from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject: Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Requests page

body:
>Again, these are all personal judgements.
>
>The only one I think may have been OK is Pig Latin -- all the others
>were for real languages, requested by real people, and received
>support or interest in some form or another. Just because something is
>going off-topic, is no excuse to get rid of it -- simply add a note to
>the discussion that it's getting off-topic.
>
>Mark

There we go again... /Anything/ is a personal judgement, Mark. I am for
instance absolutely unsure that the subscribers to this list are people, but
according to my personal judgement they probably all are. I left several
notes that discussions were going off-topic. And finally: Even Scott Gall
himself did /not/ object when I removed those requests, so why do you?

Wouter
>On 20/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Simple German failed? I saw an awful lot of support, and it was
> > >definitely still a hot topic.
> >
> > Yes, but it was disgraced by you, among others. And I did not remove it,
>I
> > commentified it, because the discussion was going off-topic.
> > >Parseltongue, pretty much dead, yes. Pig Latin, a pretty silly request
> > >in the first place, but you must admit it got two supporters, and the
> > >issue was never really resolved head-on as it should've been.
> > I did not remove Pig Latin until it was refused even at Wikicities.
> >
> > >Sindarin, part of an ongoing debate about artificial language
> > >Wikipedias, can now be found at [[Requests for new languages/Tolkien
> > >languages]], along with Quenya.
> > Yes, but with only moral support, and again with a discussion going in
>the
> > wrong direction.
> >
> > >Silbo Gomero did not fail, nor was it rediculous.
> >
> > Also only commentified. Show me how to write it down, please.
> >
> > For the rest, I agree with you.
> > >Such requests as Parseltongue, or maybe even Pig Latin, do not disturb
> > >me that much that you removed them, and I certainly would not have
> > >added them back (well actually, I didn't add Parseltongue back, only
> > >Pig Latin), had you not also gotten rid of scores of more questionable
> > >cases.
> > >
> > >As Angela noted, in the past requests have just been deleted. But they
> > >were seldom legit requests for real languages, and when they were they
> > >were often left up for a long time because the page never got very big
> > >(*cough*scottgall*cough*). I don't think it was until very recently
> > >that actual legitimate requests began being deleted, especially after
> > >a time of less than a few months.
> > >
> > >What should be pursued is NOT a policy of widespread deletion of
> > >requests after time-limits, but rather of calming down the surge of
> > >activity by somehow getting Scott Gall to request every tomian,
> > >dickler, and harryish language he reads about on Wikipedia. He
> > >requested an Ainu Wikipedia, and didn't even know that the Japanese
> > >and Chinese Ainu are not related.
> > >
> > >I left him a note on his talkpage asking him to withdraw some of his
> > >requests, and to refrain from making so many. It seems that
> > >NaziismIsntCool has begun to follow Scott's example and is now
> > >requesting new WPs frequently, this should be quickly curbed with a
> > >note on her talkpage explaining that the page is meant for serious
> > >requests only.
> > >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >On 20/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >Yes, since a few of the Wikipedias you removed weren't because they
> > > > >were old or because they failed, but because you decided they were
> > > > >"rediculous".
> > > > >
> > > > And few did not agree with me.
> > > >
> > > > Judge yourself: Pig Latin, Parseltongue, Silbo Gomero, Simple
>German,
> > > > Sindarin (which /nota bene/ both had my support but FAILED!), and a
>hell
> > >of
> > > > a lot of mainly African languages being placed months ago, supported
>by
> > > > NO-ONE, posted anonymously and even without any discussion!
> > > >
> > > > W.
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
> > > > http://messenger.msn.nl/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > >QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > >POSSIT MATERIARI
> > >ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > >QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > >POSSIT MATERIARI
> > >ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar
>http://webmessenger.msn.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>--
>SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
>QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
>POSSIT MATERIARI
>ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Speel online games via MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sj

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Research Team logo [was: Getting started]

body:
On 6/20/05, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, the logo is, as SJ said, a mutant anyway. :-)
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
> OK, I am fishing this from the dead zone. I just realized my "Erik,
> please can you get rid of the logo?" sent after Jimbo's comment had
> been sent to Jimbo only, unfortunately.

I wouldn't mind seeing more non-mutant logos around, particularly if
they have little to do with other wiki[mp]edia logos.  For fun and
great justice.  I was pleased when the barnstar subproject started
multiplying the collection of awardable icons, and when the template
subprojects started adding little icons to identify their templates.
Anything that improves readability and consistency across a subproject
is scalably excellent in my book.

> I will therefore re-state my point. The research team, as I understand
> it, is somewhat part of the board. I do not understand, and do not

As I understand it, the research tea^B^B^Bnetwork is not at all part
of the board. Nor is it innately more or less authoritative as a
network than any of the less-visible groups that discuss and work on
Wikimedia research.  However, it is being actively mentored and
promoted by Erik, which makes this network more visible, and in ways
more effective, than other related networks.  None of this has to do
with the board.

Erik's research position *is* officially granted by the board -- both
a recognition of his interests and work to date, and a request for him
to keep on top of research efforts in the community.  His own words
were that, in light of both this recognition and this burden, he is
focusing his effort on this network (rather than other projects of
interest); which focus I hope will bear great fruit.  But, you know,
it's just another project with its own logo dreams.

If you /really/ want to protest, perhaps we should create some more
projects with their own logos, just for the design challenge.  A
Wikimon logo, maybe.   Or a [[m:Press Corps]]  or [[w:POTD]] logo, to
make into stickers for one's camera-bag.   Perhaps a
[[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject]] logo to spice up the hundreds of
wikiproject pages...

+SJ+


list: wikimedia-l


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Research Team logo [was: Getting
	started]

body:
You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in
French...  I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of
flowers in a French field.  <champ champ>

On 6/20/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> The point is that it doesn't even contain the text "Wikipedia". To claim
> that the Research logo increases confusion externally when you replace
> the French Wikipedia one with a picture which has no meaning *outside*
> the community is, well, problematic at least.

--
+sj+


list: wikien-l

from_name: Angela

subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anno Wikipædiæ

body:
On 20/06/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this has already been proposed. But can't we just
> wikify BC/AD and BCE/CE and have their use depend on user preferences,
> just like with the dates?

That solution was proposed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate/Alternatives
 but not very well supported.

Angela.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick

body:
> In my experience, just about every one.
>
> Jay.

You are wrong. As I said no past admin who has been blocked has been
warned. Normaly people who break the 3RR for the first time are new
users who don't know the rules. Sometimes they are not then they don't
get a warning.

--
geni


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision againstjguk

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Exactly. And in my opinion that include the arbitrators who are in  full
> retreat because a "good" editor has decided to pack it up  because there
> was a PROPOSED decision he found offensive.
>
> Fred

Or maybe we are just prepared to listen when the community says we are
making a mistake.

--sannse


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Guaka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

body:
> When you want to use Wiktionary as an online dictionary, you may be able
> to convert it to the .dict format. This does not make it acceptable
> .dict data. When you query a .dict dictionary you expect the resulting
> data to be in a particular language.

I don't think there is a specification that says what is and what isn't
acceptable DICT data, or what one can expect to get back from a query.

(Oh, and, BTW, I think UW is a great project :)


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
>I don't think there is a specification that says what is and what isn't
>acceptable DICT data, or what one can expect to get back from a query.
>
>(Oh, and, BTW, I think UW is a great project :)
>
>
>
I think you are talking about different things. DICT is a dictionary
format of another GPL software
http://freedict.de/
It is also on sourceforge.net.

And it is the basis for this online dictionary:
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

That's what Gerard is talking about.

Ciao, Sabine

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


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick

body:
>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>
> > In my experience, just about every one.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>You are wrong. As I said no past admin who has been blocked has been
>warned. Normaly people who break the 3RR for the first time are new
>users who don't know the rules. Sometimes they are not then they don't
>get a warning.

That doesn't invalidate what I said; most people who violate the 3RR are
fairly new, and are warned.  Admin 3RR violations are few and far between.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] I will be leaving the project

body:
On 6/20/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> >
> >Silsor has blocked me from editing.  I will not accede
> >to this.  I am leaving the project and will not be
> >back.
>
> I hope this is not true.

I, too, hope this is not true.


body:
> I think you are talking about different things. DICT is a dictionary
> format of another GPL software
> http://freedict.de/
> It is also on sourceforge.net.
>
> And it is the basis for this online dictionary:
> http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict
>
> That's what Gerard is talking about.

Me too... I started both [[w:en:DICT]] as well as [[w:en:Freedict]]
(which wasn't mentioned yet in this discussion). I wrote wik2dict, a
tool to convert Wiktionary into the DICT format, so I know some of the
gory technical details.

As far as I understood we were both talking about the same thing.

I just mentioned DictionaryForMIDs, and most of them are currently still
based on Freedict. However, I want to spend some time trying to set up
versions with Wiktionaries and Wikipedias...


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.

Sam

On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> worth.
>
> Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
>
> But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> etc. for the lost sheep.
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia

body:
On 6/20/05, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
> been formed on Friday 17th 2005 in [[w:it:Canino|Canino]] by 18
> wikimedians (some photos are avalaible on
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Costituzione_dell%27Associazione_Wikimedia_Italia>).

Tanti auguli a Frieda e tutti Wikimedianer italiani dal vostra amica
in Giappone,

E grazie mille per il vostro sempre interessa sur curranti Elezzioni,
particularmente la tradutione del "presentamenti dei candidati"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2005/It#User:Anthere

Abbaccio e baccioni,

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: LISA article and Wiktionary misunderstandings

body:
Cross-posted to wiktionary and wikipedia; because I haven't seen a
good example lately of how a merging might work; and because I've
recently been through the cycle of slightly argumentative discussion
that Ec seems to be falling into.  Please reply to only one list, and
feel free to add to or modify my example to illustrate your own ideas
of what such a project might look like.   SJ

On 6/18/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> > The differences between Gerard and me are based in a fundamental
> > philosophical differences about the nature of Wiktionaries in
> > particular and dictionaries in general.  His position is a logical
> > consequence from the premise that Wiktionary is just a translation
> > dictionary; I disagree with his premise by considering Wiktionary to
> > be much more than that.

It might be more constructive to think of this position (what I
believe to be Gerard's) as a logical consequence from the premise that
single-language Wiktionaries can be efficiently combined by taking
advantage of translation-dictionary content (specifically their
linkages between words)..

> > Each Wiktionary may be tasked with explaining all words from all
> > languages, but it does so for the benefit of speakers of its own
> > language.  Gerard's Ultimate Wiktionary would work well if
> > translatiions were simply questions of one on one relationships.  As
> > one example, the word "minister" exists in both Dutch, and you are
> > probably safe to use the same word when going from Dutch to English.
> > It doesn't work in the other direction.  You can't translate the
> > English "minister" to its Dutch equivalent when "predikant" is
> > intended.  Add in a third language and it can get very complicated.

Great, an example!  Just what we need.  Consider the following
English-language content:

________________________________________________________________

=minister=

== [English] ==
minister ([n.]) 1. [A person trained to perform religious ceremonies
at a Protestant church.]
        "The minister said a prayer on behalf of the entire congregation."
        || [Dutch]: predikant; ... ||
minister ([n.]) 2. [A person commissioned by the government for public service.]
        "He was newly appointed to be Minister of the Interior."
  **    || [Danish]: gesandt;  [Dutch]: minister [m,f];  [French]:
ministre [m,f];
         [German]: Minister [m], Ministerin [f];  [Italian]: ministro;
[Indonesian]: menteri;
         [Interlingua]: ministro;  [Japanese]: ?? (????, daijin);
[Polish]: minister;
         [Spanish]: ministro [m] ||
minister ([n.]) 3. [A person who serves others.]
minister ([vi.]) 1. [To tend to the needs of others]
minister ([vt.]) 1. [To dispense, to administer]

== [Dutch] ==
minister ([n.]) 1. [A person commissioned by the government for public service.]
         "Zware voet jaagt minister Anciaux uit de bocht."
  **    || [Danish]: gesandt;  [English]: minister;  [French]: ministre [m,f];
         [German]: Minister [m], Ministerin [f];  [Italian]: ministro;
[Indonesian]: menteri;
         [Interlingua]: ministro;  [Japanese]: ?? (????, daijin);
[Polish]: minister;
         [Spanish]: ministro [m] ||
________________________________________________________________

In the above examplt:
 a) choosing your 'interface' language may change all text in [brackets],
 b) content between || double bars || is stored in the database, so
that the two lists of translations for "minister (English, n., 2)"
"minister (Dutch, n., 1)" are actually referencing the same list of
database translations  [marked above by a double asterisk **]
 c) that bugbear of having multiple definitions for the same word in
some languages, but not in others, is finessed somewhat by relegating
translations to the defintion level, not the word level.  [1]

> > The Wiktionaries in individual languages are in a better position to explain
> > this kind of problem in the target language for the translation.

As far as I can tell, the current independence of "[content in]
Wiktionaries in individual languages" would remain, in the most
detailed proposed concatenation of many Wiktionaries into one.  Things
that would change:

* All wiktionaries would share a single list of definition-linkages
(definition 3 of word A is the same as definition 1 of word B); many
of these linkages would be from one language to another, but others
would be between synonyms in a single language.

* All synonymous definitions would share a single list of
translations, so that this list need not be pasted 100 times (and
updated 100 times for each update).

Sabine writes:
> All this was explained more than once (in the discussionlists and on
> meta) and obviously you did not read it, but you only read and write
> what you like.

For reference, I have tried to follow this matter carefully.  I have
discussed metadata issues with linguists who are designing other
Wiktionary extensions.  I have asked similar questions myself, of
Gerard on many occasions, and in conversations with both of you.  :-)
And STILL the most complete published plans for, or descriptions of,
an "Ultimate Wiktionary" -- or a merging of many wiktionary projects
into a single one under any other name -- are not clear.  Please do
not blame Ec for not seeing things exactly as you do.

> Adding a third language is not complicated, as the relation and the

Adding a third, and then a tenth, language IS complicated.  It is
doable, but complicated, and necessarily slightly imperfect [1].
However, following the Wikimedia principle of doing useful things
quickly and not worrying about theoretical perfection, this will be a
useful project long before its nuances are completely satisfactory to
all.

> based on such an idea. International organisations, like Lisa (and they
> are THE language specialists for localisation) and Kennisnet (they are
> education specialist and work in many languages) are interested in it
> and believe it its value otherwise why would they have paid for the

Of course it has value to try to make such a project work.  This does
not mean it is not difficult; it is!  These international
organizations know how difficult it is; I imagine they are curious to
see how we will proceed.  Let us see if our efforts make something
useful, despite the difficulty involved.  I am confident that they
will... whatever our project is called.

+SJ+

[1] There is a difficult question, which we are ignoring for now :
just how precisely do all the translations of "minster (English, n.,
2)" have synonymous definitions?  When are two different words ever
truly synonymous?  But that is a discussion for another month.


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: LISA article and Wiktionary misunderstandings


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] last day of spring

body:
Hi,

French wikipedia is celebrating the last day of spring with a flowery logo.

Please enjoy !

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil

Ant


body:
On 6/20/05, Ilya Haykinson <haykinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/05, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal
> > team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself.
> > ...
>
> I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research

Not just the concept of a logo?  You love... that... logo?

Everyone can start dressing alike now.   People on the Contingency
Team should wear nothing but hunter's orange for the next three
months, until the first five-year-plan is safely underway (and under
six feet of concrete).  And you must refer to your significant others
as "mankind's last hope."

> With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense
> of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble.

Right.

> Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical
> language is important in building and maintaining a brand.

More reason not to mutate it.  Brand is sacred.

SJ

"NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANYTHING POKE THE PILLSBURY
DOUGHBOY BELOW HIS WAIST"


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Howto write better WikiEN-l messages :)

body:
> Ever notice how many folks use [[Wikipedia]] wiki conventions such as
> [[double brackets]], ~~~~ for names, etc, in their e-mail messages to this
> board? :)

Aye! Let me also quip in to say that that is an *extremly* irritating
convention to use in e-mail. Most mail-readers do not support the
English Wikipedia and therefore to check out the page that the person
is referring to in the [[double brackets]], you have to paste the
thing in the English Wikipedia's search box click search and goto the
page.

So if you are referring to a Wikipedia page, and want lazy people like
me to look at it, then please use an URL instead of stupid double
brackets.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

body:
RickK wrote:

> Silsor has blocked me from editing.  I will not accede
>to this.  I am leaving the project and will not be
>back.
>
>Enjoy your lives.
>
>RickK

If Omar Vizquel got called out at the plate by a bad call by the umpire, do you think he'd rant and rave at the umpire until he got ejected?  Or quit the team?

Unlikely.  He'd probably go sit in the dugout, suck it up and deal, take one for the team, and wait for his next turn at bat.  He has more class than almost all the other major league baseball players.

By at least one administrator's opinion, you broke a policy that calls for a near automatic 24 hour block.  Maybe you got a bad call.  Maybe you didn't.  Suck it up and deal, take one for the team.

I think you were sometimes short and overly harsh.  But I think that if you do come back, you'll be a much better participant than you were before.  You were pretty good for all your flaws.

(I hope the Giants in "giantsrick13 at yahoo.com" is the San Francisco Giants.  I'm an Omar Vizquel fan from when he played in Cleveland.)

Best regards,
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Italia

body:
Aphaia a ?crit:
> On 6/20/05, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
>>been formed on Friday 17th 2005 in [[w:it:Canino|Canino]] by 18
>>wikimedians (some photos are avalaible on
>><http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Costituzione_dell%27Associazione_Wikimedia_Italia>).
>
>
> Tanti auguli a Frieda e tutti Wikimedianer italiani dal vostra amica
> in Giappone,
>
> E grazie mille per il vostro sempre interessa sur curranti Elezzioni,
> particularmente la tradutione del "presentamenti dei candidati"
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2005/It#User:Anthere
>
> Abbaccio e baccioni,

I am not sure where I relate here...

But right, again, publicly now, congrats. I think you beat Wikimedia
France in terms of members already :-)

And yes, thanks for all those doing translations ;-)

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Italia


body:
>Me too... I started both [[w:en:DICT]] as well as [[w:en:Freedict]]
>(which wasn't mentioned yet in this discussion). I wrote wik2dict, a
>tool to convert Wiktionary into the DICT format, so I know some of the
>gory technical details.
>
>
This is very important for UW :-)

I downloaded some of the "free dictionaries" on sourceforge.net, but
they are in an own special format - they are coded and I cannot "see"
the data in clear text format - that's why I myself really did not
concentrate too much on this format.

On the other hand there is a programmer I was talking to time ago
concerning dictionaries for Palm and Pocket PC - these are widely used
by interpreters in particular when they need to work with very specific
themes. And one thing was on how to make data available - this is going
into the direction java for handhelds (maybe also mobile phones) - but
there are still too many compatibility issues.

Nokia is doing stuff in this direction ... I must see if I can find the
link with the notes - these could be interesting as well. I mean: we
have too many different formats ... that's not good.

I believe THE format for dictionary information is TBX since it is
nothing else than XML with fixed tags and this allows for easy data
exchange.

>As far as I understood we were both talking about the same thing.
>
>I just mentioned DictionaryForMIDs, and most of them are currently still
>based on Freedict. However, I want to spend some time trying to set up
>versions with Wiktionaries and Wikipedias...
>
>
Hmmm ... also the Italian freedict project (it has a really stange name,
sorry I don't remember now) still is based on freedict. I think that it
would be good if we could get people/programmers on a way where to meet
in the middle - they have the software and we have the data - or better:
we can combine the data more easily and it is easier to update when
people work the wiki-way.

This woule help you to save some time, users do not need different data
formats but just one for several applications etc. Really this would be
a dream ... and like always: dreaming it and talking about it very often
it becomes true.

I did not know you were in there. Maybe it is really time to talk about
single facts - but maybe first offline. Make data easier available is
part of what we are thinking about. The more we are and the more
constructive are contributions the better we will be and the less effort
will be necessary.

Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)

Ciao, Sabine

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatically checking for copyright violations

body:
On 6/20/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---- Forwarded message ----
>
> > In regards to the continuing copyright issues because some members do
> > not
> > respect copyrights, I might recommend implementing something like what
> > http://copyscape.com uses.  From what I can tell, they use a Google API
> > to do a
> > search of text found in one page to see what other pages have the same
> > text.

Well the first problem would be the limit the Google API has on
requests per day, this is 1000 and if it would be used for the while
site the requests would be alot more than  that.

Other than that it's just a matter of coding it;)


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
Also agree with Ed.

Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why
he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows.
Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself -
huh?!

And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking
public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time.
Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do
tend to return quite quickly.

Dan

On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
> an encyclopedia, get over it already...
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 6/20/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
> > Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> > > worth.
> > >
> > > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> > > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> > >
> > > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> > > etc. for the lost sheep.
> > >
> > > Ed Poor
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jack Lynch

body:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
an encyclopedia, get over it already...

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/20/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
> Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
>
> Sam
>
> On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> > worth.
> >
> > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> >
> > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> > etc. for the lost sheep.
> >
> > Ed Poor
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Automatically checking for copyright violations

body:
The message below was sent to the Board today. Would implementing some
sort of automatic copyvio checker be feasible?

The second part of the email suggests it is too difficult to contact
us about copyright violations. With the addition of the "contact us"
link in the sidebar, I thought this would stop being a problem. Is
there any other way of making it easier?

Angela.

---- Forwarded message ----

> In regards to the continuing copyright issues because some members do
> not
> respect copyrights, I might recommend implementing something like what
> http://copyscape.com uses.  From what I can tell, they use a Google API
> to do a
> search of text found in one page to see what other pages have the same
> text.
> Using a similar methodology, you could flag new pages that are
> substantially
> like pages that exist on the Internet for further review.   While this
> wouldn't
> tackle all of the copyright violations, it would go a long way towards
> making
> it easier to weed out blatant violations like the one I reported.
>
> The issue of some individuals having absolutely no respect for
> copyrights and
> plagiarism is a serious problem that Wikipedia needs to address.  Some
> people
> seem to think that Wikipedia is their personal means of bringing down
> copyright
> laws and "freeing" content.  This is a shame because these individuals
> threaten
> the long term possibilities for Wikipedia.
>
> On a related note, it should be easier to report copyright violations on
> the
> Wikipedia website.  The current set up is tremendously burdensome to
> figure how
> to report copyright violations.   There needs to be a simple link from
> all
> pages to a simple contact form that allows one to report a violation
> without
> having any knowledge of how Wikipedia works.  Doing this would put
> members on
> notice that Wikipedia isn't a rogue operation where anything goes and
> that it
> takes copyright issues seriously.
>


references:
<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC28040A6BCC@sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
	<cbffa375050620123938c48cfa@mail.gmail.com>
	<49bdc743050620124311bb35a0@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfe1dfe10506201343710fded1@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Which justifies that self-aggrandizing, completely malicious tirade?
Methinks not. I was not objecting to Ed's tone and crowing. It is hardly
civil.

Sam

On 6/20/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also agree with Ed.
>
> Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why
> he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows.
> Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself -
> huh?!
>
> And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking
> public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time.
> Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do
> tend to return quite quickly.
>
>
> Dan
>
> On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
> > shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
> > experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
> > an encyclopedia, get over it already...
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
> >
> > On 6/20/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
> > > Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've
> been
> > > > worth.
> > > >
> > > > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed
> to
> > > > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> > > >
> > > > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more
> rejoicing",
> > > > etc. for the lost sheep.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Poor
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 6/20/05, Marco Krohn <marco.krohn at web.de> wrote:
> On Monday 20 June 2005 23:18, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > Well the first problem would be the limit the Google API has on
> > requests per day, this is 1000 and if it would be used for the while
> > site the requests would be alot more than  that.
>
> I asked google for an extended key because my tool needs about 3000-4000
> requests per day. After a short email explaining the reasons and asking for
> 7000 req/day I got an extensions within hours :-)
>
> (7000 should be sufficient for checking the new articles for "en")

Maybe, but if you take into account that it has to be checked for all
projects and languages and that you may wish to make several requests
per article (to check for more than one string, say if you want to
check each paragraph for likely copyvios) it grows quickly.

Not that I think that would be a showstopper when it comes down to it
all, I'm sure google will increase their limit.


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikipedia-l] University Challenge

body:
Jeremy Paxman, 5 minutes ago on BBC's University Challenge: "Which
encyclopedia was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, ..." Unfortunately noone
knew. Jeremy: "I recommend it if you do not use it". It is not much for a
sales pitch, but from Jeremy it counts.

We might set ourselves a goal for a year from now: Wikipedia will be the
answer on a starter warming up 100 pound giveaway question in 'Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire' :)

Erik Zachte


from_name: Laura Scudder

body:
I happen to agree that the way he's leaving full of righteous
indignation is really foolish, and I really don't care who thinks I'm
pathetic and selfish just because I don't appreciate other's silly
outbursts.

Laurascudder

On Jun 20, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:

> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
> an encyclopedia, get over it already...
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 6/20/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
>> Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've
>>> been
>>> worth.
>>>
>>> Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
>>> soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
>>>
>>> But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more
>>> rejoicing",
>>> etc. for the lost sheep.
>>>
>>> Ed Poor
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Granted Rick's actions were attempting to keep a possible copyvio out
of WP, but revert warring with other respected users was a pretty lame
way to go about it. It was not going to resolve the GAP project
copyvio problem.

Dan

On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The rules do not have any innate value. That is to say, the mere fact
> that something is in the rules does not make it right, any more than
> its absence from the rules makes it wrong. Sysops are not expected to
> be mechanical robots in enforcing the 3RR or any other rule. This
> doesn't mean people are above the rules. It means that sysops are not
> obliged to block in every case.
>
> One of the things that should always play into a decision about
> blocking is the good faith of the contributor, the necessity of the
> block in getting the point across, and the nature of the dispute.
> Frankly, Rick's block wasn't cut and dry - removing copyvio
> absolutely should not count as a 3RR revert, and there's no reason to
> think that Rick did not sincerely see a copyvio problem. And it's
> important to err on the side of protecting Wikipedia from lawsuit
> with copyvio - if there's a reasonable suspicion, remove first, then
> spend the time sorting it out.
>
> Which isn't to say that Rick handled this well. He didn't. it is,
> however, to say that he did not handle it so badly as to deserve the
> abject slap in the face that this block was. And he's right to be
> pissed - I would be.
>
> I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing
> recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was
> our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just
> hurt the project a lot.
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Directed donations

body:
Lee Daniel Crocker a ?crit:
 > The better solution is simple: total transparency.  It's something
 > we've always been pretty good at, and that we are uniquely suited to
 > provide.  We should simply guarantee that every penny we spend for
 > any reason is listed on reports that we publish to the world
 > frequently and archive indefinitely.  Anyone who wants to know how
 > his money will be spent can just look to see how our money /has been/
 > spent; if he likes that, he can donate.  If he doesn't, he can tell
 > us why and suggest how me might improve.  But in either case, he
 > has total control, and /informed/ control, and in a way that doesn't
 > interfere with our management needs.

I rather agree

This said, this suggests me the following improvement.
Till now, our financial reports have been break down in "types" of
spending, rather than "goals" of spending.
For example, we currently have an item called "travel expenses", but
that is all we get to know. Maybe some of these are entirely Jimbo, or
perhaps are they also the board, or perhaps also some developers travel
costs covered for a special occasion, or perhaps even money spend for
travel costs of participants to come to Wikimania.

But right now, all is mixed.

Another perspective we could focus on is rather the issues on which
money is spent.

For example, we should see how much was received (as sponsorship) for
Wikimania, and how much was spend. This would involved possibly
technical costs, perhaps travel costs, perhaps public relation costs.
But it would be nice to see overall how much the whole envelop was in
the budget.

Same for any big relevant issue (which we might have to determine).

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Directed donations


from_name: Marco Krohn

body:
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:57, Angela wrote:
> The message below was sent to the Board today. Would implementing some
> sort of automatic copyvio checker be feasible?

I have done something similar for the German Wikipedia:

http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~krohn/wscan.html.utf8

it reads all newpages from German Wikipedia, shows the beginning of the text
and some statistics (and guesses which links to other articles might be
interesting). Also it takes parts of some sentences and checks whether they
appear somewhere in the internet (btw 5 to 6 consecutive words are almost
unique).

Finally the output is sorted by the number of hits ("Fundstellen"). I have
several ideas how to improve the script further (e.g. whitelists), but right
now I do not have the time to do this.

Nevertheless if someone is interested I am glad to send him the GPLed source
code (python) or surely can give some advise.

best regards,
  Marco

P.S. google was so kind to extend my google key to 7000 requests per day (the
standard google key only allows 1000 requests per day which is not
sufficient)


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal

body:
Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> --- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>I therefore suggest that donors have the possibility of earmarking their
>>donation. That is to say, they will have the ability to specify where they
>>want their money to go. In that case, one donor may give specifically for
>>servers, while another donor may give specifically to promote a language,
>>print a  particular wikibook, or whatever.
>
>
> Hm. This type of thing locks up funds and makes running organizations much more
> difficult than necessary, IMO. The board in consultation with its various
> officers are the body by which budgeting is done. Feedback from donors can and
> should be collected in a systematic and easy to parse way, but should not tie
> the hands of the board (grants excepted). That type of information should
> *inform* the board's decision - not dictate it.
>
> Most of the annual California state budget, for example, has been dictated by
> various voter initiatives. Thus lawmakers have very little to work with while
> crafting budgets. This is one reason often cited for California's on-going
> financial crisis.
>
> So while this at first sounds like a neat idea, in practice it just makes our
> budgeting less flexible and thus less able to adapt to changing conditions,
> IMO.
>
> -- mav

I generally agree with what you say Mav. It is true it might be
dangerous to be hand tied due to part of our resources being mandatorily
allocated for a specific issue and not enough left for operating costs.
Maybe this 10% is not satisfying.

However, I'd like to mention that currently if "small" donators are not
able to say how they would prefer their money to be spend, "big"
donators may. Fortunately, most money offered came with no strings
attached, and I guess most editors could prefer to do just as well.

But it is not always the case, and some money we receive is for a
specific goal. Till today, I do not think we ever felt stuck and not
adaptable due to this. Still, these donators somehow "dictate" us how to
use the money.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal

body:
Tim Starling a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>
>>Angela a ?crit:
>
> ...
>
>>>Isn't there a danger of this leading to huge resources for the English
>>>Wikipedia and not enough for the rest of the projects and languages
>>>simply because more people visit that and therefore decide to put all
>>>their donations towards that project rather than the Foundation's
>>>wider goals?
>>
>>
>>I do not think so. By projects, it does not mean "money for english
>>wikipedia" or "money for the japanese wiktionary", but rather "money for
>>the ultimate wiktionary", "money for wikimania", "money for bambara
>>development", "money for a wikijunior set" etc...
>
>
> If the pet project of a Board member isn't supported by the donors, it
> shouldn't be paid for with the donors' money. The "Foundation's wider
> goals" were set by Jimbo when he wrote the bylaws, to date donors have
> been told they must fund all of these goals or fund none of them. This
> is certainly part of the reason why I have never donated to Wikimedia,
> and by extension this initiative may lead to increased donations generally.
>
> The Board may be anxious about losing control over part of their
> funding, that's understandable. But this could be considered a form of
> direct democracy, and as such, desirable outcomes depend on the
> competency of the donor to make budget decisions. The Board could take
> on a role of persuading the donors that certain projects need funding,
> rather than simply dictating a budget as they do now.
>
> -- Tim Starling

I am not sure why you make such an overgeneralization, since Angela is
apparently not very supportive of this proposal, I am supporting it to a
fair extent, and Jimbo did not comment yet :-)

I do not feel though that there is "anxiety" of losing control. On the
contrary, I fear that Angela and I might both be slightly too anxious to
push to spend money in a direction where we feel editors might be upset.

I do not know for Angela, but as for myself, a problem I meet is extreme
difficulty to estimate whether a spending would be approved or not
generally (I refer to unusual spending). I feel I lack
information/feedback from the community. I would welcome any suggestion
of how to get this feedback (while avoiding a plain global vote... which
is frankly not something I find a great solution).

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 6/20/05, Jim Trodel <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation.

Eh, Coolcat says he wrote the text and we have no reason to disbelieve
him. He has exhibited substantial personal knowledge on matters
related to Turkey in the past.

Rather than RickK responding to Coolcat's claim he outright ignored it
as though it had never been said, and continued making the claim all
over the wiki that there was no justification for restoring the
material.

I encounter substantial difficulty at times getting media removed that
is far more likely to be a copyvio and without an editor claiming to
be the author than the situation here.  The point quite rightly made
to me is that it's not the end of the world if it isn't removed today,
which is quite valid.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 6/4/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Delphine M?nard wrote:
> > However, in the light of what has been said on the other threads about
> > official positions, I find the use of a logo quite strange. Somehow,
> > the fact that this "research team" should have a "logo" makes it too
> > independant from what I understood the official positions were
> > supposed to be, ie. a part of Wikimedia, and even somehow a part of
> > the board.
>
> Yes, the logo is, as SJ said, a mutant anyway. :-)
>
> --Jimbo

OK, I am fishing this from the dead zone. I just realized my "Erik,
please can you get rid of the logo?" sent after Jimbo's comment had
been sent to Jimbo only, unfortunately.

I will therefore re-state my point. The research team, as I understand
it, is somewhat part of the board. I do not understand, and do not
approve, of it having a logo of its own, which tends to give it an
independance that I believe it does not have. Official positions are
"official", they should just be stated with the Wikimedia logo, to
which if need be, can be added the line "Wikimedia research team".
The idea as I understood it, was to structure the existing
organisation with official positions and teams. If each team has its
own little logo, I believe this goal is lost, as the outside world
will have to swim in an immense sea of denominations and images and
probably never know who to talk to.

If need be, I am ready, (but not willing) to put this to the vote.

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick

body:
On 6/20/05, jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk> wrote:
> It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
>
> Rick, I admire your style and commitment to Wikipedia, and hope you will regret your departure. Scrupulous RC patrollers and vandal fighters deserve suport.

Too true. While double standards are not a good thing, sometimes
discretion is really useful. Blocking a really good and long-term
contributor over a one-off 3RR violation is madness. If it happens a
few times, then that may be justified, but else it just serves to
infuriate and potentially encourage them to quit the project.

-- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] unwanted e-mails.

body:
he wants to be removed from the list, I think ;') ~~~~

On 6/20/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would help if you told us what you are talking about.
> -Mgm
>
> On 6/20/05, walt compton <waltercompton at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I keep getting unwanted e-mails from people I don't know and I don't know  they are talking about. Could I PLEASE
> >  be removed from their e-mail mailing
> >  list. Thank you.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On Monday 20 June 2005 23:11, Mark Williamson wrote:
> ...and it would also flag every single page in Wikipedia, because they
> can also be found in absoluteastronomy, etc.

it is possible to do the google search with "-wikipedia" which removes most of
the mirrors from the google results. Also the script could automatically
filter mirrors, but nevertheless you are right that it is far easier to
consider new pages only.

Concerning the number of words: I found that in most cases 5-6 words in a row
are unique (of course there are exceptions). But if one website contains
three times the same combination of 5-6 words you can be sure that this is
not by chance. Of course a more detailed analysis still is needed, e.g. there
are public domain resources such as the Brockhaus 1911 etc.

A complete automatic analysis of copyright violations without too many false
positives is a difficult problem. On the other hand it might be sufficient to
improve the tools for the editors.

best regards,
  Marco


body:
On Monday 20 June 2005 23:18, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

> Well the first problem would be the limit the Google API has on
> requests per day, this is 1000 and if it would be used for the while
> site the requests would be alot more than  that.

I asked google for an extended key because my tool needs about 3000-4000
requests per day. After a short email explaining the reasons and asking for
7000 req/day I got an extensions within hours :-)

(7000 should be sufficient for checking the new articles for "en")

best regards,
  Marco


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia

body:
> Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
> been formed on Friday 17th 2005 in [[w:it:Canino|Canino]] by 18
> wikimedians (some photos are avalaible on
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Costituzione_dell%27Associazione_Wikimedia_Italia>).

Congratulations to everyone!
Is there in english/french (sorry, i don't speak italian) some
explanations on the goals, the relation to Wikimedia Foundation, and such?

> Frieda

Nicolas


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia


from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
 "no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> If adminship is meant to be no big deal, there are a number of things
> that should be changed, I think.
>
> * Rename adminship to "trusted users" and greatly relax the criteria
> for becoming a TU (certainly in terms of minimum number of edits,
> which is getting excessive)

I don't know how much the name matters, but the real criterion, as Erik
indicates, is *trust*. And I agree that the adminship process is
seriously afflicted with edit-counting disease.

> * Make all TU actions reversible, and possibly require quorums for some

Isn't reversibility already built into all admin privileges? (Image
deletion being an exception for technical reasons.)

Quorums are problematic because they require time to form, and part of
the reason we grant privileges is to help processes go more quickly.
Plenty of things that require admin attention are backlogged as it is.
And some situations really do call for swift action, with deliberation
to follow afterward.

It might be a very good idea, however, if some quorum was required to
repeat any admin action that got reversed. I don't know if it would be
possible to implement this by technical means, but I'd settle for it as
a social expectation.

> It's also a big deal because "administrator of Wikipedia" is a nice
> title. I think the name "bureaucrats" is very clever in comparison.

I didn't like it when chosen, but it's interesting to reconsider a
negative as perhaps having some positive effect after all.

> I believe that the way to make adminship "not a big deal" is to
> flatten the power structure of Wikipedia tecnically and socially and
> to atomize privileges.

Breaking up the various admin privileges into their component "atoms"
will not necessarily flatten the power structure. It can just as easily
encourage people to collect as many of the "atoms" as possible, and that
kind of attitude would reverse any flattening effect by creating new
ways to define the stratification of Wikipedia society. The art of
social engineering is filled with unintended consequences.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia

body:
On 20/06/05, Nicolas Weeger <nicolas.weeger at laposte.net> wrote:
> Congratulations to everyone!
> Is there in english/french (sorry, i don't speak italian) some
> explanations on the goals, the relation to Wikimedia Foundation, and such?

There is an English version of the bylaws at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/bylaws#English_version

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia


body:
Why not? It's only for 24 hours. The alternative would have been
leaving them to edit war on and on, to present certain users as being
above the rules, and to generally devalue the 3RR - this is exactly
what it's supposed to be used for.

Dan

On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Lame, yes.
>
> Worth blocking over?
>
> Erm. No.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Let me get this straight.

Today, the French Wikipedia replaced its official logo with a "logo"
made of a bunch of flowers, which you designed, which makes no mention
of Wikipedia at all, bears no resemblance to the regular logo, and which
commemorates the significant event of "the end of spring."

Shortly after announcing this important event on IRC, you unilaterally
remove the logo from the research pages (including [[m:Research]], which
is not associated with the Network), and then complain to the mailing
list about a voluntary association of individuals designing their own
logo for internal use.

Is that about right?

As I have explained before, the logo does *not* stand only for the
research network. It can be used by anyone in the context of Wikimedia
research. At least one individual has put it on their user page, and
Jakob Voss put it on the general research page. It does not mention the
network at all.

If the issue is that it incorporates parts of the Wikimedia logo design,
I'm willing to design a logo that doesn't do so. Everything else should
be up to the people working on this project.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal

body:
On 20/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not sure why you make such an overgeneralization, since Angela is
> apparently not very supportive of this proposal, I am supporting it to a
> fair extent, and Jimbo did not comment yet :-)

I'm not saying I don't support the proposal. I just have a lot of
questions about how it is going to work and I would like discussion
about those before agreeing to such a large change in the way we
handle donations.

Perhaps arranging a meeting with the grants committee would be a
better way to develop the proposal rather than trying to make any sort
of decision here based on Danny's initial suggestions?

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal


body:
On Monday 20 June 2005 23:03, Marco Krohn wrote:

> I have done something similar for the German Wikipedia:
>
> http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~krohn/wscan.html.utf8

There was just an example which shows the script in action:

  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~krohn/copyvio.png

shows that four parts of sentences have been checked ("Gepr?fte Satzteile").
The last line ("Fundstellen") tells us that (3) and (4) have been found on
the website

http://www.classical-composers.org/cgi-bin/ccd.cgi?comp=pierne_paul

If you compare this webpage with the new de.wikipedia article
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Piern?

you will see that both pages are indeed very similar:

WP:
"Er war Organist an St-Paul-St-Louis in Paris"

c-c.org:
"Er war Organist an St-Paul-St-Louis in Paris."

WP:
"komponierte er zwei Sinfonien, eine sinfonische Dichtung, ein Konzert f?r
Oboe, Cello und Orchester, kammermusikalische Werke, Klavier- und Orgelst?cke
sowie ein Messe, ein Oratorium und Chorwerke."

c-c.org:
"schrieb 2 Sinfonien, ein sinfonisches Gedicht, ein Konzert f?r Oboe, Cello
und Orchester, eine Messe, ein Oratorium, Chorwerke, Kammermusik, Klavier-
und Orgelst?cke, mehrere Ballette und 2 Opern."

"our" editor modified some words and changed the order of some, but
nevertheless the similarity is high enough to find this with a script. I do
not want to discuss whether this is a copyvio, but it is clear that the wp
user was probably "inspired" by the c-c.org web page ;-)

best regards,
  Marco


from_name: Guaka

body:
> I downloaded some of the "free dictionaries" on sourceforge.net, but
> they are in an own special format - they are coded and I cannot "see"
> the data in clear text format - that's why I myself really did not
> concentrate too much on this format.

Well, DICTs consist normally of a gzipped hypertext file together with
an index file that allows finding entries quickly. The freedict project
uses something like the TEI format, which is basically XML.

> Nokia is doing stuff in this direction ... I must see if I can find the
> link with the notes - these could be interesting as well. I mean: we
> have too many different formats ... that's not good.

Well, Nokia seems to have opted for free software for this new device
that'll be sold later this year.

> I believe THE format for dictionary information is TBX since it is
> nothing else than XML with fixed tags and this allows for easy data
> exchange.

I don't think there needs to be one format only. :) On Wikimedia servers
it will probably be MySQL, and then people should be able to download
the UW in a bunch of formats. On my mobile phone however, I wouldn't
want to lose too much space on XML tags or uncompressed text.

> I did not know you were in there. Maybe it is really time to talk about
> single facts - but maybe first offline. Make data easier available is
> part of what we are thinking about. The more we are and the more
> constructive are contributions the better we will be and the less effort
> will be necessary.

Hmmm... :) as a sidenote: wik2dict can now create Debian packages. It
would be cool if someone could offer server space and bandwidth to put
these up.

> Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
> OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
> here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)

I had never heard of CAT (Computer Aided Translation) or OmegaT (GPL'd
Java software). But I do now. :) Well, just inform the folks from
OmegaT. I guess they should be interested in getting this done.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Italia

body:
Nicolas Weeger a ?crit:
>> Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
>> been formed on Friday 17th 2005 in [[w:it:Canino|Canino]] by 18
>> wikimedians (some photos are avalaible on
>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Costituzione_dell%27Associazione_Wikimedia_Italia>).
>
>
> Congratulations to everyone!
> Is there in english/french (sorry, i don't speak italian) some
> explanations on the goals, the relation to Wikimedia Foundation, and such?
>
>> Frieda
>
>
> Nicolas

The relation to WMF is of the same type than the german verein.
They however inspired themselves from the french bylaws :)

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Italia


from_name: Fantasy

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiIT-l] Wikimedia Italia

body:
On 20/06/05, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
> been formed
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:13 Angela wrote:
> Well done to everyone who has worked on getting our third chapter started

I can just join Angela in congratulating and I would like to add that it was a
unique experience. I feel honored that I had the posibility to work so close
together with all this energetic and enthusiastic people.

To sum it up: Grazie dal quore a tutti,
Fantasy :-)

PS: I have to admit, that my view of "organised in an italian way" is changed
since this weekend ;-)


body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> Let me get this straight.
>
> Today, the French Wikipedia replaced its official logo with a "logo"
> made of a bunch of flowers, which you designed, which makes no mention
> of Wikipedia at all, bears no resemblance to the regular logo, and which
> commemorates the significant event of "the end of spring."
>
> Shortly after announcing this important event on IRC, you unilaterally
> remove the logo from the research pages (including [[m:Research]], which
> is not associated with the Network), and then complain to the mailing
> list about a voluntary association of individuals designing their own
> logo for internal use.
>
> Is that about right?

No.

First, it is *I* who changed the logo. Not the french wikipedia. Nor
notafish. Notafish was not online when it happened, nor aware this
change was planned.

The bunch of flowers notafish designed are flowers from her and I.
The central part of it is the very flower I offered to *you* during the
logo contest... and which is now the heart of the MediaWiki logo.

It is also the wikithanks stamp used on many projects, in some
signatures AND is the little recognition sign for Wikimania.

It does not celebrate only the last day of spring.

It celebrates wikilove. A gesture of friendship between two friends. A
gesture of peace between two ennemies. It comes jointly with an article
on civility.

It also represent the diversity (diversity of flowers from several
countries and two authors) as well as collaboration.

-------

Now, as for the second part of your comment, there is no relationship
between the french logo and the research team logo. And I might dare
remember this is not the first comment made against it. It was already
suggested this logo was possibly inappropriate just after you crafted it.

Please, do not spoil the wikilove of the french logo today, which is
opposed by no french whatsoever because many understand its
significance. These two things, our logo and your logo, have nothing in
common. And they should not be mixed.

Thanks.

Anthere


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal

body:
Angela a ?crit:
> On 20/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not sure why you make such an overgeneralization, since Angela is
>>apparently not very supportive of this proposal, I am supporting it to a
>>fair extent, and Jimbo did not comment yet :-)
>
>
> I'm not saying I don't support the proposal. I just have a lot of
> questions about how it is going to work and I would like discussion
> about those before agreeing to such a large change in the way we
> handle donations.
>
> Perhaps arranging a meeting with the grants committee would be a
> better way to develop the proposal rather than trying to make any sort
> of decision here based on Danny's initial suggestions?
>
> Angela.

I entirely agree with your view Angela. There are many good questions
raised. Perhaps a few more people could comment to have more arguments
and views in hand, then Danny could plan a meeting in the future to talk
more about this.

Afaik, the next fundraising is rather for september, so there is no
hurry ;-)

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Grants -- a proposal


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikitorials shutdown


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 23, Issue 68

body:
On 20/06/05, Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> Ever notice how many folks use [[Wikipedia]] wiki conventions such as
> [[double brackets]], ~~~~ for names, etc, in their e-mail messages to this
> board? :)

Ever notice how many people who opt to receive mailing lists in digest
form don't think to change the subject to something other than "Re:
<name of list> Digest, Vol <x>, Issue <y>", making it impossible for
anyone to tell what their message is about without looking at it? ;)

[Sorry, minor pet peeve]
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: blankfaze

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
On 6/20/05, Rhobite <rhobite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RickK has deleted his own talk page. I think it should be undeleted,
> and RickK should be de-sysop'ed.
>
> Rhobite
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Rho, that is the dumbest thing I've heard in this whole silly mess

--
! blankfaze
*the good times
are killing me*


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
>Hmmm... :) as a sidenote: wik2dict can now create Debian packages. It
>would be cool if someone could offer server space and bandwidth to put
>these up.
>
>
>
How much do you need? I have my own server and up to now I do not use
bandwidth and space completely - so it depends on how much it is.

It could be easily integrated in the translator's portal for download
(www.wesolveitnet.com) - there's already a download part or we cold use
a subdomain.

>>Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
>>OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
>>here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)
>>
>>
>
>I had never heard of CAT (Computer Aided Translation) or OmegaT (GPL'd
>Java software). But I do now. :) Well, just inform the folks from
>OmegaT. I guess they should be interested in getting this done.
>
>
>
>
>
Oh yes, they should be interested - I am in there as well (even if for
localisation issues)
;-)

One step after the other :-)

Ciao, Sabine

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


from_name: Andrew Venier

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>A stupid question, probably, but...
>
>Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing Wiktionary?
>
>
That's not clear to me, at least.  I think the whole discussion got off
on the wrong foot because of the strident tone in the article.  e.g.:

   "The current Wiktionaries will be converted to the Ultimate Wiktionary."

This can easily be understood to mean "Ultimate Wiktionary will replace
the current Wiktionaries."

I didn't know in any detail of UW plans before reading this article.
The way many such declarations were made, the message I got from the
article (and some of the follow-up discussion) was: "The relevant
decisions have already been made by those who matter.  This is a _fait
accompli_.  Now if everyone else would kindly step out of the way and
comply with what we have decided."


body:
Anthere:
> First, it is *I* who changed the logo. Not the french wikipedia. Nor
> notafish. Notafish was not online when it happened, nor aware this
> change was planned.

She seemed to be quite happy about it, though.

[#wikimedia 20.06.05 20:42:54] <notafish_> everybody to the French wikipedia
[#wikimedia 20.06.05 20:43:04] <notafish_> fr is celebrating the last
day of spring :)

> It celebrates wikilove. A gesture of friendship between two friends. A
> gesture of peace between two ennemies. It comes jointly with an article
> on civility.

The point is that it doesn't even contain the text "Wikipedia". To claim
that the Research logo increases confusion externally when you replace
the French Wikipedia one with a picture which has no meaning *outside*
the community is, well, problematic at least.

Erik


from_name: Roberto Frangi

body:
Fantasy wrote:

>On 20/06/05, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikimedia Italia, the italian chapter of Wikimedia Foundation, has
>>been formed
>>
>>
>On Monday 20 June 2005 18:13 Angela wrote:
>
>
>>Well done to everyone who has worked on getting our third chapter started
>>
>>
>
>I can just join Angela in congratulating and I would like to add that it was a
>unique experience. I feel honored that I had the posibility to work so close
>together with all this energetic and enthusiastic people.
>
>To sum it up: Grazie dal quore a tutti,
>Fantasy :-)
>
>PS: I have to admit, that my view of "organised in an italian way" is changed
>since this weekend ;-)
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Hell, Fantasy, you talk like a german ;)

Snowdog.


from_name: Rhobite

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
RickK has deleted his own talk page. I think it should be undeleted,
and RickK should be de-sysop'ed.

Rhobite


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 6/20/05, Jim Trodel <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation.
>>
>>
>
>Eh, Coolcat says he wrote the text and we have no reason to disbelieve
>him. He has exhibited substantial personal knowledge on matters
>related to Turkey in the past.
>
>
As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written
something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is
not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership.  CoolCat claimed that
text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution.  We
have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.

When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously
claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier
elsewhere?  That can't be right.


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla configuration

body:
On 6/19/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> >
> > First of all I'd like to remove the patch keyword
>
> I was the one that put it in originally. I copied the concept from
> LiveJournal: someone attaches a patch and sets the 'patch' keyword;
> other developers search for bugs with the 'patch' but not 'reviewed'
> keyword; they look at the patches, test them, make sure they work, make
> sure the code is clean and everything, and add the 'reviewed' keyword.
> Developers with CVS access look for 'patch'+'reviewed', commit the
> patches and set the bug to RESOLVED FIXED.
>
> I know I don't have much say in this anymore because I'm not as active
> as I used to be, but I would nevertheless prefer if the 'patch' keyword
> would stay (and MediaZillians would set it appropriately). There is no
> way to search for patches otherwise (see below).

Might a flag be better for the review part? from the bugzilla docs:

"""
Flags are markers that identify whether a bug or attachment has been
granted or denied some status. Flags appear in the UI as a name and a
status symbol ("+" for granted, "-" for denied, and "?" for statuses
requested by users).

For example, you might define a "review" status for users to request
review for their patches. When a patch writer requests review, the
string "review?" will appear in the attachment. When a patch reviewer
reviews the patch, either the string "review+" or the string "review-"
will appear in the patch, depending on whether the patch passed or
failed review.
"""


body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed,
>which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the
>potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of
>the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we
>understand it:
>
>"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24
>hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
>
>Emphasis on the "may" part.
>
>
Yes, I'm starting to wonder what happened to all the cheerleaders for
WP:IAR that showed up on Eequor's RFA...


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

body:
Hi,

There are several interesting proposals here which shouldn't be confused, even
if there are related. Earmarking a donation is something, finding new
financial resources for new projects and ideas is something else. I
understand that the former might be a problem for managing the funding in
some cases, although a possibily to express a support for a particular
project would be nice.

I am particularly interested about funding some languages not very active (or
not active at all) in Wikimedia projects upto now. I am thinking about
African and Asia languages such as Swahili, Pashto, Urdu, most Indian
languages, Burmese, Lao, Khmer, etc. There are possibilities to find new
financial resources in this area, both from persons and organisations, which
would not support the general cost of running Wikimedia projects. I think
that should be separate from funding for the general projects because it
might be seen as a way towards paying editors.

But even with funding it might not be so easy to find editors for these
languages. So far I only have three contacts who answered a mail about
writing Indian languages articles after some requests to the main Indian
universities. I think it better to find editors first, and then see if they
need some financial support.

Regards,
Yann

Le Sunday 19 June 2005 01:00, daniwo59 at aol.com a ?crit :
> Hello all,
> In this email, I would like to propose a few ideas for grants and
> money-raising, in order to get community feedback. The focus of this email
> will  be smaller grants and donations.

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject: [Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
Yes! Clearly desysopping him will fix everything!

-Snowspinner

On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Rhobite wrote:

> RickK has deleted his own talk page. I think it should be undeleted,
> and RickK should be de-sysop'ed.
>
> Rhobite
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia

body:
>
>Congratulations to all!
>I hope that we will have a fruitful collaboration.
>
>
>
Congratulations

I am afraid the Dutch wikimedia chapter is to bogged down and not moving
at the moment ;) To many Dutch people involved.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no
	big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
>> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
>> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
>> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
>> an encyclopedia, get over it already...
>
>Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed,
>which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the
>potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of
>the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we
>understand it:
>
>"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24
>hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
>
>Emphasis on the "may" part.
>
>For a good system of law you need pre-knowledge of the rules, fair
>application and an independent judiciary. The arbitration committee
>approaches these ideals, but enforcement of 3RR? Nowhere close, and
>it's causing lots of problems.
>
>-User:Fuzheado

Come on, now.  "May" indicates that the administrator had the option to block RickK for up to 24 hours.  An administrator used that option to do so.  (The very same who had in November 2004 awarded RickK the "Order of Canada" for "past work in defending our integrity".)

Certainly you cannot be upset that an administrator used his own independent judgement and chose to use the authority granted to him by the community at large in a way prescribed by formal policy?

Part of the more general problem I see here that causes this is that granting administratorship at Wikipedia is meant to be "no big deal", yet anything that even hints at removing such, even for an hour or two, is the seen as end of the world as we know it.  If granting administrator status truly is "no big deal", it shouldn't be that much less common to remove it, if only temporarily.  Instead, we have more and more policies and procedures that excuse and insulate administrators from the "no big deal" portion and say "forgive the administrator for being mean because you really were a jerk" or "don't worry about the administrator driving off new users because he's so good at catching vandals."

If we truly want to live up to the perception and ideal that adminship is "no big deal", it should be a matter of routine to revoke admin priviledges for a few hours for something as little as a single foul mouthed comment, even if provoked and egged on by peers.  If this is done, perhaps we will see less admins defending their actions at any cost, and more "shrugging it off" and proceeding with business.

For an example of an insulating policy, what's the point of getting another user to certify an RfC if it's only meant to be a request for <i>comments</i>?  To paraphrase a comment I posted earlier on WP, it's as if people think of it as two people ganging up on a third to administer a lashing.  It probably comes from being the first "formal" step of dispute resolution, but we should try to de-escalate the seriousness of RfC so we have a more basic forum for public commentary.

I didn't mean for this to be a rant, but I hope this is an appropriate place for such comments.  I also hope that anyone not interested will sell me an indulgence for the price of fifteen good edits as penance.

Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
It was just a suggestion, there is no need for you to act like a
child. I think blanking one's talk page is fine but deleting a record
of over 11,000 edits is not OK. RickK has been involved in Wikipedia
for years - his deletion destroys a good amount of notes, chat,
evidence, and information. If a normal user left, would we let them
speedy delete their own talk page? Not without discussion, at least.

Rhobite

On 6/21/05, blankfaze <blankfaze at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rho, that is the dumbest thing I've heard in this whole silly mess
>
> --
> ! blankfaze
> *the good times
> are killing me*


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Wiktionary mailing list admin needed

body:
A mail was sent to this list from the Wikimania OTRS account (I don't
know who from). This bounced back to me, since I get notified about
mails in the Wikimania queue, with the standard "your mail is being
held until the list moderator can review it for approval", so I went
to the Wiktionary queue to see whether it was still waiting, only to
find that there are so many pending mails there that it froze my
browser.

Fire is the only registered list admin for wiktionary-l, and hasn't
been active for some time, so we urgently need a new volunteer for
this role.

Is anyone willing to administer this list? It would basically involve
deleting lots of spam and letting through the occasional mail from
someone who was not a subscriber to the list (like the Wikimania one).
There are more details on this at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list_administration>.

Angela.


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>          [Interlingua]: ministro;  [Japanese]: ?? (????, daijin);

Will users of non-Roman scripts be able to see transliterations in
their own scripts, or will they have to be stuck with Roman?

> == [Dutch] ==
> minister ([n.]) 1. [A person commissioned by the government for public service.]
>          "Zware voet jaagt minister Anciaux uit de bocht."

Hopefully there's space for a translation of this example
in the user's language.

>  b) content between || double bars || is stored in the database, so
> that the two lists of translations for "minister (English, n., 2)"
> "minister (Dutch, n., 1)" are actually referencing the same list of
> database translations  [marked above by a double asterisk **]

What exactly is the translation table attaching to?  The definition
number? The auto-translating definition? or the individual language's
translation of the definition? If the English definition is improved
by someone, made more specific (and hopefully it would be) nothing
stops a Dutch editor from adding translations (in several languages
even) that relate only to the older definition that was faithfully
done into his language.  Also, the English editor mightn't even think
to check an added translation--does he know that the Dutch editor isn't
translating from the same definition?

> * All synonymous definitions would share a single list of
> translations, so that this list need not be pasted 100 times (and
> updated 100 times for each update).

Though all non-synonymous translations may have to be cut-and-pasted
as many times as necessary for whatever near-matches apply.  E.g. Span. "tu"
has to be given as the translation for the definition "second person pronoun"
(Eng "you"), for the definition "second person singular pronoun" (Lat. "tu"),
for the definition "second person singular familiar pronoun" (OldEng "??"),
for the definition "second person singular masculine pronoun" (Heb. attah),
for the definition "second person singular feminine pronoun" (Arab. anti),
for the definition "second person familiar masculine pronoun" etc...
Meanwhile "attah" can't go under the table for "second person singular
feminine pronoun", and so forth.

And that's just a word with concrete semantics.  When it comes to
something a little more fluid, like "street", say, it might be more
difficult.

> [1] There is a difficult question, which we are ignoring for now :
> just how precisely do all the translations of "minster (English, n.,
> 2)" have synonymous definitions?  When are two different words ever
> truly synonymous?  But that is a discussion for another month.

A minister is a special case. Nouns that refer to specific referents
are likely to have synonymous definitions, but they're relatively
rare; most words won't have ready one-word translations so easily. Try:
walk, run, saunter, dash, sashay, hurry, skip, mosey, gallop (varying
degrees of the same kind of action); die, expire, pass away, kick the
bucket, buy the farm (varying degrees of the formality of an action);...
sludge, slush, slime, mush, slurry... (various specific referents in the
same close semantic field) -- different languages will handle them all
differently (though possibly the common European languages will share
more gracefully than others).

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Request for selected parts of the user table to be
	included in the dumps.

body:
I found a way to export just that column which I think people will
find acceptable, and will still be useful for any statistic work:

$ mysql -u user --password=pass -D db -s -e "SELECT
concat(user_options,'==',user_options) FROM user" > user_options.dump

It would be great if someone with mysql access could do that and give
me the resulting file


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick

body:
> That doesn't invalidate what I said; most people who violate the 3RR are
> fairly new, and are warned.  Admin 3RR violations are few and far between.
>
> Jay.

These days it does seem to be mostly new users. In the past we had a
lot more reasonably experenced users getting blocked. Depending on how
cynical you are you can either conclude that people's behaviour is
improveing or that they are getting better at revert waring.

--
geni


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
And you are anticipating that the masses will flock to you, to
experience the glory of your oh-so-marvelous uw?

That seems a little over-optimistic.

I also worry that, at least in one way or another, UW will turn out to
be not quite as great as you had anticipated, and the currently
existing community structure will be in a shambles.

Mark

On 20/06/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >A stupid question, probably, but...
> >
> >Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing Wiktionary?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Hoi,
> There are no stupid questions. The UW is not to supplement but to
> replace existing the Wiktionaries. The Wiktionaries will be either
> disbanded by the community or they will be left by its users who will
> migrate to the Ultimate Wiktionary. What is the point of keeping a
> Wiktionary when its content is more effectively used in the UW ??
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> >Mark
> >
> >On 20/06/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Hmmm... :) as a sidenote: wik2dict can now create Debian packages. It
> >>>would be cool if someone could offer server space and bandwidth to put
> >>>these up.
> >>>
> >>ow much do you need? I have my own server and up to now I do not use
> >>bandwidth and space completely - so it depends on how much it is.
> >>
> >>It could be easily integrated in the translator's portal for download
> >>(www.wesolveitnet.com) - there's already a download part or we cold use
> >>a subdomain.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
> >>>>OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
> >>>>here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)
> >>>>
> >>> had never heard of CAT (Computer Aided Translation) or OmegaT (GPL'd
> >>>Java software). But I do now. :) Well, just inform the folks from
> >>>OmegaT. I guess they should be interested in getting this done.
> >>>
> >>Oh yes, they should be interested - I am in there as well (even if for
> >>localisation issues)
> >>;-)
> >>
> >>One step after the other :-)
> >>
> >>Ciao, Sabine
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Automatically checking for copyright violations

body:
In myself, much astonishment can be found. Tim, sources copyrighted
have been, by you, off-ripped.

"was clearly ripped off from" from
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=19265&DisplayTab=Article,
has, by you, been clearly plagiarised.

Unacceptability can be multitudinous in the plagiarism-like acts.

Easily can be spotted plagiarism, since obviously longer sequence than
4 words from some oddly-existing source must have been themselves
plagiarised.

On you shame I cast.

Mark

On 20/06/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
> > I've always held that anything over 5-6 words is plagiarism, unless it
> > is quoted. Quotations are fair use provided they are cited appropriately.
>
> Your unattributed quote "quotations are fair use" is plagiarism, and
> that is unacceptable. You should give Joseph Carter credit where it is
> due. He wrote "attributed quotations are fair use" in a post to
> debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/05/msg00001.html
> , and your post was clearly ripped off from that.
>
> Seriously though, I have seen a case where a Wikipedian slapped a
> copyvio tag on something because it shared some phrases with a webpage.
> The author complained that he had spent hours reading multiple sources,
> and rewriting the information therein in his own words. That is
> unequivocally acceptable under copyright law, and the tag was soon
> removed. There's no need to be paranoid. We should be careful not to
> accuse people of plagiarism who are merely paraphrasing or rewriting.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: aerik at thesylvans.com

subject:
[Wikitech-l] automatic checking for or flagging of copyright
	violations

body:
Wouldn't automatically checking edits against google searches add an awful big load to the servers?  Not only is it several thousand hits, but then also thousands more string comparisons?  Amd then we'd have event handling for any suspect edits...

On the other hand, making it easier to flag an article is very easy.  I love the idea of some links (at the bottom of the pages for example) that allow a casual browser (someone hesitant about clicking "edit this page") to flag an article.  I'd propose two, right off the bat:  "spam" and "copyright violation" (or maybe call it "plagiarism").  I'd propse just an automated widget to add that as a category to a page ([[Category:Flagged for Spam]] and [[Category:Flagged for Possible Copyright Violations]]).  I don't have it completely straight yet, but I'd suppose this would be a dummy form hidden in every page which one submits as an edit.

Of course, that creates a brand new role - some wikidpedians would have to step up to the plate to patrol this...

Best Regards,
Aerik


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
--- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots who just
> camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with authority.
> I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
> namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that admins should
> be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting really sick
> of this.

Then somebody will need to bring some cases against them to the ArbCom. If some
users are causing trouble and contributing very little to the main namespace,
then we should get rid of them. We need to ask this question of them: Does
having them around help us toward our primary goal of creating the best
encyclopedia possible? If not, then they are parasites/trolls that should be
shown the door.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
On 6/21/05, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I swear, this whole discussion is making me want to follow you out of
> Wikipedia.
>
> I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots who just
> camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with authority.
> I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
> namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that admins should
> be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting really sick
> of this.
>
> -- ambi
>

I hear you, ambi. Seems like each day this place and the people here make me
want to be here less and less. So much hostility, incompetence, malice...
It's not like it used to be, that's for sure.

--
! blankfaze
*the good times
are killing me*


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Anarchy and punishment (was: RickK leaving)

body:
Anarchy and punishment don't go well together, and I'm glad Ambi brought
them up.

Thanks to the US military, the world has the Internet. Okay, it would
have come about sooner or later, but the same fun-loving guys who
launched the GPS satellites funded much of the research: the Pentagon
deserves a little credit. A drop. A smidgen.

But due to the Internet's design criteria - notably, that it should keep
working despite nuclear war, and route around failure points
automatically - there is no central control, no government.

But many people have this "working model" of society, as well as
Internet collaboration : that THEY can each be the boss, the ruler, the
one who metes out punishments for all those who do not conform to their
standards. It's tempting; I know; I've succumbed many times to the Lure
of Authority. And I think Jimbo was very wise not to appoint me to the
arbcom - but to the Mediation Committee instead.

But I wish we would ALL stop it. Stop all these vendettas and
punishments and Lone Ranger campaigns to make the world over the way WE
ALONE know is right.

Let's find ways to cooperate together on this encyclopedia project.
Something other than anarchy, please. And don't let's set up a court
system either. There's got to be a better way.

Uncle Ed


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Validation status

body:
Magnus Manske (magnus.manske at web.de) [050621 00:41]:

> * I asked for help on this quite a while ago, several times, bu to no avail

Not being a programmer, I did do a beg for programmers on this one at least
:-)

- d.