from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse

body:
Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:

==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg, het bewijs dat
men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van gebruikers ten
grabbel gooit:

=== Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===

Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
checkuser. Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en
slechts in een uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. Namelijk als
iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen. Dit deed ik
niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt. Tegen alle richtlijnen
daaromtrent in.

Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed? Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist
het IPadres waaronder ik werkte. Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als
hij checkuser gebruikte. Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze
privacyregels. Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit
alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. En dan alleen nog als er
meerdere mensen mee instemmen

Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen ''kan redden''
als ik braaf ben en allen als waerth edit. Tja als dat editten me
onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
Dit is:
A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
naam edit.
B) Bedreiging
C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.

Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3
zeer ernstige feiten!

WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser abuse


list: wikien-l

from_name: Theresa Knott

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for the unblocking of PatCheng

body:
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx at gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other
> admins but they never bothered responding.

There are plenty of admins on this mailing list, and we were responding.

Theresa


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Brion is *the man*

body:
Excellent. Many thanks to Brion for implementing this much requested feature.

Erik


list: commons-l

subject: [Commons-l] Commons browser

body:
On 6/16/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> For the rest of you, here's a screenshot:
>
> http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/Screenshot.png

And when are you going to get a real operating system, Magnus? ;-)

Erik


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Another (rare) category type

body:
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
>
> The items in the category are not, as you might think, articles about
> soccer terms themselves. Rather, they are all concepts related to
> soccer, that have been put into this category for the (IMHO dubious)
> goal of producing an automatic "glossary" of soccer terms. It would
> seem to me that this category could be easily constructed by compiling
> all the entries of:
>
> Football (soccer) laws
> Football (soccer) culture
> ...and probably lots of other categories that *should* exist.
>
Captain Cynical sits on my shoulder and whispers in my ear: "that's to avoid
all those maroons who would immediately AFD such a list on the grounds that
it should be turned into a Category".

Sometimes i wonder if he's right...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Another-%28rare%29-category-type-t1785865.html#a4900577
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[Foundation-l] Dutch moderators destroy evidence of checkuser
	abuse

body:
On 6/16/06, Erik van den Muijzenberg <muijz at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> On 16-jun-2006, at 12:32, Anthere wrote:
>
> > Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:
> >
> > Being a Dutch person... could you translate that for us ?
>
> It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations Anthere.
> Nothing interesting really.
>
> Waerth apparently is soliciting for a permanent ban.

I, for one, would appreciate a fair and accurate translation.

Kelly


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Checkuser-l] (volunteer) job position :
	Ombudsperson checkuser (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

body:
On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>
> So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
> offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
> cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
> and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
> necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
>
> Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way
> the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable
> modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
>
> We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
> to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
> consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
> of this").
>
> Any volunteers ?

Given that we've talked about this in the past, yes, I would be
willing to serve in this capacity.

Kelly


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Image uploads now undeletable

body:
That is what I was thinking.  I was imagining cleanup after no touches for a
period of time.  But this is a great advance!

On 6/16/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/06/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In any case even if keeping deleteds were to double our image capacity
> > requirements they may well be worth it (consider detecting reuploads
> > of previously deleted images, even modified copies of previously
> > deleted images) ... but lets not forget to calculate the real cost of
> > storage (it's not just the $120 that a 320gb disk costs... think of
> > backup, etc).
>
> Maybe they should just be deleted automatically after a 3 or 6 month
> inactive period or something.
>
> ~Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:41:08 +1000, "Richard Fan"
<richardfanx at gmail.com> wrote:

>I merely created the sockpuppets
>as a last minute attempt to get their attention

You already had it, which was why creating an abusive sock account was
very foolish.  I bit like shouting "hey everybody, look at me!" before
setting out to break the rules.

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


from_name: Essjay

subject: [Commons-l] some statistics

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> [[Category:Unknown - March 2006]] has over 1000 items. These are items
> that were tagged as missing source information in March. They should
> be speedy deleted after 7 days.
This is now cleaned out entirely; as I finished each subcat, I deleted
them, and then deleted the main category when it was completely
finished. About 698 images, I believe.

Essjay

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


subject:
[Commons-l] An interactive copyright tutorial as a requirement for
	uploading?

body:
Wikimedia Commons is a very important resource, but it also has
policies which many people will find difficult to understand. They
cannot just upload whatever they want, they have to provide full
source information, and they should have at least a basic
understanding of licensing.

Many ideas have been mentioned here to somehow limit uploads by first
timers. One that I haven't heard mentioned is to require every new
user to go through some interactive tutorial process that explains the
basics. How could this be done?

1) Create a new permission for uploading.
2) Any user who doesn't have the permission, and tries to upload, is
presented with the tutorial.
3) Once they have completed the tutorial, they receive the permission.

On the implementation level, it seems that this can be done as an
extension which a) hooks into the upload process and checks whether a
user has the permission, b) displays a set of pages from the
MediaWiki: namespace (important so the tutorial can be localized using
the "/de", "/en" .. subpage syntax), each of them with a
"Previous"/"Next" button. Only when a user has viewed the final page
in the sequence, they would be given the upload permission.

All existing users (except sysops) would have to go through the process as well.

Future refinements could include interactive questions/answers about
copyright issues. As for bots, bot status has to be set by bureaucrats
anyway, so these could also give bots the upload permission.

Does this idea make sense? If it works for Commons, a simplified
version might even be useful for each individual Wikimedia project.

Erik


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Brion is *the man*

body:
Essjay wrote:
> Important notice: Brion totally rocks.
>
> Images can now be undeleted...Yes, I said undeleted.
>
> I'll be leading group worship at the Church of the Almighty Brion at 7PM
> UTC tomorrow.
>
> Essjay

/me goes collect change to purchase a candle :-)


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am inclined to agree. A vector conversion, if possible, would be
> > awesome though.
>
> It must be possible, Corel Mosaic (iirc?) let you do this back in the early 90s.

I'll make a vector version of the existing logo...  For logos we
should attempt to use vector logos wherever possible, raster images
aren't as flexible, and the fine detail doesn't tend to survive in
many applications anyways.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Category:Own work

body:
> Basically, we have three options:
> * Find the user who uploaded the image and make him/her chose a license
> (great!)
> * User can't be found, assuming good faith and calling it GFDL
> * User can't be found, assuming nothing and deleting the image

Fourth option: Store them virtually indefinitely with a disclaimer,
occupying some uncertain limbo between freeness and unfreeness.

Oh wait... that's what we're doing ;)

I have to reluctantly agree that we shouldn't assume anything when it
comes to licensing. So maybe delete them as free alternatives are
created. (So deleting the orphans should be ok...)

Brianna


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] No big deal?

body:
G'day Guy,

> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:27:33 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
> <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The questions from the peanut
>>gallery are less good.
>
> Best one I've seen: do you see the role of administrator as that of
> policeman or janitor.  Made me think, anyway.

Too vulnerable to the "faking through a job interview" style of
answering.  Anyone who does a modicum of research before accepting their
RfA (that is to say, looking at other RfAs) will know how strong the
"janitor" metaphor is.  Unless the "policeman" metaphor becomes more
acceptable to the community --- and I hope it won't --- then, knowing
the mindset of many who hang out at RfA, this is a very simple pass/fail
question.  Admittedly, the "oh, policeman, obviously" is something that
might trap a clueless CVU newbie or two, so we can weed them out before
they do any damage after passing on their vandal-biting contribution alone.

I'd like to see more creative answers.  Like: "admins are neither
policemen nor janitors; we're volunteer firemen from the SES.  We clean
up messes, protect fellow community members from fires, and if necessary
have the power to confiscate matches from particularly nasty firebugs."

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>
>>I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for
>>the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much
>>better.
>>
>>

Choosing in a pool may also be a problem if the pool was selected
through a complete election process, as the board would be expected to
choose the people according to the percentage of support they got.
This is the case for the english arbcom. I am not aware Jimbo ever felt
  embarassed with any of the pool member, but it is likely he feels
compound to pick up the top of the pool.

Choosing in a pool selected by support/oppose election type would be
much easier, but a much more complicated process if the number of
nominees is largely bigger than the number of final members. Is it best
to pick up 1 person with 80% of support - 10 votes, or to pick up 1
person with 70% of support - 100 votes ?

I think the final decision is mostly one based on what we want the
Foundation type to be, private Foundation (business Foundation) or
public Foundation (communittee Foundation) ?


from_name: Mauro Barbolini

body:
Stop writing to me !
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising ideas - bursting the bubble

> On 6/14/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > > Of course, if you have the person's address, I agree the point is
> > > rather moot.  Even if it costs $1 to send a letter to someone donating
> > > $250, that's only four tenths of one percent.    Email would be more
> > > useful if there are donors making that size donation who don't want to
> > > release their address.
> > >
> > > I suppose it might cost more than $1 to send a letter outside the
> > > United States, but then again how many people living outside the
> > > United States donate more than $250 to Wikimedia and then file a US
> > > tax return where they itemize deductions?  Probably 0.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > How,
> > I do not know how you arrive at that $1. It typically is substantially
> > more. It is not only postage, you are sending something that is printed,
> > there is the handling, there is a certain percentage that returns. You
> > do want to maintain your database and register those RTS. You then have
> > to consider how to follow up, do you want to find out what is wrong with
> > the address. On average it costs over $5 to handle a RTS.
>
> I don't know how you arrive at $5, but that's only for letters that
> are returned to the sender.  What about the others, and what
> percentage is generally returned to the sender?
>
> And what if you just want to ignore those letters that are returned to
> the sender?
>
> Let's think about 1000 letters.  High quality business paper should be
> less than $50.  Add $50 more for toner.  Envelopes are $10.  Labels
> are $10.  A paper folder is $100 (should last a lot longer than 1000
> letters, though).  That makes $220 to produce the letters.  Add in
> $390 for postage, which assumes you don't have the volume to send at
> the nonprofit rate.  Now let's assume you can't get volunteer labor,
> which is probably untrue considering there are probably enough
> Wikipedians just in the Tampa Bay area willing to help.  At 50 letters
> an hour (slow) and $10/hour (expensive) that's $200.  Comes out to
> $810, so at that volume with those assumptions we're still under
> $1/letter with about 20% to spare.
>
> If volume goes down price goes up, but take the volume under 500
> letters or so and it's something Danny could do by himself in a couple
> days.
>
> Now I assume the foundation already has a decent laser printer.  Am I
> wrong here?  And I was neglecting the cost of keeping the database,
> because that's something that has to be done anyway.
>
> > When you do
> > not handle this well, you get yourself on the wrong side of
> > organisations that monitor charities that ask for money. This can cost
> > you your license in the first place but worse, it can give a
> > organisation a bad name.
> >
> What license is going to be lost by making what types of mistakes?
>
> > Once you decide to do professional marketing, you have to ensure that
> > you maintain your database. This should mean that you commit to doing it
> > well. The benefits can be huge and given our brand recognition it is
> > likely to be huge. But please do this well or do not do it all.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
>
> I wasn't talking about professional marketing, I was talking about the
> cost to send letters to people who donated at least $250.
>
> If it really does cost $5/letter, you could always tell people to
> include an extra $5 if they want a written confirmation letter.  But I
> don't see where you're getting this figure.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising ideas - bursting the bubble


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace

body:
Hi,
  It would be nice if on Wikipedia, ordinary users could delete pages
(perhaps not including their basic User talk: page) from their own
user space. Currently, every subpage that you set up exists forever
until you find an admin to delete it for you. Most likely, admins
regularly delete subpages from their own user space that they no
longer need...

Would this require a software extension, or just reconfiguration of
Wikipedia? Where is the best place to ask?

Steve


from_name: Netocrat

subject: [Wikitech-l] Section numbering

body:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:37:51 +0100, Timwi wrote:
> Netocrat wrote:
[>> Steve Bennet wrote:]
>>>For common ones, you can set up redirects to the section heading. That
>>>works, thankfully.
>>
>> That's welcome news: they didn't work the last time that I checked (1.5.x;
>> just confirmed on 1.5.6), but I see that they do on a 1.6.5 install.
>
> What are you referring to here? The following definitely does NOT work:
>
> 	#REDIRECT [[Article title#Section name]]

I clicked the redirect link that's displayed on the redirect page when
redirect=no is a url query parameter and made a hasty assumption that the
behaviour was identical to that when accessing the redirect page without
redirect=no as a url query parameter.

So after all it's not the good news that I thought it was.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace

body:
 6/16/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> And what if they've moved an article from the main namespace to their
> userspace? How would you prevent users deleting real articles in this
> way?

Ordinary users can move articles into their userspace???

Steve


from_name: Erica Flynn

subject:
[Foundation-l] (volunteer) job position : Ombudsperson
	checkuser (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

body:
I'll help. I'd need some training on it, though.

Erica
en.wikipedia User:Fang Aili

On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace

body:
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>  6/16/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And what if they've moved an article from the main namespace to their
> > userspace? How would you prevent users deleting real articles in this
> > way?

> Ordinary users can move articles into their userspace???

Not only that, they can even wipe out entire pages or replace them
with ASCII porn. ;-) Besides page moves, there are other problems,
such as user pages used as collaborative work areas, new methods of
trolling, and a possible incentive to use someone else's wiki as a
temporary scratchpad for just about anything ("I'll just delete it
later").

User pages exist to serve the community and the project, not the
users. As such, I think we should de-emphasize the notion of personal
page ownership, and preserve community review on such pages. Improving
these review and deletion processes, both on the policy and the
technology level, strikes me as a better way to address any currently
existing bottleneck situations.

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] An issue on Cite.php extension

body:
On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Shinjiman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Someone just found out about an issue using the "Cite this article" function.
> > for example, when we see the "Wikipedia" article as of 00:33, 16 June
> > 2006, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=58859884].
> > The URL link to the "Cite this article" is linking to the current
> > version of the article. It should supposed to cite that article as of
> > that modification time, instead of the current revision , IMHO. Is
> > this really an issue about the Cite.php extension?
>
> Huh?

The user is pointing out that the Special:Cite link in the sidebar
will always create a permalink to the latest revision, even when
viewing an old revision.

Erik


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject:
[Foundation-l] (volunteer) job position : Ombudsperson
 checkuser (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

body:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.

More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?

> PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
> with an OTRS file.

A general abuse-l at wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful.
There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints,
checkuser or no.

SJ


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

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

geni stated for the record:

> Heh wait to you run into people who remeber the usermod days and CamelCase.
>
> Then you have the slightly newer ones who remeber quickpolls and no
> subpages on AFD and haveing to use {{msg:stub}}.

What do those curly brackets do?  Is that some new feature?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Fair? Fair's a place you win goldfish, son.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEkuLlMAt1wyd9d+URAjycAJ4/iKvQZm+TVp6YX+ld58cfvAL6LQCfZ7oX
WVcv2K+8M/X+a93mvU1Wk5A=
=h4/q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Commons browser

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
>
>> For the rest of you, here's a screenshot:
>>
>> http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/Screenshot.png
>>
>
> And when are you going to get a real operating system, Magnus? ;-)
>
ATM, I work on three different operation systems, of which two qualify
as "real" ;-)

I jsut thought that when learning a M$-created programming language, I'd
start with their (free as in beer) IDE. AFAIK, Mono supports
Windows.Forms now, so I'll try that some day too...

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace

body:
On 6/16/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, of course. They can move any non-protected page anywhere they
> like. And that ability shouldn't be removed considering how many
> newbies accidentally make their user page in the article namespace and
> it needs to be moved to the userspace.

In that particular case, no harm would be caused by copying/pasting it
to their user page, then marking the original for speedy deletion. But
I take your point.

On 6/16/06, Hsiang-Tai Chien <htchien1225 at yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> I usually put a {{delete}} to a subpage that I do not want to use anymore
> and soon an admin will delete it for me. Maybe you can do that, too.

Ok, maybe that works well enough at EN Wikipedia. I tried it a couple
of times later at Commons and discovered that 3+ months later the
images were still there (could be extremely embarrassing if you
uploaded the wrong image...)

On 6/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> User pages exist to serve the community and the project, not the
> users. As such, I think we should de-emphasize the notion of personal
> page ownership, and preserve community review on such pages. Improving
> these review and deletion processes, both on the policy and the
> technology level, strikes me as a better way to address any currently
> existing bottleneck situations.

That seems quite reasonable. Would a "special" {{delete}} template
along the lines of "This isn't even in the main user space, can some
admin just kill it?" be an improvement? You would have at least one
pair of eyes checking it...

Steve


subject: [Commons-l] Brion is *the man*

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Hot diggity SHAZAM!!!!!
>
> Yes, indeedy.
>
> *cracks whip at Commons admins* no more excuses now!!!!! woot...
>
>
+1 cheering for Brion

I'll take safe-delete offline now...

Mahnus


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider
replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say
that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the
flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit
too square and ordinary.

I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to
experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at:
http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/

The flower used here looks more like something airbrushed than a
straight crop of a photo (even though it is the latter), which I think
is an advantage for a logo. I do like the notion of using a complex
flower rather than a purely stylized one; I think that this is
allowable in the context of an entirely web-based product.

I think the colors/brightness and the brackets could use some
tweaking. I'm also not sure if I prefer the version with a shadow
behind the flower or the one without (the two people who have sent me
feedback so far prefer the one with, I have a slight preference for
without). If you want to play with it, there's an XCF link for editing
in the GIMP; all the elements of the picture are represented there as
layers.

For favicon size, we probably want to draw something from scratch
rather than resizing the logo. In the "Powered by" button size, it
could use some tweaking (perhaps some pre-processing before scaling
down).

I'd appreciate your comments on these experiments. Perhaps we should
start an open logo process when MediaWiki 2.0 comes within grasp.

Erik


body:
On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Ok, apparently I need more sleep. :)
>
> When viewing an old revision, it ought to link to that revision. Right?

Peanut gallery: That seems right to me.

Incidentally, it's pleasing to see the big disclaimer when you click
the "Cite this page" link.

Steve


body:
On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> When viewing an old revision, it ought to link to that revision. Right?

Probably. The Special:Cite page should then say "Date of cited
revision" instead of "Date of last revision".

Erik


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

body:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:12:41AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Ok, apparently I need more sleep. :)
> >
> > When viewing an old revision, it ought to link to that revision. Right?
>
> Peanut gallery: That seems right to me.
>
> Incidentally, it's pleasing to see the big disclaimer when you click
> the "Cite this page" link.

Concur on both points, for whatever *that's* worth.  :-)

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

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

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace

body:
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> That seems quite reasonable. Would a "special" {{delete}} template
> along the lines of "This isn't even in the main user space, can some
> admin just kill it?" be an improvement? You would have at least one
> pair of eyes checking it...

If it also puts the page in the regular speedy deletion category, that
might be a good idea.

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider
> replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say
> that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the
> flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit
> too square and ordinary.

Are the brackets necessary? Both "before" and "after" they're not
particularly, uh, elegant.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:07:07AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider
> replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say
> that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the
> flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit
> too square and ordinary.

Wow, a topic I actually feel competent to expound on.  :-)

> I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to
> experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at:
> http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/

I rather like that, Erik.  I think I'd choose a typeface for the square
brackets with a slightly tighter radius, so it remains clear they're
supposed to be *square*.

> The flower used here looks more like something airbrushed than a
> straight crop of a photo (even though it is the latter), which I think
> is an advantage for a logo. I do like the notion of using a complex
> flower rather than a purely stylized one; I think that this is
> allowable in the context of an entirely web-based product.

I personally think it looks fine.

> I think the colors/brightness and the brackets could use some
> tweaking. I'm also not sure if I prefer the version with a shadow
> behind the flower or the one without (the two people who have sent me
> feedback so far prefer the one with, I have a slight preference for
> without). If you want to play with it, there's an XCF link for editing
> in the GIMP; all the elements of the picture are represented there as
> layers.

I concur on the drop shadow, as long as it's implmented as an
alpha-channel PNG: it will eventually end up on things with non-white
backgrounds.  I actually quite like the color balance as it is.

You might need to bold up the tagline just a touch, for small sizes,
though it's fine at the larger size.  Or darken it.  It should still
stay noticeably lighter than the mainline.

> For favicon size, we probably want to draw something from scratch
> rather than resizing the logo. In the "Powered by" button size, it
> could use some tweaking (perhaps some pre-processing before scaling
> down).

I see that you've taken the brackets off of the favicon; did you try
rendering it with (at least one set of) them?

> I'd appreciate your comments on these experiments. Perhaps we should
> start an open logo process when MediaWiki 2.0 comes within grasp.

Perhaps.

And the project tagline, as a separate thing.

Perhaps someone should put a page at meta soliciting suggestions, and
making the case for a CC license, and publicize?

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

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

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:26:31AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to
> > experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at:
> > http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/
>
> I rather like that, Erik.  I think I'd choose a typeface for the square
> brackets with a slightly tighter radius, so it remains clear they're
> supposed to be *square*.

Oh yeah: and thank the ghods for getting rid of Avant Garde Medium!

:-)

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

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

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Are the brackets necessary? Both "before" and "after" they're not
> particularly, uh, elegant.

I think they're important lest we be confused with a gardening store.
The allusion to the wiki syntax has always worked for me, and I've
seen quite a few wikis create derivative works with something else
between the brackets. (This is one reason why I insist that the logo
should be free content.)

Erik


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Samuel Klein wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
>
>
>>The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
>>and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
>>them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
>>sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>>
>>
>
>More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?
>
>
>
>>PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
>>with an OTRS file.
>>
>>
>
>A general abuse-l at wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful.
>There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints,
>checkuser or no.
>
>SJ
>
>
I second this sentiment.  There is no reason why checkuser complaints
ought to be singled out as something unique and special compared to
other admin abuses.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they're important lest we be confused with a gardening store.
> The allusion to the wiki syntax has always worked for me, and I've
> seen quite a few wikis create derivative works with something else
> between the brackets. (This is one reason why I insist that the logo
> should be free content.)

Are they they only way this can be done?  Is [[image]] the only
arrangement incorporating MediaWiki syntax with an image? Is MediaWiki
the only wiki package that uses double square brackets? If we're
discussing a new logo for the next version, it would seem worthwhile
re-examining the entire thing from scratch?

I know I'm sounding negative here, but I'm not particularly taken with
the new flower - always sort of liked the old one, asymmetry and all.
:) Would like to hear what others think.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Is this a diffing bug?

body:
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dijon&curid=99187&diff=58875067&oldid=57372678

It looks to me like the only thing that has changed here is a couple
of new lines have been removed, and the words "Dijon is the capital of
bourgogne and " replace "The city". However, the entire paragraph is
highlighted in red, making it hard to see what's really changed.

Maybe a case to bear in mind if anyone's playing with the diffing algorithm?

Steve


from_name: Richard Fan

body:
What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other
admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the sockpuppets
as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage the
edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he
asked me to take it to mediation.

On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/15/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This editor has socked and attempted to create a hostile RfC against
> > > the blocking admin.  I've deleted it and indefinitely blocked the
> > > sock.
> >
> > What a shame. I was actually close to assuming good faith and undoing
> > the block.  Oh well.
> >
>
> Tease.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are they they only way this can be done?  Is [[image]] the only
> arrangement incorporating MediaWiki syntax with an image?

No, but I can't think of a more recognizable syntax element, and links
are of course one of the most fundamental features of a wiki.

> Is MediaWiki
> the only wiki package that uses double square brackets?

Historically, I believe the double square bracket syntax was first
created for Wikipedia by Clifford Adams, originally as a patch to
UsemodWiki. MediaWiki (or "phase II" and "phase III" of the software
as they were then known) copied this syntax. Since then, some others
have copied it as well. I believe it's very historically important for
the success of Wikipedia, and as such have always seen it as an
adequate symbol for the software as well.

> If we're discussing a new logo for the next version, it would seem worthwhile
> re-examining the entire thing from scratch?

Maybe. Continuity has its advantages, too.

Erik


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 15/06/06, ABCD <en.abcd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 6/15/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But *which one would go first*?
>>
>>That's simple -- put them in alphabetical order - I mean, this /is/ a
>>dictionary, right?
>
> Uh... um... WP:NOT paper. And alphabetical order is just Western
> systemic bias. Oooh, oooh, I know! You're really wanting us to use
> (the one that comes first) and you're suggesting this as a sneaky way
> to avoid consensus...

So we argue that priority should be given to "color", "aluminium",
"center" and "encyclopaedia".  I'd like to see the BrEn/AmEn folks try
to wrap their minds around that.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 6/16/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> The old flower has a real, organic look to it which I like, though it could do
> with more contrast. The new one looks very fake, despite being real. :)

In Germany, we have a famous children's TV show called "L?wenzahn". It
starts with a time lapse sequence of a dandelion flower breaking its
way through the asphalt. This is what I've always associated with the
MediaWiki logo, technology (brackets) being merely the basis for the
growth of something wild and beautiful which transcends it.

However, in that symbolism, I would prefer the wildness to be even
more visible, with perhaps a different perspective on the flower, or
some visible breakthrough. When I saw the flower on Commons, I was
impressed by how much energy it radiates. It strikes me as an
appropriate symbol of strength and maturity, hence also the transition
from the old slogan "ideas want to be free" to "power for your ideas".

Erik


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body: I still consider myself new to Wikipedia.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

body:
Hello

Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.

2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
you and I represented no one :-)

At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
volunteer representative/member representative.

Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
sections about membership :
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws

Does that section fit with reality ?

---------

Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.

This new version has a very short "membership section".

The community is still taken into account in ARTICLE II, where a new
section has been proposed (section 4).

Board members selection process is in ARTICLE III, section 3.

The rest of the bylaws are a huge improvement compared to current ones.

ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
The Foundation shall have no members.

ARTICLE II
Section 4. Community.
The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.

ARTICLE IV
Section 3. Selection.
The Trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and
qualified. Selection shall be in the following manner:
(1) Trustees Elected from the Community.
At least two (2) Trustees shall be selected from the Community by vote
of the Community. The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules
and regulation of the voting procedures; they shall appoint two
Inspectors of the Election from the Community to oversee the election
procedures who shall report and certify the results within thirty days
of any vote.
(2) Other Trustees.
The remaining number of Trustees shall be elected by the Board. Names of
individuals shall be nominated for selection by the Board. The Board
shall endeavor to select Trustees who will best fulfill the mission and
needs of the Foundation. Individuals who are not selected unanimously
may be elected by a majority of the Board.

--------

These bylaws have not been approved. They are still in the draft mode.
For all I know, they could stay here forever, because beside myself, I
did not see other board members working on them. And I did not really
see any comments from them either.

I am uncertain whether I should give much energy on new bylaws, even if
the current official ones are nonsense within the current situation.
Uncertain because of the lack of reaction of board members, and the near
lack of reaction of the community.
Being just a board member, I can not *force* the other board members to
vote. I am not in charge of organising meetings where we could vote or
at least discuss together. In short, if a resolution to approve new
bylaws is set up, I have NO certainty this will *ever* result in an
approved resolution.

It takes a lot of energy to work on a topic when it is so pointedly
ignored by peers.

Hence my trying to turn toward you.
How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5

As I said... it takes a lot of energy...

But please, try to see the big picture ...

----------

Our current bylaws describe a very mixed model, which has been much
complained about in the past 2 years (I criticized it myself when it was
originally proposed).
It has 2 members elected by the community, for a limited time
And 3 members, appointed by Jimbo, and permanent till they die or resign
And does not limit members to 5.... but makes no mention of how increase
would be done.

The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
membership.

Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
members in the future.
DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
case, they would be appointed.

What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.

The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
collective running. This is very much the model of our local
associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
american and hard to understand by europeans.

----------

Which model would be better in our case ?

I dunno really.

One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.

The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
citizens all over the world.
I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
the boiling culture.

In the end, I think there is both a cultural clash in what we are trying
to set up... and an issue of courage.

If we pick up the first model, I think things can go very quickly and
with little pain. This summer, at Wikimania, we'll meet big names (I say
"we" because Jimbo already have breakfast with them regularly... but the
board should appoint them... so it would be nice that the board members
actually know the people they get recommandation to appoint). We can
think of who would be best asset, just ask him, and by september, we'll
have a nice board with new big names and maybe one community member we
like. And with luck, more money, more introduction and new opportunities.

If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The
community (and not Delphine and I alone :-)) will need to do its
homework. Seriously discuss a mean to select members. Seriously discuss
organisation. And not only stay mute on the list or not only say "this
will never work" or not only blame the board just to be so inefficient
without proposing solutions. We'll need to sweat together. And we'll
need to convince quite a few people that this is the way to go.

I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
*alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
*active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
on the board wiki.

I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
successful ?

As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
(estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
would be best for you).

I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.
This model is humiliating to me. The big actors in this model would be
the big names, which I do not have the chance to meet or talk with. The
strategy of the Foundation would be done between Jimbo and the big names
in 5 stars conference halls or in far-away islands, where no one will
ever think of inviting me (eh, best to keep the circle of people small).

I will simply be offered the results of brainstorms of important people
to implement and vote upon (I don't know why I use future, this is
already happening). I will have the great opportunity to prepare the
path of the big people in doing their homework so that they better
shine. Community representatives would be second rate board member.

The other people in the Foundation would be the staff, who would make a
(good) living of what I do full time for free (and who receive the
religious ceremonies from community when the board gets the fire).

I say "I", but I am quite convinced many would feel just the same.

That would leave the benefit of working for a great cause...
But would the biggest cause be the projects ? Or the Foundation ?

--------

Where are we in these models right now ?

In the middle. We have some community representant, but the relations
between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
reducing the lack of communication.

But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.

At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need
to set up the organisation (on a type of Apache model for example). We
need to convince those who are not convinced.

If you want to do a more Business Foundation, the bylaws are ready to be
voted upon. Members are knocking at the door.

A very bad thing would be to stay forever in the middle of two seats,
with unsuitable bylaws, disorganisation, frustrated community and angry
board members.

Sorry for the long rant.
I hope it clarifies the current situation.

Anthere


body:
Hiya,

Thanks for the long and insightful posts to this list recently.
Some quick thoughts.

> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.

Opt-in membership is useful; I always liked the idea, regardless of
whether or how dues were set up.

> ARTICLE II
> Section 4. Community.
> The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
> throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
> Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
> Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.

This would be an unfortunate first sentence.  Foundations do not usually
acknowledge the contributions of projects they support.  The contributions
of donors, perhaps...

More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be
used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors
form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context
('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')...
similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid"
rather than "connoisseur".

I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity,
active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of
'volunteering' for a cause.

When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one
call it "volunteering"?  No.  Participating in a barn-raising for a
neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm?  Likewise no.
Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend
a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening
in language-exchange.

Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply
doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should
come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> Hence my trying to turn toward you.
> How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
[over 100,000]

> How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
[only?  when was the last time a call for sign-ups went out?]

> How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
> How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
> How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
[more coming...]

This model was fascinating, though a lot to digest.  (It would be even
more fascinating to see one or two other models, and hear details of how
and why they were set up.)

> ----------
> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business

A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change
the world.

> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a

Right.

> ----------
> Which model would be better in our case ?
>
> One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
> efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
> reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
> I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
> meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
> their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
> the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
> business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
>
> But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
> the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
> More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.

I don't know.  The best support of the projects and goals that I can
imagine doesn't stem directly from money, but from an ever-increasing
community participation; something which Wikipedia and other projects have
enjoyed to date.

> The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
> expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
> volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
> because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
> discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
> to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
> business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
> citizens all over the world.
> I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
> the boiling culture.

I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply
"by individuals" all over the world.  Many people who don't get 'free
culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project)
-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
is guided by a broad and milling community.

Tangentially, it's not at all clear to me that this would mean less money
in the long run; more to the point, goals of generating and distributing
content may be better served without that intermediary.

> If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The

Also a chance for community members to reflect on the best that they have
gotten from the projects, and the best that they have seen in the world;
regardless of which model is picked, it would be better if a few hundred
community members took this analysis and brainstorming seriously so that
it was a considered choice and not a default one based on what is easiest.

> I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
> would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
> we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
> proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
> volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
> successful ?

Not only successful.  Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of
magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants.  There are
subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively
explored.  Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors
/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed
to work on specific projects.

> I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.

Do you think it has value for the general good?

> --------
> between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
> appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
> reducing the lack of communication.
>
> But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
> and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
>
> At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
> a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need

It is hard to get feedback on newly drafted bylaws when they are not
public.  How could the community help draft new bylaws that were different
from what has been written?

> Sorry for the long rant.
> I hope it clarifies the current situation.
>
> Anthere

Thanks again.
Catching up on email,
   SJ


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still consider myself new to Wikipedia.

Hey, me too... I mean, at what point are you no longer a newbie?  I
mean, I just passed a year of editing, but still feel like I am new.
At least you've been here since 2004.
--LV


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] List congestion

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> While all this discussion of the cost of pizza in Tampa Bay is
> very interesting, it might be polite to other list members if
> discussions are kept focused on the organization of the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its board.  I'm not speaking for any of these, I'm
> just a bystander with an interest in statistics.
>
> In the last week, I have received 216 messages addressed to
> foundation-l. That would be 800 posts per month, which is twice as
> much as the comfortable level.  As a comparison, wikitech-l saw
> 124 messages in the same time and the German wikide-l only 44.
>
> The most frequent posters to foundation-l were:
>
>      24 From: Michael R. Irwin
>      20 From: Anthony DiPierro
>      14 From: Kelly Martin
>      13 From: Erik Moeller
>      11 From: Gregory Maxwell
>      10 From: Zack Clark
>      10 From: Anthere
>       8 From: Jimmy Wales
>       6 From: Robert Scott Horning
>       6 From: Delirium
>
>

I must have missed the thread about the cost of pizza. I think it's great
that we're finally seeing some detailed public discussion of foundation
issues. Mailing lists don't get congested, they just get busy. And since the
foundation is growing, it's only going to get busier. My advice would be to
use a client that allows grouping or threading, and then to skip the threads
that you don't want to read. Personally, I use Thunderbird to access the
NNTP service from gmane.org.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Foundation-l] List congestion


from_name: SJ

subject: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

body:
FYI; part of a long thread on foundation governance and structure.

Those interested in discussions about foundation membership, the
meta-organization of the projects, and the future of the foundation :
you may want to join or browse foundation-l.  I don't know where these
conversations will take place in the future, but at present they seem to
be gathering in frequency and length on that list, and long-ranging
decisions are being made over the next few months.

SJ

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

Hiya,

Thanks for the long and insightful posts to this list recently.
Some quick thoughts.

> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.

Opt-in membership is useful; I always liked the idea, regardless of
whether or how dues were set up.

> ARTICLE II
> Section 4. Community.
> The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
> throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
> Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
> Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.

This would be an unfortunate first sentence.  Foundations do not usually
acknowledge the contributions of projects they support.  The contributions
of donors, perhaps...

More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be
used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors
form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context
('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')...
similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid"
rather than "connoisseur".

I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity,
active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of
'volunteering' for a cause.

When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one
call it "volunteering"?  No.  Participating in a barn-raising for a
neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm?  Likewise no.
Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend
a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening
in language-exchange.

Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply
doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should
come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> Hence my trying to turn toward you.
> How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
[over 100,000]

> How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
[only?  when was the last time a call for sign-ups went out?]

> How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
> How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
> How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
[more coming...]

This model was fascinating, though a lot to digest.  (It would be even
more fascinating to see one or two other models, and hear details of how
and why they were set up.)

> ----------
> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business

A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change
the world.

> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a

Right.

> ----------
> Which model would be better in our case ?
>
> One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
> efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
> reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
> I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
> meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
> their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
> the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
> business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
>
> But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
> the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
> More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.

I don't know.  The best support of the projects and goals that I can
imagine doesn't stem directly from money, but from an ever-increasing
community participation; something which Wikipedia and other projects have
enjoyed to date.

> The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
> expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
> volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
> because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
> discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
> to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
> business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
> citizens all over the world.
> I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
> the boiling culture.

I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply
"by individuals" all over the world.  Many people who don't get 'free
culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project)
-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
is guided by a broad and milling community.

Tangentially, it's not at all clear to me that this would mean less money
in the long run; more to the point, goals of generating and distributing
content may be better served without that intermediary.

> If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The

Also a chance for community members to reflect on the best that they have
gotten from the projects, and the best that they have seen in the world;
regardless of which model is picked, it would be better if a few hundred
community members took this analysis and brainstorming seriously so that
it was a considered choice and not a default one based on what is easiest.

> I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
> would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
> we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
> proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
> volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
> successful ?

Not only successful.  Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of
magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants.  There are
subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively
explored.  Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors
/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed
to work on specific projects.

> I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.

Do you think it has value for the general good?

> --------
> between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
> appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
> reducing the lack of communication.
>
> But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
> and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
>
> At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
> a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need

It is hard to get feedback on newly drafted bylaws when they are not
public.  How could the community help draft new bylaws that were different
from what has been written?

> Sorry for the long rant.
> I hope it clarifies the current situation.
>
> Anthere

Thanks again.
Catching up on email,
    SJ

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD just does not work

body:
On 6/16/06, Cobb <sealclubbingfun at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >geni on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:59:07 +0100, wrote:
>
> >It is a legit subject. The article can be cleaned up with the
> >liberal use of machete editing. It would be nice to have
> >something explaining why the fighting styles are mostly
> >rather stupid but I can live without that.
>
> A legit subject. So when has there ever been any actual
> lightsabre combat? Has military research made some
> significant breakthroughs without me noticing?

Legit fictional:
It's a major aspect of the Star Wars series, which are well past the
credible size of popularity where major subjects within the fictional
series are worth having articles about.  Fictional aspects are
perfectly reasonable to report on.

Legit real-world fan phenomenon:
Everyone who I know who ever laid hand on one of the toy lightsabers
said "Cool!" and waved it around a bunch.  Sufficiently popular fan
phenomenon.

Legit real-world martial art phenomenon:
There are a few people trying to replicate the movie fighting style at
a serious level.  While that sort of scares me, I have to admit that
when I was working at a big web company in the dot-com boom days, a
bunch of us used the toy lightsabers for stress relief, and my Kendo
experience and a coworkers Fencing experience came in handy.  We
weren't taking it all that seriously (other than wiping the floor with
the Java group as a point of honor, before returning to our duels),
but I can see where someone might.

Article cleanup:
An article on a subject which spans fiction into fandom into fans
trying to practice it for real needs to distinguish between those
boundaries clearly.  Failure to do so makes it a badly written
article, but badly written articles get cleaned up, not deleted, as a
point of stated policy.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I still consider myself new to Wikipedia.
>
> Hey, me too... I mean, at what point are you no longer a newbie?  I
> mean, I just passed a year of editing, but still feel like I am new.
> At least you've been here since 2004.
>

The END of 2004, my friend, the end. ;-)


from_name: Mark Bergsma

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>> If we're discussing a new logo for the next version, it would seem worthwhile
>> re-examining the entire thing from scratch?
>
> Maybe. Continuity has its advantages, too.

Yes. So let's continue using the old logo - I like it a lot more...

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Death Phoenix <originaldeathphoenix at gmail.com> wrote:
> The END of 2004, my friend, the end. ;-)

Still longer than me, and the rest of us wahoos.  We never had to walk
to our dial-up computers, uphill both ways, on Windows 3.1, from AOL,
like you oldbies. ;-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Year of adminship is a measure that often seems to work well.9

Nah... plenty of people I wouldn't consider newbies aren't admins at all.


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:13:48PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 16/06/06, ryan at dobreprogramy.pl <ryan at dobreprogramy.pl> wrote:
> > > at all ("Because ideas want to be free" seems to be closer to MW's idea)
> >
> > I'd rather ditch the motto.
>
> I'm glad someone else said it first. "Ideas want to be free" is kind
> of cute. "Power your ideas" sounds like a dot-com startup trying to
> get off the ground.

That actually touches on what I was thinking:
I don't think the slogan should necessarily be changed wholesale, but
simply dropping the "because" would probably be a significant
improvement.  Is there someone else also using "ideas want to be free",
sans-"because", that might produce some kind of conflict with MediaWiki
using the same phrase?

"Ideas want to be free" is kind of a statement of philosophy and
purpose.  "Because ideas want to be free" sounds more like an excuse, to
me.  "Power your ideas" sounds like marketing.

Just my two pence.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 05:52:19PM +0100, Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider
> > replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say
> > that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the
> > flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit
> > too square and ordinary.
> >
> > I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to
> > experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at:
> > http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/
>
> I quite like this - but I think the brackets look too much like (( )) brackets
> rather than [[ ]] - could you square off the corners a bit (but not entirely?)

Maybe try splitting the difference -- brackets (which is to say, square)
rather than parentheses-looking things, but with curves on the insides
to soften the look a little.

I'd edit them myself, except I'm only GIMP-skilled within very narrow
areas of usefulness, and would likely screw it up completely after
several hours' work, then give up in frustration.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/


subject: [Wikitech-l] DPLforum

body:
On 6/15/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wikipedia.en - to make the various discussion pages easy to find and
> use.  No more massive pages and lost discussions.  For use by anyone,
> but of particular help to the clueless newbs we will be sending there
> from OTRS.
>
> More specifically the Village Pump, the Help Desk and the Admin
> Noticeboard would be the three key areas - those three would be in the
> main index, each with a sub-index to further split topics.

The MediaWiki-based forum solution used by TaxAlmanac is more advanced:
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_-_Tax_Tips

Tim Doyle, the moderator of the forum, recently commented on this
list. At that time, it was still uncertain whether the code of the
software would be open sourced.

I am copying Tim on this. Tim, the Village Pump and Help Desk are the
main discussion areas of Wikipedia. If you are interested in promoting
and testing your technology further, that would be an excellent
playground -- but a decision would have to be made soon, otherwise it
is likely that a simpler solution that is available now will be put
into place.

I would like to ask Brion to wait with any implementation until Tim responds.

Erik


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] No big deal?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with
>>20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30
>>000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just
>>how silly such a view is, it might die out.  And the good thing about it
>>is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a
>>Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will
>>continue.
>>
>>
>
>In my limited experience, the response is more likely to be that
>people stop explaining their votes, or simply dig in their heels and
>say "I'm entitled to define my own standards" (we even have a page
>that encourages people to do it).
>
>A large influx of common sense could not hurt, of course. But we
>really should agree what *is* reasonable and what isn't. Is 1500 edits
>minimum reasonable? Is 3 months active participation minimum
>reasonable?
>
>
I'd prefer something more like ~200-300 edits, been there a month or
two, and seems to be a sane and reasonable person.  Adminship isn't a
big deal, really.  It gives you a rollback button, the ability to delete
pages, and the ability to block users, all of which can be undone if you
misuse them.  Now even image deletions can be undone, so there really is
minimal danger in just giving every reasonable comer admin privileges.

-Mark


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 6/16/06, Richard Fan <richardfanx at gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you expect me to do? I tried emailing Blnguyen and several other
> admins but they never bothered responding. I merely created the sockpuppets
> as a last minute attempt to get their attention, not trying to reengage the
> edit-war with TJive or anything. I corrosponded with Jimmy Wales, and he
> asked me to take it to mediation.

So far you've admitted making personal attacks, uncivil remarks, and
using sock puppets. All those activities are taken pretty seriously at
Wikipedia, and at the very least, we would expect a sincere apology
and a genuine undertaking not to do it again. Demonstration that you
understand why these things are bad, perhaps by having read the
relevant policies, would be a good thing too.

"Yes, I did that bad thing, but I was justified" is not helping your cause.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
On 6/16/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> So we argue that priority should be given to "color", "aluminium",
> "center" and "encyclopaedia".  I'd like to see the BrEn/AmEn folks try
> to wrap their minds around that.

I like it. Neither Wiktionary nor Wikipedia are written in either BE
or AmE - a blend like that seems perfectly natural.

Steve


subject: [Commons-l] Commons browser

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> For those not faint of heart, with a fast internet connection and .NET
>> 2.0 installed (Window$ only, though AFAIK the current Mono should
>> theoretically support it):
>>
>
> Mono 1.1.15 doesn't seem too happy with it; it seems to be missing the
> SplitContainer control. Got source I could look at?
>
Sure:
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/CommonsBrowserProject.zip

This version also caches the categories in local files. No built-in
cache flushing yet, though.

Magnus


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> Have it translated by your favourite Dutch person:

Being a Dutch person... could you translate that for us ?

Thanks

Anthere

> ==De moderatoren vernietigen het bewijs van hun machtsmisbruik==
> Dit haalde [[Gebruiker:Dolledre]] zojuist uit de kroeg, het bewijs dat
> men oneigenlijke middelen gebruikt en de privacy van gebruikers ten
> grabbel gooit:
>
> === Misbruikmaken chekuser en inbreuk op de privacy ===
>
> Zojuist heeft [[gebruiker:Walter]] gebruik gemaakt van de tool
> checkuser. Dit is een tool die ter beschikking staat aan de stewards en
> slechts in een uiterst noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. Namelijk als
> iemand erg vandalisme pleegt om zijn IP op te kunnen sporen. Dit deed ik
> niet en toch heeft Walter checkuser gebruikt. Tegen alle richtlijnen
> daaromtrent in.
>
> Hoe weet ik dat Walter dit deed? Heel eenvoudig hij blokkeerde zojuist
> het IPadres waaronder ik werkte. Dat kan hij alleen geweten hebben als
> hij checkuser gebruikte. Niet alleen is dit een schending van onze
> privacyregels. Maar ook nog eens een schending van het feit dat dit
> alleen in een noodgeval gebruikt mag worden. En dan alleen nog als er
> meerdere mensen mee instemmen
>
> Daarnaast stuurde Walter mij ook nog eens een dreigemail vandaag dat ik
> voor altijd geblokkeerd ga worden en dat hij mij alleen ''kan redden''
> als ik braaf ben en allen als waerth edit. Tja als dat editten me
> onmogelijk wordt gemaakt .......
> Dit is:
> A) Schending van iemands privacy ... er is een reden dat men onder een
> naam edit.
> B) Bedreiging
> C) Oneigenlijk gebruik van machtsmiddelen.
>
> Ik vraag [[Gebruiker:Walter]] zelf de conclusie te verbinden aan deze 3
> zeer ernstige feiten!
>
> WAERTH (die zijn computer opnieuw op heeft moeten starten)


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 16/06/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone just found out about an issue using the "Cite this article" function.
> for example, when we see the "Wikipedia" article as of 00:33, 16 June
> 2006, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=58859884].
> The URL link to the "Cite this article" is linking to the current
> version of the article. It should supposed to cite that article as of
> that modification time, instead of the current revision , IMHO. Is
> this really an issue about the Cite.php extension?

No, but if it's an issue at all, then it's one with SpecialCite.php or
with the core code, if we merged that functionality in.

Rob Church


body:
On 16/06/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone just found out about an issue using the "Cite this article" function.
> > for example, when we see the "Wikipedia" article as of 00:33, 16 June
> > 2006, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=58859884].
> > The URL link to the "Cite this article" is linking to the current
> > version of the article. It should supposed to cite that article as of
> > that modification time, instead of the current revision , IMHO. Is
> > this really an issue about the Cite.php extension?
>
> No, but if it's an issue at all, then it's one with SpecialCite.php or
> with the core code, if we merged that functionality in.

...and I can't see why the hell this is an issue, as I can't reproduce
the problem.

Rob Church


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
On 16/06/06, Mark Bergsma <mark at nedworks.org> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >> If we're discussing a new logo for the next version, it would seem worthwhile
> >> re-examining the entire thing from scratch?
> >
> > Maybe. Continuity has its advantages, too.
>
> Yes. So let's continue using the old logo - I like it a lot more...

I am inclined to agree. A vector conversion, if possible, would be
awesome though.

Rob Church


subject:
[Foundation-l] (volunteer) job position : Ombudsperson checkuser
 (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

body:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
sure that one day there will not be a problem.

So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.

Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way
the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable
modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.

We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
of this").

Any volunteers ?

PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
with an OTRS file.


from_name: TORENVLIET Nick(NA) - BRUCE POWER

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problems with wikimedia mailing users

body:
Hi all, just wanted to let everybody know... wikimedia is fast becoming
a part of the Engineering change control and Documentation process at
Bruce Power(www.brucepower.com) a nuclear utility in SouthWestern
Ontario.

So I've got a small problem with my installation.  It won't email users
who have properly configured email addresses in their preferences.  The
authenticate email option is off in localsettings.php.

I go the the 'recent changes' page...

I go to 'talk' to one of the users and the 'E-mail this user' option
comes up

I click on 'email this user' and get an email form... with the
appropriate users...

I click send and get the message that the email has been sent...

But no email ever arrives at the recipient's inbox.

Similarly all email notifications of page edits and such do not work.

To put this in context I ran the following from the command line using
php...

<?php
// The message
$message = "Line 1\nLine 2\nLine 3";
// In case any of our lines are larger than 70 characters, we should use
wordwrap()
$message = wordwrap($message, 70);
// Send
mail('myaddress at myplace.com', 'My Subject', $message);
?>

And I received the expected results... so the php back-end to this seems
to be working fine.

Any hints tips or tricks to get the email notification working?

Nick
**************************************************************************************************
*** The contents of this email and any attachments
*** are confidential and may be privileged.
*** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
*** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the
*** sender to that effect, don?t forward the message to anyone
*** and delete the message from your computer.
*** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience.
**************************************************************************************************


from_name: Ron Hall

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki logo experiments

body:
Rob as mascot?!?
OK can I be the sidekick....<eyes flutter> Rob is my hero.....

Even in a thong.

r


subject: [WikiEN-l] No big deal?

body:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> If every time someone said "oppose, has only been here three years with
> 20 000 edits and beloved by nearly everyone, rather than four years, 30
> 000 edits and everyone", someone *else* posted a reply pointing out just
> how silly such a view is, it might die out.  And the good thing about it
> is it's self-correcting: if you say "$x is silly", and $x is in fact a
> Very Good Point, then you will look silly and the practice of $x will
> continue.

In my limited experience, the response is more likely to be that
people stop explaining their votes, or simply dig in their heels and
say "I'm entitled to define my own standards" (we even have a page
that encourages people to do it).

A large influx of common sense could not hurt, of course. But we
really should agree what *is* reasonable and what isn't. Is 1500 edits
minimum reasonable? Is 3 months active participation minimum
reasonable?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> The other day I got reverted for removing a speedy tag from a good
> article (the thing was tagged as vanity, which is not a reason for
> deletion).  That's not the good bit.  The good bit is: I removed it
> again, and got reverted by a completely different user, and was told
> that nobody may remove speedy tags, but must use {{hangon}} until a
> discussion at [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] has been concluded.

Fwiw, in those situations, if I remove it again, I would tend to
replace it with a comment like <!-- according to [[WP:FOO]] vanity is
not a reason to speedy. Consider {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? -->

Steve


from_name: lejoneln

subject: [Wikitech-l] swedish MediaWiki deafult messages

body:
A very big update was made to the Swedish language
file a some weeks ago. On the swedish Wikimedia
projects many
older unupdated messages in the MediWiki namespace
were edited only by a user called MediaWiki_default
(some script run on the servers?). Many of those
messages are now old and "blocks" the updated messages
in the language files.

Can User:MediaWiki_default update or delete the
messages on swedish Wikibooks and Wikisource were
MediaWiki_default is the only contributor? (on the
other swedish projects administrators has already
manually deleted those messages, but that seems to be
unnecceary work if a script can do it automatically).

/~~~~

___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>  From the famous Herostratus RfA: "There's no excuse to not use the
> warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users."
>
> And the perpetrator of this idiotic statement is, according to his
> userpage, an RC patroller (although, blessedly, not apparently a member
> of CVU).
>
> Once we were worried about the newbie contingent getting so large that
> new users were in fact starting to consider themselves old hands and
> influencing Wikipedia (see: CVU admins, userbox fiasco).  It's gone
> beyond that, now: these days, the newbies are offering *advice* to more
> clueful users, and expecting it to be taken.

So in other words the next generation is comeing through. Experence
suggests that complianing that "It wasn't like that in my day" doesn't
work too well.

--
geni


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

body:
Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> writes:

 ...

> We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
> to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
> consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
> of this").

> Any volunteers ?

 Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a
month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help,
but in the second, I may run out of time.

 And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high
level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of
stewards?

--
// Wegge


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/16/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> Haven't you heard, Mark? Process Is Important.
>

When you are dealing with people you don't know yes.

> Expect to see [[Wikipedia:Sucking eggs]] in the next day or so.

Not really. The admins who stay active generaly keep up. We do have
problems with those who come back from a long break but it isn't a
significant issue yet.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why AFD just does not work

body:
On 6/16/06, Cobb <sealclubbingfun at googlemail.com> wrote:
>[...]
> But... the only reason this AFD was "keep" is because of the number of
> Star Wars voters.

Had I not been too busy to follow AFD the last couple of weeks, I'd
have voted to keep it.  And I am not a Star Wars serious fan.  I would
have voted to keep it for the same reasons I noted.

AFD is not an acceptable substitute for a cleanup notice and some
cleanup efforts.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

references:
<44928F0E.1090600@student.canberra.edu.au>
	<b8ceeef70606160409q6f7d327bpabb6ea91ff790f44@mail.gmail.com>
	<44929214.8040207@student.canberra.edu.au>

body:
On 6/16/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Oh, the issue's been resolved.  That it occurred at all, and that two
> separate users --- neither of whom would consider themselves newbies ---
> argued the speedy tag should be kept for "procedural" reasons, is the
> worrying bit.

Hmm. Well, pointing to specific policies usually helps. Everyone is
clueless in one domain or another. It's only willful cluelessness in
the face of specific guidance that is unforgiveable.

Steve


subject: [Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

body:
On 6/15/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> Although the community should ideally decide about things it is my
> feeling that that is more often than not an utopian thought. The problem
> is everybody tries to throw their opinions in a debate and tries to get
> attention to these opinions. This usually results in an endless debate.

Yes.  Ongoing debate is fine, but there should be a corrolary to npov
-- a greater goal aroun each topic of improving information on the
subject, not merely having one opinion/position win or lose.  Then it
would be alright if people come and go; the underlying body of
knowledge about the topic would steadily grow more robust, people with
similar issues in other organizations would be able to start referring
to this ongoing discussion for background material, &c.

Among the longest-standing issues, the majority are faced not by
Wikipedia or the WMF alone, but by many other orgs; in our role as
leaders in creation of useful information perhaps we can improve our
debating style so that it generates both light and heat.

> Many debates within our community therefor are already going on for 2,3
> or more years. This because some people leave. Some people join and new
> views are expressed and the same debate is extended again. Because of
> this we never reach any conclusions to a debate. Which is one of the
> things that make people very tired of wikimedia (me for instance)

I would be content if, after three years of debate about how to cope
with "Fair Use" images, we had 'no conclusions' and continuing
disagerement -- there may be no 'right' final conclusion, as this
changes with time as laws change -- but the world's best free
collection of background material, case studies, legal references, and
hypotheticals on the subject.  Which is not a wholly unreasonable
goal.

> I feel that there are 3 solutions:
>
> 1) A top down approach. The community gets x time to debate an issue
<
> 2) A variant of 1) The community appoints 1 or 2 discussionleaders. They
<
> 3) The least feasible though I think an interesting option. People start
> to group themselves in parties and every party has 1 person as its
> spokesperson in the debate. This means that it will not become a
> cacophonia of voices and the debate might proceed faster. After 1-3
> months the  spokespersons should reach a consensus which is acceptable
> to most.

This is like 2 but without the assumption that for any given issue
there is a single 'community'.  More feasible than 2 in that regard.

All 3 of these assume that there is a master list of issues or topics,
and implicitly assume that there is some mechanism for identifying the
priority of a solution or issue.  Both of which  we all need to work
on together.

SJ


body:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> writes:
>
>  ...
>
>
>>We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
>>to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
>>consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
>>of this").
>
>
>>Any volunteers ?
>
>
>  Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a
> month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help,
> but in the second, I may run out of time.

oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).

>  And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high
> level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of
> stewards?

Technically, the person would need to be given checkuser access on all
projects/language to have access to logs.

I would consider a requirement that the person gives his/her real name
(at the minimum to the board, publicly would be much better).

I think people can candidate, and the board could appoint. Editors are
naturally invited to mention their support or oppose on candidates (if
one candidate looks inappropriate to you, please mention it).

Stewards are naturally invited to volunteer, but I would not necessarily
limit the choice to them.

Note that this does not result in a board decision prior-hand.
This comes from the fact I usually find myself doing it, and failing to
do it well due in great part to a lack of time. Angela does not want to
get involved in checkuser matters. Hence my tentative delegation ;-)

ant