from_name: Talar Toprakjian

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
Why would you have to move it somwhere else?

 On 6/7/05, Guaka <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
>
> > In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in
> > fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on
> > wikipedia.
>
> But if you accidentally find out something that wasn't known before
> you'd have to erase it from Wikipedia and move it somewhere else... :/
> Which also implies you could never earn a PhD by writing on Wikipedia.
> I hope Wikiresearch and/or Wikiversity will become a bit bigger to
> tackle this inconvenience. :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: [Foundation-l] vikipedija.org and vikimedija.org

body:
I bought that domains. When Board wants to transfer it to Wikimedia
Foundation, just tell me and I'll give transfer code to you.

At least, it would be used for Serbian local chapter. vikipedija.org
should be an alias for sr.wikipedia.org or to become a portal for
languages which write Wikipedia in such way.

vikimedija.org should be used for Serbian local chapter or should be a
portal for local chapters which write Wikimedia in such way.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: vikipedija.org and vikimedija.org

body:
Thanks a lot for this Milos.

Could you please update this page accordingly ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Domain_names

Thanks :-) ant

PS : any news of a future serbian chapter ?

Milos Rancic a ?crit:
> I bought that domains. When Board wants to transfer it to Wikimedia
> Foundation, just tell me and I'll give transfer code to you.
>
> At least, it would be used for Serbian local chapter. vikipedija.org
> should be an alias for sr.wikipedia.org or to become a portal for
> languages which write Wikipedia in such way.
>
> vikimedija.org should be used for Serbian local chapter or should be a
> portal for local chapters which write Wikimedia in such way.


from_name: Jan Ulrich Hasecke

subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal

body:
Hi Erik,

Am 07.06.2005 um 01:23 schrieb Erik Moeller:

> This is a very interesting idea. I'd like to ask you to write a
> more detailed proposal about the project. You have started it
> independently, which is fine, but if it is meant to become a
> Wikimedia project (I don't think such a decision can be temporary,
> BTW), we need to know better what we're dealing with. Here are some
> questions I'd like to see answered:

Thanks for your interest.  Your questions are very profound and I
will answer them as soon as possible.

The problem of achieving consensus is in my eyes the greatest
problem. Perhaps we need some kind of voting.

On the other hand: my coneption is, that we will not write an ideal
utopic constitution but a constitution, that can  be approved by the
citizens in a very short timeframe (deadline maybe 2010). So we have
to be realistic. This might be a good guideline while editing.

And this is the reason, why I call it a temporary project. It should
be finished in a timeframe of only some years.

juh


subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Scheduled global downtime

body:
Hi, if you are going to do that (multilingual downtime page), just give
me the text in English and you'll have German and Italian back asap.
Furthermore I'd send the translation request to translators-l at wikimedia.org.

Ciao, Sabine

ultrablue at gmail.com wrote:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean you're shifting the
>servers across the street at 3AM? That's got to look suspicious :-)
>
>If you're setting up a downtime page on the Paris squids, I recommend
>not including a link to Openfacts.berlios.de. Every time Wikipedia has
>even a mild downtime (i.e. about 3 minutes or less) that site gets
>overwhelmed and goes down itself. I don't think it's fair on whoever
>owns that site.
>
>I also recommend making any downtime error page generated
>multilingual, by consulting the people in the other language IRC
>channels. If I wasn't studying for exams I'd do that myself.
>
>~Mark Ryan
>
>On 6/4/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7 June, 2005 at 3:00AM Eastern Standard Time (9:00AM Paris/Berlin
>>time) we will be moving the bulk of the servers to a new facility across
>>the street.
>>
>>I assume we will try to set up a sensible "downtime" page on the paris
>>squids or something.  But the site will absolutely be down for awhile.
>>
>>The colocation facility is providing staff to do the move, and we are
>>also supplying myself, Chad, Terry, and possibly Michael Davis and
>>possibly a friend of Chad's -- all to make this go as quickly as possible.
>>
>>--Jimbo
>>
>>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


list: wikien-l

from_name: Rebecca

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Compulsory Mediation,
	Was Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> > Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation
> > and consider how
> > the user conducted themselves and sanction those who
> > don't cooperate.
> > What do we gain, what do we lose?
> >
> > Fred

Generally, I think it's not a bad. It would make for a terrible
absolute rule, though - as there's always going to be cases that will
need to head straight for arbitration, just as there will always be
rulelawyers who will try to stall that if they realise it is coming by
"seeking mediation" in bad faith first. I've seen it before; it'll
happen again, I'm sure.

Now, Dan,

On 6/7/05, Dan Grey <dangrey101 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I think we'd find mediation was suddenly much more
> effective.
>
> I've been reading people's comments and sounding out
> the MC. People *want* to make it work, and there's
> some clear ideas that people want to try - such as
> assigning cases. Yes I can see there's potential
> problems with that but the current method is very
> broken - why don't we just try it and see what
> happens? We may find that this debate over a 'content
> committee' (concom?! :-) ) is rendered moot.
>
> So let's make it happen and see what the result is.

We're just throwing ideas out there at the moment - reviving the
mediation committee is one, a content committee is another, and
there's quite a few that you haven't mentioned. *If* the mediation
committee is brought back, we need to have a clear idea of what we're
going to do about it - and I'm a bit confused by your statement about
"assigning cases" (it sounds like exactly what we did before).

-- ambi


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Interwiki articles without en:

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>Just to note that. ja:, sv: and sr: have two articles which don't exist on en:
>
>1. Japanese god Hoderi:
>http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9B%E3%83%87%E3%83%AA
>http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoderi
>http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8
>
>2. Japanes god Hoori:
>http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9B%E3%82%AA%E3%83%AA
>http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoori
>http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8
>
>
>
Only two articles on ja: do not have an equivalent on en: ? That is just
a small number. There is 100's if not 1000's that do not have
equivalents on en: I know because I am responsible for at least 40 or 50
or so :)

Walter/Waerth


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] SMTP Server (was Re: Re: URGENT: blocking open
	proxies)

body:
"Walter van Kalken" <walter at vankalken.net> wrote
in message news:42A50775.9010101 at vankalken.net...
[snip]
> Huh who me ......... ;) Anyway, related question: anyone has a reliable
> SMTP server that actually sends all your mail out instead of missing 10 -
> 20% ???

Platform? I'll assume as a good Wikipedian youre after free software?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Heinz

subject: [Wikitech-l] skins/php: inserting a 2'nd  page by name

body:
I would like to insert a second defined article by name into the a skin.
I can't find any hints on the web.
Can anybody help me?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: URGENT: blocking open proxies

references:
<BAY22-F1E0E5C4004EF510B0BE6BB70C0@phx.gbl>	<d6tmad$aa5$1@sea.gm
	ane.org>	<42928814.2020301@vankalken.net>	<d6vqsc$g02$1@sea.gmane.org>	<42A
	1E1A1.3080603@wikia.com> <d7t8oa$g9k$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<42A44DE9.50103@wikia.com>

body:
>In some cases they might, but don't assume a free market exists
>everywhere.  In many cases the *reason* the provider doesn't care is
>that they have a *monopoly* and customers have no choice about it.  Talk
>to Waerth in Thailand about this problem, he's quite eloquent in
>explaining it.
>
>
>
Huh who me ......... ;) Anyway, related question: anyone has a reliable
SMTP server that actually sends all your mail out instead of missing 10
- 20% ???

Waerth / Walter van Kalken in Bangkok, Thailand


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

body:
"Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote in message news:d82l2t$82m$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> Phil Boswell wrote:
>> If you set up an article with sections like this, the auto-numbering
>> gives an incorrect result:
>> ==   1
>> ==== 1.1
>> ==== 1.2
>> ===  1.1
>> ===  1.2
>
> The auto-numbering assumes (quite reasonably) that the headings are nested
> correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.

* ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
* Idiot-proof software simply awaits an upgraded idiot.

In this particular instance, this structure is what I want for the
situation: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it that the software
should restrict me.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

body:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
>
> > Iif you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No
> > original research" rule.
>
> Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records
> (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
>
Ease of verification?

In theory, many old US records are accessible by the Freedom of Information
Act; I believe something similar exists for many national archives.

Note that I wrote above the words "in theory": in practice, the US government
often refuses to release copies of records, or redacts them to remove
some or all information -- & sometimes not consistently. The movie
_Fahrenheit 911_ has a memorable example where one document was given to
a journalist with some information removed -- but not to another.

(I do not have any reliable knowledge about how other governments handle
releasing their records, so I won't comment on those cases.)

Years ago, when this topic was raised on this list, I seem to remember
that there was a consensus towards requiring all sources cited or used
to be *published*. Not only did that mean that the material received
some token degree of review, & did not depend on Wikipedia for dissemination
into the larger public discussion (which was one reason for the No Original
Research rule), but it also allowed a Wikipedia user to verify the
citation for her/himself. Thus an unpublished memo from a national or
corporate archive written in 1955 should not be cited; but a letter
between two ancient rulers that has been translated & published as
part of _The Armana Letters_ (published by John Hopkins Press, & for
sale on Amazon) can be cited.

I am always happily surprised at what I can access through my local
public library's Interlibrary Loan services -- often at no cost to me.

Of course, this requirement leads to other questions. What about rare
books or ephemera? For example, if one wanted to write articles on
Grunge rock in Seattle (home of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarten & other
well-known bands), _The Rocket_ is an invaluable & authoritative
source to cite. However, that newspaper went out of business years ago,
& I wouldn't have a clue where I could find copies of specific -- or
any -- issues. (It was a free weekly newspaper that could be found at
all of the local record stores in Seattle & Portland.) If there is a
library with a run of its issues, I doubt that they would share either
the originals or a photocopy thru ILL; but then, coming thru old
issues of _The Rocket_ or 16th century incunabula seems to me close to
performing original research.

Another question is citing untranslated, non-English sources in a
English-language Wikipedia. Obviously, many experts write in languages
other than English, & some topics cannot be developed beyond a stub
without use of non-English sources; however, when a contributor writes
an article & only cites, say, Russian or Georgian-language sources
for her/his article, I have to take it on faith that not only are
the references reported correstly, but that the works even exist.

And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However,
if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary --
can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve
most of the problem.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Erik Moeller wrote:

> As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last
> resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead.
> This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't
> destroy the village in order to save it.
>
Voting only works if the losing side accepts the result & concedes
defeat. Politians who win elections are wise to keep that in mind, &
should always make an effort to at least refrain from antagonizing
the losing side any further.

Voting on Wikipedia to settle issues won't work because the opposing
sides are usually so certain that their opinion is the right one,
that they will not accept an adverse result from a vote. That any
vote on Wikipedia has settled a conflict is a miracle, & proof that
the people involved acted in good faith & with a lot of WikiLove.

Geoff


body:
I updated it. (As well as I didn't know for that page :) )

In this moment I should write the basics of our legal act and to put
it for discussion on sr:, but I didn't do that. I'll do it in the next
couple of days... We have a lot of job on sr: because in the last
month or two we got a big number of new Wikipedians: it is great, but
we started to have a lot of copyright and POV problems; as well as we
are trying to stay as one community (i.e. to incorporate new
contributors).

Creation of local chapter would be just the beginning of our work. At
least three organization want to make significant contribution to
Serbian Wikipedia: (1) Project Rastko (http://www.rastko.org.yu/) with
Project Gutenberg Europe (http://pge.rastko.net/) wants to contribute
around _a_lot_ of articles from public domain sources. And not only
that: they would give a lot of articles to a number of Wikipedias in
smaller languages (like Rusyn, Kashubian, Roma, etc., even for some
native American languages). (2) Laboratory for Experimental Psychology
(where Jim spoke) wants to give to us dictionary with around 200.000
of words (forms; around 60.000 lexemes). (3) Ebart Documentation
Center (http://www.arhiv.co.yu) wants to give us all relevant
contemporary data about Serbia from 2000 up to present.

All of that was madden without any campaign. And only Ebart wish is
related to Jim's visit to Belgrade.

And we should handle all of that :)

On 6/7/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this Milos.
>
> Could you please update this page accordingly ?
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Domain_names
>
> Thanks :-) ant
>
> PS : any news of a future serbian chapter ?
>
>
> Milos Rancic a ?crit:
> > I bought that domains. When Board wants to transfer it to Wikimedia
> > Foundation, just tell me and I'll give transfer code to you.
> >
> > At least, it would be used for Serbian local chapter. vikipedija.org
> > should be an alias for sr.wikipedia.org or to become a portal for
> > languages which write Wikipedia in such way.
> >
> > vikimedija.org should be used for Serbian local chapter or should be a
> > portal for local chapters which write Wikimedia in such way.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
On 6/7/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Mark Pellegrini:
> > The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions
> > pertaining to an ongoing problem:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
>
> I will state here for the record that I'm strongly opposed to any
> content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the
> community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to
> dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community
> procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear
> conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all
> arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed
> upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
>
> As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last
> resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead.
> This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't
> destroy the village in order to save it.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I never understood why so many people oppose votes. It's an easy way
to see how the land lies and what the general opinion is. In my
opinion that's helpful.

--Mgm


from_name: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org> <d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d83m69$ilf$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ==   1
> >> ==== 1.1
> >> ==== 1.2
> >> ===  1.1
> >> ===  1.2
> In this particular instance, this structure is what I want for the
> situation: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it that the software
> should restrict me.

No offense, but there *is* something intrinsically wrong with that
structure: you're not using that markup semantically.  Header levels
*should* work relatively, which is why the XHTML 2 standard suggests
you use nested <section> tags with unnumbered <h> for the header.
What you're describing would break most auto-summarize-from-headers
features, not just the one in MediaWiki.

Basically, the case you're describing is simply wrong, and I don't see
why we should cater to it.

--
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <brent at brentdax.com>
Perl and Parrot hacker


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
On Monday 06 June 2005 16:11, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in
> > fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on
> > wikipedia. Edit articles, have a thesis advisor review contributions,
> > and score credit appropriately. Adding bibliography, annotation and
> > other activities which "polish" wikipedia would be part of assignments.
>
> Not only that.  The work has meaning because it is available to
> everybody.  Once finished, and the degree granted, it is no longer
> relegated to gathering dust in  inaccesible library stacks where nobody
> ever visits.

Having just completed my 2nd year comprehensives and writing a couple of
Wikipedia articles in preparation (which probably need some editing in
order to make them a little more accessible) I actually think the
literature reviews done by students in advance of the dissertation would be
of use. Of my fellow PhD students, there are numerous "lit reviews" that
don't even sit on library stacks. One couldn't plug and play them, but they
might be a great resources for bibliographic information and the related
summaries. Having a repository of those for mining by editors is an idea
I've been turning over in my head.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

in_reply_to:
<b392c2f605060707227961f967@mail.gmail.com> (message from Talar
	Toprakjian on Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:22:06 -0700)

body:
> Why would you have to move it somwhere else?

Earning most advanced degrees requires original research.  Original
research is Officially Evil.


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] www.biography.ms is illegally using Wikipedia
	content

body:
> Roger Luethi wrote:
>
> Strangely, when viewing their site I sometimes find notice: "The
> Wikipedia <http://www.wikipedia.org> content included on this page is
> licensed under the GFDL
> <http://david-kahn.biography.ms/redirect.asp?direction=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>"
> at the bottom of the page and sometimes not (on the same page).
> Sometimes it appears after refreshing the page several times.
> _______________________________________________

I get the same thing, one or two refreshes and then the Wikipedia
credit shows up. Clear cookies and cache and return to the page and
the credit is gone.

Fibonacci sent them a non-compliance letter about a month ago (in
Spanish). I don't know if the 'credit on refresh' is a recent
enhancement, or if it's been there all along.

I've cleared 4 - 6 Wikipedia pages in the last couple of months that
were mistakenly tagged as copyright violations, because biography.ms
wasn't crediting us.


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 6/7/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject
> itself is obscure and known only to specialists.  If it's a well-known
> subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
> subject.  If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least
> have been cited by someone else.

Agreed.  It's simply that some subjects are obscure enough (or at
least, the scholarly analysis of them is obscure enough) that the
sources would not necessarily be available through most libraries, for
instance.

To pick an example of personal interest, the publications of most
railroad historical societies will not be in many libraries'
collections.  The research and scholarship involved can be first-rate,
however, and quite appropriate to cite in a Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, any other specialist in the field should be able to check
those references without too much difficulty, even if the material is
not that easily available to the general public.

However, the true point of contention in this, I think, will be how
citable primary sources should be, and to what degree going to primary
sources is original research.  Published primary sources are probably
fairly uncontroversial, but what about unpublished primary sources?
E.g., to pick a topic of personal interest again, is citing documents
that can be found in the California Railroad Museum's collection of
Southern Pacific Railroad original documents acceptable, or is going
through such a collection original research?  The references are
available to anyone who cares to go there, but they are not published.

-Matt (User:Morven)


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
On 6/7/05, Guaka <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
> But if you accidentally find out something that wasn't known before
> you'd have to erase it from Wikipedia and move it somewhere else... :/
> Which also implies you could never earn a PhD by writing on Wikipedia.
> I hope Wikiresearch and/or Wikiversity will become a bit bigger to
> tackle this inconvenience. :)

You are misintepreting WP:NOR.

Kelly


from_name: Maury Markowitz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] www.biography.ms is illegally using Wikipedia content

body:
I was doing a little googling this morning while the wiki was down, and came
across a reference to a site, www.biography.ms.

The entire site is simply a bad scraping of the wikipedia, with all
attributions removed.

Maury


from_name: ultrablue at gmail.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Scheduled global downtime

body:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean you're shifting the
servers across the street at 3AM? That's got to look suspicious :-)

If you're setting up a downtime page on the Paris squids, I recommend
not including a link to Openfacts.berlios.de. Every time Wikipedia has
even a mild downtime (i.e. about 3 minutes or less) that site gets
overwhelmed and goes down itself. I don't think it's fair on whoever
owns that site.

I also recommend making any downtime error page generated
multilingual, by consulting the people in the other language IRC
channels. If I wasn't studying for exams I'd do that myself.

~Mark Ryan

On 6/4/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> On 7 June, 2005 at 3:00AM Eastern Standard Time (9:00AM Paris/Berlin
> time) we will be moving the bulk of the servers to a new facility across
> the street.
>
> I assume we will try to set up a sensible "downtime" page on the paris
> squids or something.  But the site will absolutely be down for awhile.
>
> The colocation facility is providing staff to do the move, and we are
> also supplying myself, Chad, Terry, and possibly Michael Davis and
> possibly a friend of Chad's -- all to make this go as quickly as possible.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Peter Jacobi

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Indian languages and grants (was Re:
	Combined	effort)

body:
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> [...] and people told me that there's a major obstacle in that
> typing Hindi on an English keyboard is quite difficult, and there is no
> standard Hindi keyboard which is widely available.

Make it a user preference to transliterate into and from ITRANS in the edit
window.

Regards,
Peter Jacobi

--
Weitersagen: GMX DSL-Flatrates mit Tempo-Garantie!
Ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org> <d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20050606234653.GA5719@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>

body:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 01:46 +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:13:02AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> > Phil Boswell wrote:
> > >If you set up an article with sections like this, the auto-numbering gives
> > >an incorrect result:
> > >==   1
> > >==== 1.1
> > >==== 1.2
> > >===  1.1
> > >===  1.2
> >
> > The auto-numbering assumes (quite reasonably) that the headings are
> > nested correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Couldn't we just add a hack to detect such problems ?
> It would need to process headings twice before numbering,
> but that shouldn't be much of a problem.

The cleanest fallback is to assume (and implicitly number) the missing
intermediate: The example above should be numbered

== 1
==== 1.1.1
==== 1.1.2
=== 1.2
=== 1.3

Thanks for the heads-up; I'll make sure it's properly specified
in the syntax.  One of the major goals of a markup language for
non-technical users is robust and well-defined behavior regardless
of user mistakes.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>  <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>


from_name: Andrew Venier

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] www.biography.ms is illegally using
	Wikipedia	content

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:05:05 -0400, Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
>
>>I was doing a little googling this morning while the wiki was down, and
>>came across a reference to a site, www.biography.ms.
>>
>>
>
>They are a known annoyance [1] and under investigation at some WP page
>that I for some reason can't get access to right now.
>
>Roger
>
>[1] We had several WP pages mistakenly reported as copyvios based
>    on biography.ms.
>
>
Cache of the discussion page here:

http://tinyurl.com/8hgrx

Strangely, when viewing their site I sometimes find notice: "The
Wikipedia <http://www.wikipedia.org> content included on this page is
licensed under the GFDL
<http://david-kahn.biography.ms/redirect.asp?direction=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>"
at the bottom of the page and sometimes not (on the same page).
Sometimes it appears after refreshing the page several times.


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

body:
Sean Barret wrote,

>I am not lying when I say I am worried.  I am worried about people who
>want to set up committees to decide what points of view will not be
>allowed to be represented in Wikipedia.

This is indeed a straw-man argument (to give Sean the benefit of the doubt;
if it is not a straw man argument, it is either a deliberate lie, or an
example of un-comprehension).  No one -- no one at all -- has said that
they want to set up a committee to decide which points of view will not be
allowed on Wikipedia.  On the contrary, Jayguk has suggested a committee
which will enforce NPOV, and Mav's suggested committees will obviously
adhere to our NPOV policy.  Sean is clouding the issue by claiming it has
anything to do with NPOV.  Or he believes that our NPOV policy means that
anything anyone writes stays, whether it is accurate or properly sourced or
not.  If this is what Sean thinks, he is seriously misunderstanding or
deliberately misrepresenting our NPOV policy and I suggest he take the time
to read it.

Of course, misunderstanding or misrepresentation is something Sean is
well-practiced at.  In reply to an earlier e-mail of mine, he wrote, "Silly
statements that are so very hard to spot that they cannot be rebutted and
can only be corrected by rendering them unexpressible are not
silly."  Again no one -- no one at all -- has ever said that false
statements can be corrected "only" by rendering them "unexpressible," nor
have I or anyone else ever even suggested that content should be rendered
unexpressible.  This is a matter of style, not content.  Falsehoods can be
rendered unexpressible, truths or facts can be rendered lucid, even
eloquent.  The proposals circulating have nothing to do with style, only
with content -- which is what an encyclopedia is all about.

People can "express" their personal views on talk-pages.  But Sean seems to
think that Wikipedia is a chat-room, not an encyclopedia.  In an
encyclopedia, verifiable and accurate (yes, presented in an NPOV way, as
everyone agrees) really are important.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
This question is presently unresolved. Interpreted literally our
Original Research Policy would exclude such material, but I am
gathering from conversations on this list that there is some feeling
that the Original Research Policy should not apply to material of
this nature. Perhaps this needs to be made clear at [[Wikipedia:No
original research]]*

Fred

On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Brown wrote:

> However, the true point of contention in this, I think, will be how
> citable primary sources should be, and to what degree going to primary
> sources is original research.  Published primary sources are probably
> fairly uncontroversial, but what about unpublished primary sources?
> E.g., to pick a topic of personal interest again, is citing documents
> that can be found in the California Railroad Museum's collection of
> Southern Pacific Railroad original documents acceptable, or is going
> through such a collection original research?  The references are
> available to anyone who cares to go there, but they are not published.


body:
Erik Moeller wrote,

>I will state here for the record that I'm strongly opposed to any
>content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the
>community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to
>dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community
>procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear
>conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all
>arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed
>upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
>
>As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last
>resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead.
>This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't
>destroy the village in order to save it.

I share Erik's concern about cabals, but I think this is an issue Mav has
addressed, satisfactorally, at length.  Rotating elected members with
term-limits, and an appeals process, provide checks and balances.

I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote.  We all come
to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people know a lot
about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, and so on.  We
also all come here to learn things we do not know.  I do not really
understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I should vote on whether
content is accurate or not?  I do not know the physics literature -- you
really think I can vote on the repute of a given source?

There are some things I know a great deal about, and will argue my position
forcefully with anyone -- and can also recognize, easily, when someone
else's position is better than mine.  This is far from true, however,
concerning most issues at Wikipedia.  I think what motivates these
proposals, and Jguk's and Mav's proposals particularly, is the recognition
that no one here is an expert on everything, and the community needs people
to turn to for reliable, well-informed evaluations of content and disputes
over content.  I think this is undeniable.  And a full-community vote, far
from helping, will make things worse.

Checks, balances, and accountability, yes.  But knowledge and experience,
yes too.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Delirium

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>"Cite your sources" is fine.  "Provide your sources," though, is not.
>On many obscure topics, the sources WILL be difficult to locate.  Any
>attempt to turn this requirement into having to provide sources that
>can be requested from the average library or online will remove a
>large number of very credible but obscure sources - specialist
>publications, limited circulation journals, and many other documents.
>
>
IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject
itself is obscure and known only to specialists.  If it's a well-known
subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
subject.  If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least
have been cited by someone else.  If, for example, you find an obscure
source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the
Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument
based on it.  (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were
ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be
an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus
in the field, not to create it.)

-Mark


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Homosexuals and other groups
	overrepresentedhere(was: sco/fiu-vro in danger)

body:
> > ''Autism presents in a wide degree, from those who are nearly
> > dysfunctional and apparently mentally retarded to those whose symptoms
> > are mild or remedied enough to appear unexceptional ('normal') to the
> > general public. These autistic persons are often classified as "nerds"
> > or "geeks" by their peers.''
>
>:de also includes lingual, communication and social problems, nothing
>I'd expect from a Wikipedian.
>
Except social problems, at least for some of us. But earnestly, I am sure
quite a number of Wikipedians have it. Nothing to worry about, as long as
things keep going as they go now...

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nieuw: Download nu MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: www.biography.ms is illegally using
	Wikipediacontent

body:
>I suddently regretted Google was not able to distinguish that all the
>articles were the same, and hidding other articles which are unique, but
>simply less visible. I actually wonder if this is not a bit problematic. It
>looks as if the search system was not able to handle this properly any
>more.

It seems this is solvable though, if Google could simply read the
attribution links. Of course in this particular case it wouldn't work,
because biography.ms has scraped them off, but in general it should world
well.

I'll write them.

Maury


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Compulsory Mediation,
	Was Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
Fred Bauder a ?crit:
> Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how  the
> user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate.  What
> do we gain, what do we lose?
>
> Fred

I would be happy to have a legal person give his opinion here.

In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a
requirement/obligation.
I am a little dubious of the deep underlying significance of being
punished for refusing mediation when in conflict. I also fear "refusing
cooperation" in mediation would have to be a decision of the mediator...
which implies a loss of neutrality... as well as requires a mandatory
report of the mediator to the arbcom... possibly fueling a bad
relationship between the mediator and the people in conflict.
Since the relationship should be first based in confidence, I am perplex
of the implications it might result to.

If this is done, I hope mediators will not be *required* necessarily to
report on the mediation outcome and details of cooperation or non
cooperation, but that it will be at least a choice.

Ant


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Errors on the downtime message pages

body:
I've noticed several errors on the downtime message page and its
translations. Once the servers are back up and the admins are no longer
busy with the upgrade, where can I go to fix them?

Also, I've checked yesterday and noticed that the word "Wikimedia" is
*still* misspelt on the "Wiki doesn't exist" page. Where can I edit that?

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:13:02AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
>
>>Phil Boswell wrote:
>>
>>>If you set up an article with sections like this, the auto-numbering gives
>>>an incorrect result:
>>>==   1
>>>==== 1.1
>>>==== 1.2
>>>===  1.1
>>>===  1.2
>>
>>The auto-numbering assumes (quite reasonably) that the headings are
>>nested correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Couldn't we just add a hack to detect such problems ?

And then do what? As you can see from the above, the software is
*already* trying to do something reasonable given unreasonable input.
Any system you can potentially propose, will have some seemingly
nonsensical output for some pathological case.

Timwi


body:
On 6/7/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However,
> if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary --
> can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve
> most of the problem.

That is a position that I could stand behind.

I would be opposed to a suggestion that we should limit ourselves to
published sources that can be acquired through Amazon, Google and the
average inter-library loan service, however.

Obviously, the easier the sources can be accessed the better, but I
would not rule out using rare or old books, magazines and newspapers
even if not commonly archived, small publications, and foreign
language works.

That said, I think that outside a certain vanishingly small subset of
very controversial articles, Wikipedia's problem is not the citing of
hard-to-verify sources, but the absense of sources at all.  Outside
the context of Israel vs. Palestine, certain crackpot science
theories, and a few other controversial places, I don't see much of a
problem at present.

And I'd rather someone cite an unpublished source than none.  It's
always possible that a better reference than that unpublished source
may be findable by someone else, or a published source that references
that unpublished one.

-Matt


from_name: Kate Turner

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Errors on the downtime message pages

body:
Timwi wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> I've noticed several errors on the downtime message page and its
> translations. Once the servers are back up and the admins are no longer
> busy with the upgrade, where can I go to fix them?

what are the errors?

you can't fix them without local server access, because unlike the portal
pages, these pages are not taken from meta, as meta is not up when the
downtime message is shown :-)

> Thanks,
> Timwi

kate.


body:
> ... it is either a deliberate lie, or an
> example of un-comprehension...
> ...
> Sean is clouding the issue ...
> ...
> Sean ... is seriously misunderstanding or
> deliberately misrepresenting our NPOV policy and I suggest he take the time
> to read it.
>
> Of course, misunderstanding or misrepresentation is something Sean is
> well-practiced at.

Wow!  Steven certainly has low opinions of my integrity and desire to
continue improving Wikipedia.  I certainly had no idea I was such a
villainous blackguard.

However, his venom does not change the fundamental fact that the idea
of setting up committees of specialists that will control the content
of articles (rather than the behavior of editors) worries me.  He can
deny it as often and as hatefully as he likes, but that fact remains
true.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Oh, "meltdown" is one of those annoying
 sean at epoptic.com | buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested
                  | fission surplus. --C. Montgomery Burns


body:
Matt Brown wrote some thoughtful comments, some of which I deeply disagree
with:

>MO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject
>itself is obscure and known only to specialists.  If it's a well-known
>subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
>subject.

Yes and no.  One reason for citing sources is so that readers who want to
know more (or check facts) can go to the sources.  In this sense, I do
agree with Matt that it is important to provide sources that anyone who is
on-line and has access to Amazon.com, or access to a good library, can find.

But I disagree with Matt's distinction between "obscure subject" and other
subjects.  A subject that is not obscure, for example the Holocaust or the
Bible or the U.S. Civil War, obviously has loads of popular and easily
acceptable sources we can cite.  But there is always ongoing academic
research, and much important and relevant information will come from
relatively obscure sources.  This is precisely the material we want to
include in a high-quality encyclopedia, even if the cited sources are hard
to find.

>If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least
>have been cited by someone else.  If, for example, you find an obscure
>source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the
>Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument
>based on it.

Matt, this is just 100% wrong.  You simply do not understand our NOR
policy.  It would violate our policy to "build an argument" on any source,
"mainstream" as well as "obscure."  But adding material, including
published data, published explanations, published interpretations, is NOT
"original research" if it comes from sources that are, however obscure,
reputable.

>   (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were
>ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be
>an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus
>in the field, not to create it.)

Again, 100% wrong.  We are not here to report the consensus.  As a matter
of fact, one of the most important functions of our NPOV policy is to
ensure that diverse views (and if they are diverse, they obviously do not
represent a consensus) .  We report on different views, provide the proper
sources, and any context about the sources that can help readers evaluate
the views being represented.  "Consensus" hotonly has nothing to do with
it, it is antithetical to what we stand for.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
> anyone has a reliable SMTP server that actually sends all your mail
> out instead of missing 10 - 20% ???

If you're really desparate, can't you install one of your own?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: GFDL Clarification

body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>
>> While I'm not an expert in French legislation, I highly doubt that  it
>> prohibits allowing other people to use your work for any purpose
>> whatsoever. They might consider it a licence as opposed to public
>> domain, but that doesn't make a difference in practice.
>
> Well, I can tell you : it prohibits allowing other people to use your
> work for any purpose whatsoever... (which is not the case with the  gfdl
> license for example).

So what *are* you allowed to allow?

(The mere phrasing of that question gives me an uneasy feeling that
French legislation is even worse than German. ;-) )


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org><20050606234653.GA5719@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>
	<d8463i$3kp$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
"Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote in message news:d8463i$3kp$2 at sea.gmane.org...
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:13:02AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
>>>Phil Boswell wrote:
>>>>If you set up an article with sections like this, the auto-numbering
>>>>gives an incorrect result:
>>>>==   1
>>>>==== 1.1
>>>>==== 1.2
>>>>===  1.1
>>>>===  1.2
>>>The auto-numbering assumes (quite reasonably) that the headings are
>>>nested correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.
>> Couldn't we just add a hack to detect such problems ?
> And then do what? As you can see from the above, the software is *already*
> trying to do something reasonable given unreasonable input. Any system you
> can potentially propose, will have some seemingly nonsensical output for
> some pathological case.

Well, it's not actually reasonable in that the numbers are duplicated. So if
someone were to be printing it out with the numbers on, say,
or...wait...producing a hard-copy version for distribution off-line...

The section numbering would be cockeyed and the result would not look up to
the standard we would hope people to expect.

I already proposed that the first instance of "1.1" ought to be "1.0.1"
which would be the logical progression: you simply have to imagine a
"hidden" "===" header in there.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


body:
"Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote in message news:d845ti$3kp$1 at sea.gmane.org...
>
> I've noticed several errors on the downtime message page and its
> translations. Once the servers are back up and the admins are no longer
> busy with the upgrade, where can I go to fix them?

No downtime message pages being received here for '''en''': I'm getting the
standard "Error: the requested URL could not be retrieved" messages from
"mayflower.knams.wikimedia.org".

Oddly '''meta''' is behaving properly and giving me the nice message: what's
up there?

BTW, what's "knams"? some strange acronym?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Guaka

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Indian languages and grants (was Re:
	Combined effort)

body:
> >> We could start with a small budget in the $10-20K range, spent
> >> mostly on market research and promotion. Then we could use statistical
> >> measures of the success of that campaign to request the funding of a
> >> full-time administrative position and a continuation or scaling up of
> >> the advertising.

> The same conditions exist in many developing countries -- the rich
> people have Internet access and English skills, and the poor people
> don't have either. Those rich people might be moved to write in their
> native language if we can convince them that they will be doing a great
> service to the non-English speakers in their country, and that we will
> be able to distribute the content to at least some of that audience.

Spend over 10000 US$ on advertising Wikipedia to the rich, in the hope
they will be moved to write articles for the poor. This might work in
India, but in Africa, that seems a total waste of money to me. I might
be stating this a bit too harsh, but... First of all, where are you
going to advertise? Second, I think many rich (the ones who can afford
internet at home) in Africa don't give a frack about African languages,
they speak French or English and they think it's ridiculous to educate
children in their native language. Third, Africa people are not used to
work for free if it's not for someone within their extended family.

I think providing internet to small community centers in poor areas
under the condition they add something to Wikipedia - you can set up
contests to see if it could work, or to simply directly pay for every
article of sufficient size (give out a buck, so you'll have 10.000
articles at the end, if you'll forget about overhead costs...) is much
more cost-effective. Once there are a 1000 articles in a Wikipedia it
will easily advertise "itself". Sending out mails will be much more
effective than when there is nothing...


body:
Phil Boswell wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> No downtime message pages being received here for '''en''': I'm getting
> the standard "Error: the requested URL could not be retrieved" messages
> from "mayflower.knams.wikimedia.org".

> Oddly '''meta''' is behaving properly and giving me the nice message:
> what's up there?

your DNS cache seems wrong... it should have changed the IP several hours
ago.  (the current IP should be 145.97.39.132, fuchsia.knams.wikimedia.org)

> BTW, what's "knams"? some strange acronym?

KennisNet, AMSterdam.

(pmtpa = PowerMedium, TamPA; lopar = Lost-Oasis, PARis).

kate.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
> In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in
> fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on
> wikipedia.

But if you accidentally find out something that wasn't known before
you'd have to erase it from Wikipedia and move it somewhere else... :/
Which also implies you could never earn a PhD by writing on Wikipedia.
I hope Wikiresearch and/or Wikiversity will become a bit bigger to
tackle this inconvenience. :)


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org> <d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20050606234653.GA5719@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>
	<d8463i$3kp$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> >>The auto-numbering assumes (quite reasonably) that the headings are
> >>nested correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.
> >
> >Couldn't we just add a hack to detect such problems ?
>
> And then do what? As you can see from the above, the software is
> *already* trying to do something reasonable given unreasonable input.
> Any system you can potentially propose, will have some seemingly
> nonsensical output for some pathological case.

The input is not garbage, the assumption that level N section has only level N+1
subsections is broken.

Properties a good numbering system should have, and that current system doesn't,
in order of importance:
1. no duplicates
2. headings should be numbered monotonously
3. is section X is a descendant of Y, X's number should be <Y's number>.something

Other nice properties are:
4. no numbers should be skipped, if there is 1.2 and 1.4, there should be 1.3
   or at least 1.3.something
5. the numbers should not be unnecessarily long, for example this is bad:
   =     1
   ===== 1.1.1.1.1

This gives at least 3 sane options.

Option 1. Treat all direct subsections equally, without considering their level.
          This can be easily done in a single pass.

==   1
==== 1.1
==== 1.2
===  1.3
===  1.4
==== 1.4.1

Option 2. Add bogus supersections if a section has direct subsections of
          different level. Requires some kind of 2-pass processing,
          as we don't know if the second heading below should be
          1.1, 1.1.1 or 1.1.1.1 before we reach the end.

==   1
==== 1.1.1
==== 1.1.2
===  1.2
===  1.3
==== 1.3.1

Option 3. Like 2, but use .0 for such sections, to make them look different.

==   1
==== 1.0.1
==== 1.0.2
===  1.1
===  1.2
==== 1.2.1

Are there any problems with those options (especially the easiest option 1) ?
Do they have pathological cases ?
Does the current system produce better results for any single case (no matter how
pathological) ?


body:
Petr Kadlec wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

>> what are the errors?

> Maybe it is a feature, maybe it is a well-known bug, but the "please
> check back" link leads to something like
> http://wikimedia.org/errors/English/http://etc.

you shouldn't be seeing this message at all at the moment, it's one of the
squid errors...

it should probably be fixed at some point when the site is working,
though :)

> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

kate.


from_name: Mark Bergsma

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

> No downtime message pages being received here for '''en''': I'm getting the
> standard "Error: the requested URL could not be retrieved" messages from
> "mayflower.knams.wikimedia.org".
>
> Oddly '''meta''' is behaving properly and giving me the nice message: what's
> up there?

Probably DNS propagation issues, the TTL wasn't set low in time.

> BTW, what's "knams"? some strange acronym?

KennisNet cluster, AMSterdam.

--
Mark

mark at nedworks.org


from_name: Petr Kadlec

body:
> what are the errors?

Maybe it is a feature, maybe it is a well-known bug, but the "please
check back" link leads to something like
http://wikimedia.org/errors/English/http://etc.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Copyright and local liability (was: Emily
	Dickinson poems)

body:
Hi. Just in case it helps, here is a non-lawyer's understanding of
how Japanese Wikipedia is doing.

Japanese Wikipedia is operating under the assumption that troubles
happening there could be taken to a Japanese court, and judged under
Japanese law. (Some troubles could be taken to an American court
in some cases, and American law could be applied.) It is also operating
under the assumption that administrators could be held liable if
they knowingly not delete illegal material. The Foundation is
relatively safe, I suppose, except in the case that it is directly
involved in posting of some illegal contents (a case not easy to
imagine), or knowingly ignore some legitimate legal complaint.

These assumptions are in my opinion widely held among Japanese
Wikipedians, partly because discussion leading to the formation of
these assumptions included people who were professionaly practicing
law and studying law scholarly. There were discussions more than
one time, regarding different cases. And if I understand it correctly,
what you need to examine for your question is German law. Can German
court take cases even when the servers and the official operating
body of the project is in the U.S. ? Can German court apply German
law ? Who can be held liable ? Answers are in German laws. Similarly,
if you want to think about if some Wikipedian active on de.wikipedia
could be sued in a Dutch court by another de.wikipedian living in
the Neatherlands, I think you have to take a look at what Dutch
law says.

Overall, no, increasing presense of chapters do not increase risks
of Japanese Wikipedians. The "local liability" has been already there
even without a chapter. Creating a chapter is, in a way, creating a
contact address for those who want to make legal complaint or threat.
So in that practical sense, the risk may increase. But then, if
the Foundation has enough money, they may be able to ask for legal
help more easily. That would make a local project stronger, being
able to deal troubles that individual wikimedian cannot handle
properly.

Now having servers everywhere is I think a different matter. That
raises the question if people can bring lawsuit in those countries
where servers are located. Maybe or maybe not. Again, it depends on
the local laws.

On top of all these, if the party sued is the Foundation, then
perhaps we should think about if the German court's orders can be
executed in the U.S., something that is determined by the U.S.
law, I think. Similarly, some of the U.S. court's decisions may
be rejected by Japanese Court and a ja.wikipedian living in
Japan may be protected from it.

==See also==

[[en:Private international law]]
[[en:Choice of law]]

Cheers,

Tomos


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Downtime postmortem notes, part I

body:
A few notes:

* We had a pretty, multilingual "down for maintenance" page all set up
to be served for requests to the site during the downtime, but this was
foiled for three or four hours because our offsite DNS in .nl hadn't
been actually set up quite the way we thought it was, and our onsite DNS
server in Florida was taken down earlier than planned by mistake.

We did get it mostly working for *.wikimedia.org for some people by
partway through the downtime, but were not able to get the other domains
(such as wikipedia.org) updated at the time. Once Zwinger was back
online in the new rackspace, we had DNS again and the downtime page was
visible for the remainder of the time, unless you were unlucky and it
didn't work anyway.

* The downtime message was experimentally running Lighttpd+FastCGI
instead of Apache. For no apparent reason it stopped understanding its
404 error handler page directive some time in the middle of things, so I
switched it to Apache.

* The Paris squids were I think still sending requests to the offline
Florida machines instead of the downtime page in .nl. Not totally sure
what was the issue here.

* When bringing lots of web server machines online we have an issue with
synchronization of time and configuration: the machines are set to
automatically start the web server on boot, and the load balancers are
set to automatically put work on them when they come up. But some
machines have clock trouble and come up in the wrong time, and if the
configuration has changed they'll have settings out of sync until
changed. We need to resolve this; either by requiring a manual start or
by some sort of sanity-check against the master clocks and config.

For massively wrong clocks (eg, BIOS reset to 2003) we can easily sanity
check by comparing the current time against $wgCacheEpoch to make sure
it's later. :)

* Things are very not happy booting without DNS or the LDAP server up.
We should make bloody sure this is not as big of a problem; LDAP needs
to be well-replicated, and important internal addresses should be
resolvable without DNS.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050607/aad65424/attachment.pgp>


body:
Frieda Brioschi wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> How/where can I send the italian translation of the message?

either tell someone on IRC (#wikimedia-tech) or mail it to me privately
(keturner at livejournal.com).

> Ciao,
> Frieda

kate.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/7/05, Maury Markowitz <maury_markowitz at hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems this is solvable though, if Google could simply read the
> attribution links. Of course in this particular case it wouldn't work,
> because biography.ms has scraped them off, but in general it should world
> well.
>
> I'll write them.

And give sites another incentive to remove the attribution links?
...
These sites mirror wikipedia to gain traffic, ... not out of the
goodness of their heart. :)


from_name: Roger Luethi

body:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:05:05 -0400, Maury Markowitz wrote:
> I was doing a little googling this morning while the wiki was down, and
> came across a reference to a site, www.biography.ms.

They are a known annoyance [1] and under investigation at some WP page
that I for some reason can't get access to right now.

Roger

[1] We had several WP pages mistakenly reported as copyvios based
    on biography.ms.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
The same for German - I'd like to correct this.

Please let us know.

Ciao, Sabine

Timwi wrote:

>
> I've noticed several errors on the downtime message page and its
> translations. Once the servers are back up and the admins are no
> longer busy with the upgrade, where can I go to fix them?
>
> Also, I've checked yesterday and noticed that the word "Wikimedia" is
> *still* misspelt on the "Wiki doesn't exist" page. Where can I edit that?
>
> Thanks,
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

body:
How/where can I send the italian translation of the message?

Ciao,
Frieda

On 6/7/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> The same for German - I'd like to correct this.
>
> Please let us know.
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
> Timwi wrote:
>
> >
> > I've noticed several errors on the downtime message page and its
> > translations. Once the servers are back up and the admins are no
> > longer busy with the upgrade, where can I go to fix them?
> >
> > Also, I've checked yesterday and noticed that the word "Wikimedia" is
> > *still* misspelt on the "Wiki doesn't exist" page. Where can I edit that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Timwi
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: TOC numbering bug

references:
<d81fft$3nm$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d82l2t$82m$1@sea.gmane.org><d83m69$ilf$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com>

body:
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <brentdax at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5 at mail.gmail.com...
> Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> ==   1
> > >> ==== 1.1
> > >> ==== 1.2
> > >> ===  1.1
> > >> ===  1.2
> > In this particular instance, this structure is what I want for the
> > situation: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it that the software
> > should restrict me.
>
> No offense, but there *is* something intrinsically wrong with that
> structure: you're not using that markup semantically.  Header levels
> *should* work relatively, which is why the XHTML 2 standard suggests
> you use nested <section> tags with unnumbered <h> for the header.
> What you're describing would break most auto-summarize-from-headers
> features, not just the one in MediaWiki.
>
> Basically, the case you're describing is simply wrong, and I don't see
> why we should cater to it.

I am using it semantically.

== Major Header
(=== generic explanations) // hidden header
==== quick explanation 1 // which applies to all sub-header sections
==== quick explanation 2 // which applies to all sub-header sections
=== Sub-header 1
=== Sub-header 2

I don't want that first "===" header to show because it breaks up the flow:
it's not uniform with the rest of the "===" headers.

Unless you think I ought to head up the "quick explanation" sections with an
explicit <H4> to avod the TOC complications, or something equally nasty? The
quick explanations need to go there, rather than afterwards, to establish
context.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>
>>>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>>
>>>Sean Barrett wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
>>>>
>>>>>If you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No
>>>>>original research" rule.
>>>>
>>>>Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records
>>>>(NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make
>>>that point.
>>
>>Sounds like another strawman.  Original research is not finding obscure
>>sources and citing them, but rather drawing original conclusions.  The
>>former is nothing like the latter, unless one is deliberately intent on
>>denigrating the Original Research policy by misrepresenting it.
>
>And how do you propose to know that the conclusion is "original"?

Because it can't be found in citable sources; that's what makes it original.
  If it weren't original, someone would have made the argument already, and
you could cite them.

Jay.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] two comments

body:
Angela (beesley at gmail.com) [050607 11:17]:
> On 06/06/05, nicolas ramke <nicolasramke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 1 - make a 'printer friendly' version of articles, so one does not have to cut and past into a word file and then erase the dozens of 'hyper links' !

> There is a printer friendly version. If you are using the default
> "monobook" skin, then this is automatically applied when you press
> "print" or "print preview" in your browser. If you're using another
> skin, you should see a "Printable version" link.

Possibly this should be added to Monobook as an explicit link. Having it
automagically be applied when someone prints is clever but non-obvious,
and people are used to "Printable version" links on news sites, etc.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Scheduled global downtime

body:
ultrablue at gmail.com a ?crit:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean you're shifting the
> servers across the street at 3AM? That's got to look suspicious :-)
>
> If you're setting up a downtime page on the Paris squids, I recommend
> not including a link to Openfacts.berlios.de. Every time Wikipedia has
> even a mild downtime (i.e. about 3 minutes or less) that site gets
> overwhelmed and goes down itself. I don't think it's fair on whoever
> owns that site.

Well, your wishes were obeyed. The Paris squids showed to everyone
accessing wikipedia, that we again had a crash, were trying to fix it,
and would be back soon.

It was not a maintenance page which was shown, but a crash page.
Not sure it is exactly good for our image.

Ant


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Election: Candidates is being accepted on meta

body:
Hello,
thank you for your cooperation for  the Board Election. Currently
Election notice is available over 25 languages, and some translations
are on-going. Thank you very much. I appreciate all translators both
on meta and local projects, not only translators of Election notice,
but also of messages from us Election organizers on general discussion
page on local projects (and on my part I apologize for confusion; for
some communities "Village pump" was a vague name to designate a page
for general discussion). Also I am very grateful enthusiasm to this
Election which have been showed elsewhere, for example, pump on
Russian Wikipedia.

We began to accept candidates from June 7, today on meta and they will
present themselves in several languages. As well as the Election
notice, translation of candidate statements will be very helpful and
appreciated heartfully. And finally, the vote will begin from June 28.

To interested candidates: we appreciate your consideration and are
waiting for you.

Election FAQ 2005 is also available on meta with five sets of
questions and answers. Some versions need to synch. Your cooperation
will be appreciated. Of course, questions are always welcome.

Further information is available at [[m:Elections for the Board of
Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/En]] on meta. Please link
the notice from project., Recentchanges, Goings-on or general
discussion pages like [[en:WP:VP]], shortly any page you think
appropriate.

Finally I appreciate all of you on your interest, and hope candidates
their best.
Cheers,
--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Homosexuals and other groups overrepresented
 here(was: sco/fiu-vro in danger)

body:
Autism can go to being extremely asocial (such as not speaking, reacting
violently to touch, refusing exchange with other individuals, having
repetitive behavior... these autists are unlikely to have a job or a
family) to having light troubles in interacting with others.

An autist is more likely not to have a love relationship with someone
else. But even if he does, he can be someone who will not be very warm
toward spouse, perhaps not appreciate physical touch a lot. I guess this
can be a the same time an issue both in terms of verbal and non verbal
communication.

I guess they are often qualified nerds because they deeply engaged
themselves in activities which do not require to much human contact, or,
at least activities where they can choose to be in contact or *not* in
contact with others (single game playing, stamp gathering,
gardening...). I think for most autists, the vibes sent by other humans
have a huge impact and are very overbearing. They sort of flood their
mental and prevent them from properly functionning. In front of this, an
extreme solution is to build barriers, refuse contact entirely, to the
point of not understanding the society. A less extreme relief solution
is to give time to activities which can relieve them from the
psychological pressure provided by other human beings. A sort of blank
out relief. A routine activity helps forget the environmental noise.

I do not think that means they cant have a boyfriend/girlfriend, but it
is likely they will get one not requiring too much interaction from
them. I'd say the spouse should probably understand the need of the
autist to have times of isolation and his requirement for a very regular
life. Anything getting largely out of the routine seems to be very hard
to handle for the autist.

ant

Mark Williamson a ?crit:
> By that, do they mean can't get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and aren't
> good at nonverbal communication, or do they mean something more
> extreme?
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/06/05, Thomas R. Koll <tomk32 at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:43:41PM +0200, Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, has Aplank left us ? I have not seen him in quite a while.
>>>He is even listed TWICE on the Aspergian list :-)
>>
>>for left and right hand?
>>
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if I should not add myself on it as some told I was a light
>>>autist as a child.
>>
>>>.... I just read something scary
>>>
>>>''Autism presents in a wide degree, from those who are nearly
>>>dysfunctional and apparently mentally retarded to those whose symptoms
>>>are mild or remedied enough to appear unexceptional ('normal') to the
>>>general public. These autistic persons are often classified as "nerds"
>>>or "geeks" by their peers.''
>>
>>:de also includes lingual, communication and social problems, nothing
>>I'd expect from a Wikipedian.
>>
>>ciao, tom
>>--
>>== Weblinks ==
>>* http://verlag.tomk32.de/ - WikiReader Digest als Print-Ausgabe
>>* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
>>* http://www.hammererlehen.de - Urlaub in Berchtesgaden
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Indian languages and grants (was Re: Combined
	effort)

body:
Guaka a ?crit:

> I think providing internet to small community centers in poor areas
> under the condition they add something to Wikipedia - you can set up
> contests to see if it could work, or to simply directly pay for every
> article of sufficient size (give out a buck, so you'll have 10.000
> articles at the end, if you'll forget about overhead costs...) is much
> more cost-effective. Once there are a 1000 articles in a Wikipedia it
> will easily advertise "itself". Sending out mails will be much more
> effective than when there is nothing...

I remember something someone told me once. He said :

do not just bring computers to our villages. Bring computers with ideas
of how to use them, make them alive. Show us something that we can
transform ourselves from an education or economical point of view.
Please do not come with computers and a cd rom of wikipedia, which will
only tell us "we made this for you, now use it", rather bring computers,
plus a wiki installed, a system to post articles by mail and a line good
enough to send mails and download articles from time to time.

ant


from_name: Andrew Venier

subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
Guaka wrote:

>>In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in
>>fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on
>>wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>But if you accidentally find out something that wasn't known before
>you'd have to erase it from Wikipedia and move it somewhere else... :/
>Which also implies you could never earn a PhD by writing on Wikipedia.
>I hope Wikiresearch and/or Wikiversity will become a bit bigger to
>tackle this inconvenience. :)
>
>
>
How does one, in the course of documenting what is known on a topic,
"accidentally find out something that wasn't known before"?

If one does indeed have brand new ideas about a subject, these ideas
warrant the testing and maturation that comes with peer review and
publication before they warrant being repeated in an encyclopedia.

(assuming you want the encyclopedia to develop a reputation for
reliability, that is.)


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

body:
Of course, reporting consensus really relies on the ability to gauge
consensus, which is pretty difficult in and of itself.

Perhaps one way to avert the "sources" problem is to have a few people
who are willing to look up specific sources. I'm not talking about the
"fact-checking" project -- I don't have time to go over an entire
article, even one on a topic I know fairly well, to check each date,
fact, etc. against a source. But if someone said to me, "A user is
citing X fact as being from Y book, maybe on page Z, could you check
this out for me?" I'd be happy to do it over the course of a few days
as my time permitted.

Now this would require two things -- first, people will almost
universal access to anything in mainstream print. There are a few of
us around -- I have access through my overly-wealthy university to
just about anything which was ever in print and then some more. Some
things, such as back issues of the New York TImes, the Washington
Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I can access electronically almost
instantly. I can also do quick searches of dozens of scholarly
journals through JSTOR. I'd be happy to use these resource to benefit
Wikipedia, and have already done this with a few users (people who
wanted specific newspaper articles or obituaries of relatively obscure
scientists, etc.). I imagine there are many others out there with
similar resources at their disposal through their vocation.

The next thing needed with such people would be "trust" -- if "I" say
that the fact was confirmed or not, can you trust that 1. I even
bothered to look it up and 2. that I am telling the truth? Hopefully
such things would be easy to red flag or double-check if there was any
real dispute.

The hope, of course, is that just about anything which would feature
on Wikipedia would be based heavily on secondary sources (i.e. no
original research) and anything not available at a major university
would not likely be mainstream enough for real inclusion. Were there
an organized team of people willing to double-check difficult SPECIFIC
facts (again, I'm not going to spend hours on a single article) or to
even skim literature/journals/reviews for ideas of consensus in a
field (which is that hard to do even if one is not an expert in the
field), it might relieve some of this "content" anxiety that people
seem to be having.

There might, of course, already be something like this, but I haven't
seen it or mention of anything analogous.

FF

On 6/7/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
>
> >"Cite your sources" is fine.  "Provide your sources," though, is not.
> >On many obscure topics, the sources WILL be difficult to locate.  Any
> >attempt to turn this requirement into having to provide sources that
> >can be requested from the average library or online will remove a
> >large number of very credible but obscure sources - specialist
> >publications, limited circulation journals, and many other documents.
> >
> >
> IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject
> itself is obscure and known only to specialists.  If it's a well-known
> subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
> subject.  If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least
> have been cited by someone else.  If, for example, you find an obscure
> source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the
> Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument
> based on it.  (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were
> ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be
> an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus
> in the field, not to create it.)
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: www.biography.ms is illegally using Wikipedia
	content

body:
Funny that you mention it. Yesterday, I was looking for an old pdf
version of Donella Meadows work. Had a hard time finding it because all
what was on the net about her was copies of the wikipedia articles (mine
in good part, so this was not what I was looking for). One of the most
proeminent copy was precisely this website.

It was also one of the first time I regretted articles existed in
wikipedia... because I could not find the original paper I was looking
for, because the web was so much infested by the wikipedia articles...

I suddently regretted Google was not able to distinguish that all the
articles were the same, and hidding other articles which are unique, but
simply less visible. I actually wonder if this is not a bit problematic.
It looks as if the search system was not able to handle this properly
any more.

Ant

PS : I must not forget to add the pdf link to the article so I can find
it next time.

Maury Markowitz a ?crit:
> I was doing a little googling this morning while the wiki was down, and
> came across a reference to a site, www.biography.ms.
>
> The entire site is simply a bad scraping of the wikipedia, with all
> attributions removed.
>
> Maury


from_name: Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Foundation-l] vikipedija.org and vikimedija.org

body:
> At least, it would be used for Serbian local chapter. vikipedija.org
> should be an alias for sr.wikipedia.org or to become a portal for
> languages which write Wikipedia in such way.

I know that Latvian Wikipedia does.

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


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal

body:
While I like the idea, I don't really think it should be a Wikimedia
Foundation project.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Steven-
>
>> I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote.  We all
>> come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people
>> know a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux,
>> and so on.  We also all come here to learn things we do not know.  I
>> do not really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I
>> should vote on whether content is accurate or not?  I do not know the
>> physics literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a
>> given source?
>
> You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not
> interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on
> whether this or that study result should be included in an article
> about it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am
> strictly in favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides
> *must* be properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so
> that anyone who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly
> get an overview of what the arguments are.

I agree that in order for a sample of community opinion (on any issue)
to have value, the framework must be appropriately established in
advance. But I'm afraid that a voting process with strict guidelines is
not something that the different sides of most content disputes will be
able to navigate together. While I have grave misgivings about content
arbitration, I'm not convinced that community votes are a better
solution, either.

Whatever the precise details, both parties would have to cooperate fully
with the vote in order to bring it off successfully. But in many
situations, the participants will already have a decent sense of which
position would prevail in a binding vote. This tends to become even
clearer as a dispute moves toward the stage where such a vote might
become plausible. The side that stands to lose will have no incentive to
cooperate in satisfying the requirements for the vote to be binding.

The problem with voting on questions of content is that it forces the
issue. When there is an explicit push for resolution like this, those
who anticipate an unfavorable result will delay, perhaps even actively
obstruct the process. They will object to the vote as premature and
won't put adequate effort into summarizing even their own position. They
may perhaps allow the vote to proceed "under protest", but then decline
to participate, and afterward dismiss the results as illegitimate
because the prerequisites were not satisfied.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Finne Boonen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: GFDL Clarification

body:
The creative commons licences are imho much easier to explain to ppl :)

Finne

On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > >
> > > We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the
> > > copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not
> > > enough.
> >
> > Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of
> > public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do
> > you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any
> > purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an
> > informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We
> > all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images.
> > How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
> >
> > The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)
>
> In many countries an author can not just abandon their copyright and
> place works directly into the public domain. Even in the US, using a
> work after being given a statement the someone has abandoned their
> copyright can place you in a somewhat risky position.  We are better
> off with licensed works. There are licenses which are very nearly as
> liberal as PD, for example, BSD without the advertising clause.
>
> We should discourage the use of {{PD}} entirely, and in it's favor
> replace it with more clear tags which prevent confusion and to clarify
> matters because of differing handling of PD around the world.  Classes
> we should isolate should include,
>
> * PD due to copyright lapse:
>   * works older than the 1920s
>   * works newer but not renewed
> * PD due to statement by author (non-uploader, should include email
> and we should avoid these)
> * PD due to wishes of uploader who holds copyright (again discourage
> in favor of a very liberal BSD, CC or the more restrictive GFDL).
> * PD due to US government
>
> and abandon {{PD}} for the wishful-thinking copyvios that it is
> currently used so often on..
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
"Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but
unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"
http://hekla.rave.org/cookbook.html - my crossplatform dieet/recipe app


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Interwiki articles without en:

body:
On 6/6/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Only two articles on ja: do not have an equivalent on en: ? That is just
> a small number. There is 100's if not 1000's that do not have
> equivalents on en: I know because I am responsible for at least 40 or 50
> or so :)

My suspicion is that what was meant is that two articles had interwiki
links at all that did not include English.

-Matt


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

body:
he-he

Is it posible to translate text on wikipedialogo background?
("Wikipedia is a Web-based free...")

--
Cxion la plej helan,
ajvol


from_name: Andy Rabagliati

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Mediawiki-l] Server downtime today

body:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
> >The main Wikimedia servers in Florida will be moving to larger rackspace
> >today. Among other things, this will take the mailing lists and Bugzilla
> >offline for some or all of the day; sorry for any inconvenience!
>
> Mailing lists are back online; the websites and bugzilla are still down
> until the rest of the servers are back up.

I can see again!!

Seemed like a knarly one - congratulations to all involved..

Cheers,  Andy!


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
Geoff Burling:

> Voting on Wikipedia to settle issues won't work because the opposing
> sides are usually so certain that their opinion is the right one,
> that they will not accept an adverse result from a vote.

You're describing the current situation where there is no defined
decision making process on equal footing with our other core policies.
If one could say "This vote was held in accordance with the rules on
voting in content disputes", then anyone who acts against it without
good reason (e.g. fundamentally new information or arguments that would
justify a new discussion) would be in violation of policy, and the
traditional means of enforcing good conduct would apply.

The tricky part is to define a policy that does not have a negative
impact on our traditional consensus finding processes. There are good
reasons why many people are skeptical about voting:
- sock puppetry
- voting before discussion
- voting with options that influence the results
- voting with overly complicated or flawed methods
- voting without a way to ever question the result
etc.

However, an anti-voting dogma exacerbates the problem because it leads
to the aforementioned club-like structures that will always be
susceptible to long-term corruption, and because voting, where it *does*
occur, cannot happen according to a standardized, tried and tested set
of rules; instead, the same mistakes are repeated again and again, and
nobody knows when a vote should be considered binding or not. Any
relatively new user can be easily intimidated with a vote, while someone
more familiar with our processes can easily question it. This is an
undesirable imbalance.

Erik


body:
Steven-

> I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote.  We all
> come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people know
> a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, and so
> on.  We also all come here to learn things we do not know.  I do not
> really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I should vote on
> whether content is accurate or not?  I do not know the physics
> literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a given source?

You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not
interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on
whether this or that study result should be included in an article about
it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am strictly in
favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides *must* be
properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so that anyone
who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly get an
overview of what the arguments are.

Furthermore, in many disputes, there will be two or more sides from
different fields of knowledge. For example, a debate might rage about
whether [[quantum physics]] should include a link to [[postmodernism]].
Should that debate be limited strictly to physicists? Should a debate
about the Sokal affair be limited to postmodernists?

Wikipedia has always been based on the idea that you can trust
reasonable people to do the right thing, and that the unreasonable ones
will be a minority that we can deal with. I think that principle should
be applied here as well.

Erik


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Guaka a ?crit:
>
>> I think providing internet to small community centers in poor areas
>> under the condition they add something to Wikipedia - you can set up
>> contests to see if it could work, or to simply directly pay for every
>> article of sufficient size (give out a buck, so you'll have 10.000
>> articles at the end, if you'll forget about overhead costs...) is much
>> more cost-effective. Once there are a 1000 articles in a Wikipedia it
>> will easily advertise "itself". Sending out mails will be much more
>> effective than when there is nothing...
>
> I remember something someone told me once. He said :
>
> do not just bring computers to our villages. Bring computers with
> ideas of how to use them, make them alive. Show us something that we
> can transform ourselves from an education or economical point of view.
> Please do not come with computers and a cd rom of wikipedia, which
> will only tell us "we made this for you, now use it", rather bring
> computers, plus a wiki installed, a system to post articles by mail
> and a line good enough to send mails and download articles from time
> to time.

I just put my hand on a collection of essays by Ivan Ilich, "Celebration
of Awarenes", published in 1971.  I looked at one in particular:
"Planned Poverty: The End Result of Technical Assistance."   Among other
things that he says:  "the plough of the rich can do as much harm as
their swords."  "As the mind of a society is progressively schooled,
step by step their individuals lose their sense that it might be
possible to live without being inferior to others."  "The
counter-research on fundamental alternatives to current prepackaged
solutions is the element most critically needed if poor nations are to
have a liveable future."  "We must seek survival in a Third World in
which human ingenuity can peacefully outwit machined might. The only way
to reverse the disastrous trend to increasing underdevelopment, hard as
it is, is to learn to laugh at accepted solutions in order to change the
demands which make them necessary."

It makes me wonder whether the latest Blair/Bush declaration to
eliminate the debt of impoverished countries is really just a palatable
way of announcing a round of welfare payments to bail out the banks. :-)

You make a very strong point.  You don't bring progress to poor
countries by bringing them truckloads of rice, but by encouraging them
how to grow the rice.  ... not by selling them high tech goods, but by
letting them have the opportunity to develop more advanced goods without
the restrictions of the arcane intellectual property rules of the rich.
You don't tell them that the recipes that have nourished them for
centuries, and  crowned their feast and celebrations are not
encyclopedic  You don't belittle their efforts by telling them that the
only local high school which houses their future hopes is somehow not
notable.

Sorry if this seemed a little rantish. ;-)

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>>Why would you have to move it somwhere else?
>>
>>
>Earning most advanced degrees requires original research.  Original
>research is Officially Evil.
>
That's the whole problem with being official.

Ec


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Matt Brown wrote:

> On 6/7/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
>
> > And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However,
> > if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary --
> > can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve
> > most of the problem.
>
> That is a position that I could stand behind.

Well, I've convinced one more person than I thought I would. ;-)
>
> I would be opposed to a suggestion that we should limit ourselves to
> published sources that can be acquired through Amazon, Google and the
> average inter-library loan service, however.

My example was intended to point out the contrast, not as a guideline.
In fact, I'm amazed at how easy it is to find a title that is not listed
at Amazon or Advanced Book Exchange -- a few of which I've consulted
in my writings. If I had to insist on a limit, it would be only to those
works listed in the catalogs of the Library of Congress & the British
Library -- & maybe one or two other similar institutions. Allowing for
duplicates, I estimate that gives us 50-60 million titles, most of which
would be available thru the average inter-library loan service.
>
> Obviously, the easier the sources can be accessed the better, but I
> would not rule out using rare or old books, magazines and newspapers
> even if not commonly archived, small publications, and foreign
> language works.

Honestly, if I were to critique a given article for its sources, I
am not going to get upset if they include one or two sources out of a
dozen that are hard to get ahold of; it's when the article only uses
such sources, & I have suspicions about the accuracy of the article.
>
> That said, I think that outside a certain vanishingly small subset of
> very controversial articles, Wikipedia's problem is not the citing of
> hard-to-verify sources, but the absense of sources at all.  Outside
> the context of Israel vs. Palestine, certain crackpot science
> theories, and a few other controversial places, I don't see much of a
> problem at present.
>
> And I'd rather someone cite an unpublished source than none.  It's
> always possible that a better reference than that unpublished source
> may be findable by someone else, or a published source that references
> that unpublished one.
>
Either case would be troubling to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be no
more than a secondary work, not a place to do publish research. With
the exception of facts that are either banally obvious or commonplace
(e.g. "France is a country in Europe"), if you can't find a published
source to cite, then you should consider whether you are writing
about something that is not part of Wikipedia's scope; much as that
word is dispised here, the subject may not be notable.

(Of course, an objection to this would be the matter of contemporary
pop culture: AFAIK, there are no books about subjects like the Lost
television series, Ken Jennings, Pokemon trivia. However, these topics
have enough of an audience that we should trust that the Wiki method
will provide a means to keep bad information from entering the
article.)


body:
Daniel:

> The ArbCom already tries to enforce our content-related policies. What I'd like
> to do is have subject-area subcommittees to consult when alleged violations of
> our content-related polices like NPOV or NOR come before us (the ArbCom). As it
> is, only the most blatant POV and original research-pushing people are
> sanctioned due to the simple fact that the ArbCom does not know everything
> about everything and thus can't spot more subtle violations of our
> content-related polices. We have tried, but this results in cases that take
> months and inadequate remedies.

I understand that this is frustrating, and it is commendable that you
are looking for a solution; this shows that you are indeed worthy
arbitrators -- people of action constantly looking for ways to deal with
the problems we face. However, I believe that you, Mark and other
arbitrators are examining the problem *only* from your point of view as
arbitrators. This is an unnecessary limitation of perspective. I think
there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to
error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.

Now that you have so cogently pointed out the problem -- it's possible
to wage "wars of attrition" over articles, and the person first to
explode or give up is likely to lose -- I would like us to look together
for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of
openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us
down the road of credentialism and hierarchy. Institutions like the
ArbCom, even admins, blocks, page protection, deletion -- these are not
perfect and deserve to be questioned and reconsidered.
http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DevolvePower is worth a read.

Best,

Erik