is appropriate to rigidly enforce a
one-size-fits-all rulebook. The [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]
guideline is useful as one tool among many to thwack the folks who are
unable to be properly neutral when editing some subject.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 3/5/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sandy is not the only one answering the press, very far from it. At
> least a dozen people answer the press on a daily basis. But by answering
> in the office, setting up press contact database, drafting press
> releases, trying to coordinate press interviews, working on PR crisis,
> she is of unvaluable help. And we are happier because we are *sure*
> someone is taking care of this. That's a weight lifted. We still need a
> lot of volunteer help, but she is really reducing concerns for many of us.

And, my subjective impression is that volunteer activity has also
greatly increased since she joined. The very fact that at least one
person is constantly working on these issues (and discusses them with
the ComCom) appears to energize people.

And, of course, that is exactly the reason we are advertising the role
of Volunteer Coordinator with such high priority, even before hiring
other people who are very much needed. We strongly believe that
mobilizing and coordinating volunteers is going to be key to building
a sustainable organization. Some of these volunteers may eventually
become hired staff -- and that, so far, seems to have worked well.

In general, I believe we're going in the right direction. While it's
easy to point to established volunteer driven organizations, it's
important to recognize that there are very few that are almost
completely Internet-driven. The Debian project is perhaps one of the
best examples to learn from (both their strengths and their
weaknesses). But in many ways, we are unique. That keeps things
interesting. :-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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

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


body:
No,
But I can expect them to read the mailing list.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I take it, then, that you have informed these people of the reason
> their requests are not approved yet?
>
> We can't expect them to be telepathic, after all.
>
> Mark
>
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I will be happy to see that you are right once the message files exist.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not protesting it, I am simply saying that obviously nobody is
> > > aware of this requirement.
> > >
> > > The people who are working on these projects are very dedicated, if
> > > they knew that this requirement existed, you can be sure that it would
> > > be fixed right away.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > We are now at the stage where we have a policy. We are not
> interested in
> > > > talking the proposal to death. We are first going to see how it
> > > functions.
> > > > When we find that it does not work, we will tweak things carefully.
> The
> > > lack
> > > > of having message files for all languages is one of the major
> > > shortcomings
> > > > in the current localisation procedures.
> > > >
> > > > You may think of it as a technicality or not fair. The point is that
> the
> > > > developers proved to be unwilling to remedy things in the past (for
> > > instance
> > > > for Marathi). The only consequence can be that new projects have to
> > > > have message
> > > > files from the start. It is not fair to start new languages that are
> > > > incomplete; it is not fair to require the localisation to be done
> again
> > > when
> > > > a new project is requested in the same language.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >     GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/5/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not complaining about be.wp, I know that is a difficult
> situation
> > > > > and I do not expect that it can be resolved soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't appear that anybody told any of these people that they
> are
> > > > > required to have a message file.
> > > > >
> > > > > These requests are simply sitting there, nobody has actually told
> > > > > these people "We do not see ____, when you get that we will
> proceed
> > > > > further with considerations for your Wiki."
> > > > >
> > > > > These people are very dedicated, I am sure if anyone had actually
> told
> > > > > them what exactly it is that they need to do to move forward, they
> > > > > would do it right away. I am sure the messages file would be
> > > > > translated into Kabyle, for example, in less than a week, if
> anyone
> > > > > had ever actually informed those people that it is needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Wls - if there is "no reasonable support", the number of
> speakers is
> > > > > entirely irrelevant, of course the project is not viable since it
> has
> > > > > 0 articles in the incubator and nobody currently asking for its
> > > > > creation (there was only one person who did).
> > > > > - Twd - this case needs to be probed further to see how much
> Twents
> > > > > people would support it as a Wiki separate from nds-nl. There are
> > > > > already over two hundred articles in it, but the majority are at
> > > > > nds-nl.wp. User:Tubantia indicated preliminary support of such a
> > > > > request some time ago, so it needs to be re-investigated to see if
> > > > > this is a viable project or not, and whether the needs of
> > > > > Twents-speakers are currently being surved by our existing project
> > > > > (nds-nl)
> > > > > - Stq - this is obviously a viable project. There is support of
> native
> > > > > speakers, many many pages and very active on the incubator. So you
> > > > > want a message file. Why didn't you tell the people working on
> this
> > > > > project? I am sure they would prepare it in several days.
> > > > > - Pfl - this project appears to still be in the early stages of
> > > > > incubator development. At this point in time, I don't expect it to
> be
> > > > > approved by anyone.
> > > > > - Lld - same as pfl, except I do not expect its development soon.
> > > > > Someone needs to investigate how well existing users are served by
> > > > > rm.wp and fur.wp.
> > > > > - Kok - although this is a major language of India with millions
> of
> > > > > speakers, it is a problem that there are currently no articles.
> I'm
> > > > > sure Frederick Noronha could remedy this, though; in the meantime,
> I
> > > > > agree and do not think it would be reasonable to approve the
> project.
> > > > > - Kab - same as stq.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others you failed to mention:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Bat-ltg/lv-ltg - same situation as stq.
> > > > > - Crh - same situation as stq.
> > > > > - Dsb - same situation as stq.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that if your rules mean that these Wikis are not able to
> be
> > > > > created now, it is not necessarily the case that there is no
> > > > > opposition (although it may be), the case currently is that
> _nobody
> > > > > knows about the rules_. When you have a new policy with as much
> impact
> > > > > as this one, it is imperative that it be solicited to all the
> persons
> > > > > and communities to whom it is relevant, and their opinion awaited.
> > > > > This is a Wiki, I am sure that even people who support the policy
> will
> > > > > have suggestions for its improvement, but so far very few have
> shown
> > > > > up because you have not advertised it much.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 05/03/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Mark Williamson schreef:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps some of you are aware of the formation of the Langcom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, you may be aware of the recent reform of the language
> > > proposal
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, what you may not be aware of is that the Language
> > > Committee
> > > > > > > is taking a while to actually get underway and to the point
> where
> > > they
> > > > > > > can excersise control over the creation of new Wikis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite that, it seems that they are already looked to as an
> > > authority
> > > > > > > in this area, while they do not act as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are several new Wikipedia requests which were
> > > uncontroversial
> > > > > > > when first posed. Many of dozens of voices of support, and
> have
> > > > > > > thriving tests on the Incubator.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, their requests were deleted by PathosChild who said
> that
> > > they
> > > > > > > would have to remake them, which they have. So far, no
> proposals
> > > for
> > > > > > > Wikipedias in new languages have been _approved_ under the new
> > > > > > > proposal process, despite its having been around for several
> > > months
> > > > > > > now. They just sit there. And sit there. And sit there some
> more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it's about time something happened. I think it's about
> > > time we
> > > > > > > welcomed these people -- the Kabyles, the Latgalians, the
> Lower
> > > > > > > Sorbians, the Crimeans, and all the others -- into our
> Wikipedia
> > > > > > > family. They have waited long enough. Why can't somebody do
> > > something?
> > > > > > > Why do they have to wait for the langcom to get underway? For
> all
> > > we
> > > > > > > know, that could take years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > The language committee has proposed things. It does not have the
> > > power
> > > > > > to force issues. We are now at the stage where we have published
> our
> > > > > > guidelines. We have given warning that we do adopt these
> guidelines
> > > as a
> > > > > > rule if there was no indication of opposition to this. This has
> not
> > > > > > happened. From our POV the rules as we published them apply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All projects for a new language that do not have a work in
> progress
> > > in
> > > > > > the Incubator are denied. Starting in the Incubator is
> mandatory.
> > > > > > Working on the localisation is a strong factor in favour for
> > > granting a
> > > > > > new language a project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have some questions outstanding with the board; particularly
> > > about
> > > > > > the Belarus Wikipedia. In our opinion only the official Belarus
> > > > > > Wikipedia has the right to the be.wikipedia label. We have asked
> at
> > > > > > least a month ago for a resolution of this issue from the board.
> We
> > > do
> > > > > > not want to take up new things that much if open things do not
> get
> > > > > > resolved. It is a waste of our time otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have already denied one proposal for an artificial languages
> that
> > > has
> > > > > > no wide support. That one was obvious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *The wls project has no reasonable amount of support at the
> moment,
> > > > > > there are only 29,768 people speaking it .. Is this a reasonable
> > > > > proposal ?
> > > > > > *The twd project has no reasonable amount of support at the
> moment,
> > > > > > there is not even an estimation how many people are speaking it
> ..
> > > Is
> > > > > > this a reasonable proposal ?
> > > > > > *The stq project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages
> > > > > > *The pfl project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of
> a
> > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > *The lld project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are insufficient articles of
> a
> > > > > > sufficient length.
> > > > > > *The kok project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages. There are no articles
> > > > > > *The kab project does not have a message file.. so we cannot
> assess
> > > the
> > > > > > localisation of the messages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So basically from our point of view, it seems that the message
> files
> > > are
> > > > > > not there. They are required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     GerardM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-06

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20159).

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

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/6/07, Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It probably isn't that surprising that a site set by conservative Christians
>>in the US is keen on AD rather than CE.
>>
>>
>Sure, and personally I too prefer AD over CE, though I can understand
>the rationale there. But to make it a fundamental "commandment" up
>there with "true and verifiable" and "no opinion" (and of course,
>"American spelling" :)) surprises me.
>
>I also find something odd in Conservapedia accusing Wikipedia of being
>"biased", but then taking pride in its own "conservative" stance. Does
>it implicitly accept that it, too, is "biased"? Or does it imply that
>a conservative stance is actually a neutral one, and therefore that
>Wikipedia is biased simply because it does not adopt that same
>conservative point of view?
>
It's their site, and it seems at least that these rules are consistent
with their philosophy.

I suppose the most irritating thing to them would be for atheist and
otherwise corrupt Wikipedians to go there and edit completely within
their rules, and let it be clear that these awful people are acting out
of true Christian love.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Slim Virgin wrote:
>>> Just a quick FYI, William. BLP applies throughout the website.
>> Could be problematic if this were true in practice, since my user page
>> utterly fails to meet BLP's standards and I expect the vast majority of
>> other user pages are the same - I don't think I've ever seen a user page
>> with a references section. I've also made assertions about myself on
>> article talk pages from time to time that I never bother to cite.
>>
> Bryan, I'm sure you don't have defamatory material about living people
> on your user page. You're allowed to say bad stuff about yourself,
> just not about anyone else. :-)

Last I checked I was still alive, though I don't have a reliable source
on hand to back that up so it's just OR. :)

Seriously, though, BLP actually doesn't limit itself to defamatory
material. It reads: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ?
whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable ? about living
persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from
Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." That
covers pretty much everything I've put up on my userpage, and the
contents of most other userpages I've seen as well. It gets even worse
when we consider the user pages with "this user is a vandal" warnings
and such - that's clearly defamatory stuff that other people have put there.

I don't think it's a good idea to have a policy that's this drastically
at odds with the actual practice even if everyone's unofficially agreed
that it doesn't _really_ mean what it says it means. Our policy pages
should at least be honest, it's hard enough to make sense of some of
them as it is.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Interesting.  What issue is the RfC going to solve?

Provideing backup for the assertion that claiming credentials that you
don't have is a bad idea. Aditional it is never posible to tell what
records are going to be needed in future.

--
geni


from_name: Slim Virgin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/6/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Slim Virgin wrote:
> > Just a quick FYI, William. BLP applies throughout the website.
>
> Could be problematic if this were true in practice, since my user page
> utterly fails to meet BLP's standards and I expect the vast majority of
> other user pages are the same - I don't think I've ever seen a user page
> with a references section. I've also made assertions about myself on
> article talk pages from time to time that I never bother to cite.
>
Bryan, I'm sure you don't have defamatory material about living people
on your user page. You're allowed to say bad stuff about yourself,
just not about anyone else. :-)

Sarah


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Essjay RFC deleted

body:
On 3/6/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > William Pietri wrote:
> >
> > > > This especially concerns me as you used your administrative powers
> to
> > > > enforce your minority view in a disagreement in which you were very
> > > > actively involved. Wouldn't it have been better to let somebody who
> had
> > > > less involvement decide the outcome?
> >
> William, I understand that feelings are running high and people feel
> they need an outlet. Still, we have a very serious situation here
> where the subject has left Wikipedia and yet is continuing to be
> attacked. Bear in mind that he's being discussed by what we believe to
> be his real name, so BLP kicks in here, and we have to be careful what
> we say, and respectful of his right to get on with his life. It's
> important to discuss the political fall-out so we can work out what
> the lessons are, but comments about the person aren't necessary. As
> David said, it was an uncertified RfC, and he was within his rights to
> delete it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
All true. Nevertheless, I admit that I am concerned this does appear to be
somewhat gaming the process - following the letter but not the spirit. Maybe
David thinks he conforms with the spirit because the RfC was a lynch mob,
but from what I could see at the time, only a few radical people were
actually interested in anything like a lynching. It was a bandwagon (and an
unwarranted one at that, IMO), to be sure, but not a lynch mob. Most people
there seemed to like Essjay, and only a few people were doing the dramatic
"I feel so betrayed/I can never trust him again/he should be deadminned"
kind of thing. The pile-on was a natural consequence of interest in
encouraging Essjay to step down for the benefit of WP.

Anyway, this is all academic now, IMO. It's time to move on, and it doesn't
matter whether the RfC stayed or went. Let's get back to the normal business
of the mailing list - making mountains out of molehills like this. Oh wai

:p

Johnleemk


from_name: John Vandenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] AFDs on featured articles

body:
On 3/6/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I !voted "delete nominator".
>
> Funny that the guy who responded to your comment first seemed to be in
> the "delete" camp though he didn't "vote", later said he thought it
> should be kept. Also, the nominator  is an admin, not an SPA or
> someone who lost an edit war so I think he is trying to do one of two
> things.
>
> 1. He is trying to demonstrate that because it is possible to make a
> good faith AFD nom on an article about a website which a "reasonable
> person" would conclude belongs on wikipedia, that the guidelines on
> web notability are flawed.
>
> 2. He is using a "snow nom" as a cluestick to get MA's editors to
> clean up and properly source the article.

IMO (possibly bad faith), there is definitely a POINT being made
somewhere.  I commented to that effort before reading David and your
own posts here, simply because it is aggravating to see Afds filed
without any attempt being made to (shock,horror) improve the
encyclopedia first, and only delete articles if no other approach
seems reasonable.

It could also be that the admin has a grudge against Wikia and was
hoping to sneak it through while lots of other noise was occupying
people, or just to create more controversy.

--
John


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

body:
A quick development question.

If an AJAX-enabled, or "next-gen" MediaWiki were to be built, would it be
acceptable for it to have been made in a format such as .aspx (i.e. built
using Microsoft Visual Web Developer)? I was wondering if this might have
some kind of clash with GFDL/Copyleft principles, or accessibility or
compatibility. Would web pages in the .aspx format be acceptable as the
output of the software that Wikipedia runs on?

Thanks.


from_name: Jim Hu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Faking multiple category namespaces

body:
IIRC, there were others besides me who were interested in having
multiple namespaces that act like the category namespace.  Playing
with my alternate Category page extension, I realized that I could
fake having multiple category namespaces by getting the title text
of  the category page, analyzing it, and then replacing it with

	$wgOut->setPageTitle( $titleText );

Where $titleText is the alternative h1 heading.  I've also figured
out how to alter the subheadings and count messages.  But I haven't
figured out how to set the text in the leftmost tab.

Here's an example of what I'm trying to do:

http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/Category:Complex:Flagellum

I'd like the tab that says Category to say Complex.  Anyone know how
to do that?

Jim
=====================================
Jim Hu
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
2128 TAMU
Texas A&M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843-2128
979-862-4054


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 06/03/07, Virgil Ierubino <virgil.ierubino at gmail.com> wrote:
> If an AJAX-enabled, or "next-gen" MediaWiki were to be built, would it be
> acceptable for it to have been made in a format such as .aspx (i.e. built
> using Microsoft Visual Web Developer)? I was wondering if this might have
> some kind of clash with GFDL/Copyleft principles, or accessibility or
> compatibility. Would web pages in the .aspx format be acceptable as the
> output of the software that Wikipedia runs on?

We are not likely to accept an entirely new wiki engine that's just
been built from scratch as the software to run on our servers, closed
source or otherwise, without us having had significant involvement in
the whole development process and without unbelievably amazing
benefits and a completely compatible data storage backend and layout.

I would also state that, in my view, it is completely pointless
contemplating moving to another implementation language unless there
are significant benefits to doing so.

What I have observed, so far, is that this user seems unduly obsessed
with the idea of "MediaWiki 2.0" and even more so with the idea of
writing it on his own. This is a bad move, and a waste of time. We
have invested significant time and effort into developing this
software, and we aren't going to discard that. If you have suggestions
to make for improving MediaWiki, make them, but don't creep about on
our forums while rubbing your hands together like a dot-com
businessman who thinks he's going to slip the Next Best Thing behind
Wikipedia.

Rob Church


body:
On 06/03/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be unacceptable.  The Wikimedia Foundation has (successfully)
> made every effort to build its infrastructure using only open-source
> software: Apache, lighttpd, Squid, and so forth.  It would, as far as
> I'm aware, not be willing to use any kind of proprietary software
> without good reason.   Switching from Apache to IIS (mod_aspdotnet is
> apparently unsupported) would require a really, really good reason.

Even more passionate than the dear old Foundation are most of its
users, who will see ".aspx" and start blogging about the Microsoft
takeover.

Rob Church


body:
On 3/6/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds much more like what we might want.  Is Amazon's system
> open, or will we have to craft our own?

Given it's Amazon it won't be open and may well be unlawful to create
our own. They probably have a patent covering it.

--
geni


from_name: Aphaia

body:
On 3/6/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of
> volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little
> difference.

I have a different opinion. Even among the most involved people,
- we have seen some people vanished without notice (remember the last
summer; two other Election officials vanished and I was getting mad
alone with around 20 candidates who should have been contacted until
the end of month).
- we asked a task for the community and no one have showed interest
(see Wikimania Website; there are a bunch of information about Taiwan,
helpful for excursion, but all in Chinese, no one cares about those or
has no time to care about those).

It is an illusion "we have a pool". Sadly but it is our reality.
Instead, I heard again and again "sorry but I am not interested in" "I
am now occupied". I don't take it wrong, simply they have more
important things in their view of life. It is possible our need and
theirs don't simply match. But it is far from sustainability which
Florence said the Foundation would pursue at the beginning of this
year.

On the other hand, employees and contractors are bound with contract
and duty. Volunteers not. And they will do their job in a certain
hours. Volunteers not necessarily.   That is why we need to have the
Foundation employ people to bring sustainability.

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Conservapedia "Commandments"

body:
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
>   Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was
> interesting:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/
> 2007/03/02/1172868789933.html
>
> Their "Conservapedia Commandments" are intetresting too:
> #  Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
> # Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the
> public domain.
> # Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without
> gossip or foul language.
> # When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give
> appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and
> "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical
> basis. See CE.
> # As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]
> # Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
>
> I find it bizarre that the CE/AD thing is so important that it rates a
> mention in the Commandments. And the "true and verifiable" is a cute
> reference to our "verifiable, not true" :)

I haven't bothered to check edit histories and so forth, but I'd
surmise that some Conservapedian may have been swept up in the BC/AD
BCE/CE wars that went through here like a forest fire a year or so
ago. Any silly dispute tends to be important to you if you're
involved in it. We all know the pattern. You made what you know darn
well is a tendentious but, you think, supportable edit. Someone
reverts it in a curt way. Soon you're involved in an edit war with
someone unreasonable. Next thing you know you've been blocked for
3RR, and a sysop has protected The Wrong Version, and it's censorship...

The site is a strange mix of material written by Andrew Schlafly,
material that really was developed by high school kids, and, in the
past week or so, Wikipedia-style collaborative editing projects that
are more like nostalgia.wikipedia.org than Wikipedia As We Know It.
The "commandments" were partly developed by the kids.

Well, actually (cough) I guess I helped develop one of them myself.
How on earth do I explain that?

Well, there was a discussion at some point about what the
"commandments" should spell out as the _penalty_ for using British
spelling. I suggested that since there hadn't been any cases of
virulent Anglophilia yet maybe it wasn't too important. I noted that
authors normally expect someone else to do the copy-editing, and that
when (say) a British author submits a manuscript to an American
publishing house or vice versa, they aren't expected to conform to
the house style, the publisher just changes it (as witness the title
of the first Harry Potter book).

So I suggested that the appropriate thing to do was, if a British
spelling was noticed, was simply to change it with an edit comment
like "Conservapedia style is to use American spellings." No fuss, no
warnings to the author. Reserve any chiding/yelling/blocking for
editors who were obviously systematically changing American to
British spellings in existing articles. People thought this was a
good idea and someone, one of the kids I think, explicitly added it
as "You will only be blocked for violating command 5 if you
repeatedly change words from American spelling to another spelling."

By the way... I need to see if anyone has responded to my proposal at
Village Pump (technical)... I think we may be a little insensitive to
issues that can arise from the fact that _redirects do not explain
the reason for the redirect_. Probably most users don't even notice
them, but if you don't understand them they can seem like magic...
and _if_ it's a case where you're _sensitive_ on the topic they can,
I think, send an unintended message.

For example, if you type in "phonograph record" and suddenly, pow!,
you see "gramophone record," you wouldn't have to be unimaginably
sensitive to think Wikipedia was saying "Dummy! It's _gramophone,_
not _phonograph._" It is not at all impossible to misinterpret
redirection as "correcting my spelling." One could imagine someone
who thinks Presidential dignity requires full names to type in
William J. Clinton and blink at the informality of "changing" it to
Bill.

Some redirects are corrections of e.g. spelling errors. Some
represent semi-conscious decisions about which of several
alternatives is preferred or common. (Why should "Lady Mendl" become
"Elsie de Wolfe" when there are probably more references to her under
the former designation? Because she was famous before she became Lady
Mendl, and because most biographies use the name Elsie de Wolfe).
Some are almost totally arbitrary choices because a choice had to be
made (a lot of the U. S./British choices are that way).

IMHO there's nothing totally crazy about Conservapedia saying "_our_
house style is American Usage," although making it one of the
"Commandments" seems... amusing.