subject: [Foundation-l] This is not an Advertisement

body:
On 29/12/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> If we are going to reach for a definition of what our community is, I do not think it would be
> hubris to say that it includes everybody who helps us toward our goal of making free content
> available to everybody in the world in a language they can understand. That would certainly
> include all editors but also includes everybody who donates or even those who spread the word
> about our projects and our goals. Extending that to all regular readers is not much of a leap
> since they are sharing in the proceeds of our goal and furthering it just by tuning in and giving
> our editors a practical reason to edit well.

I must say, it feels really good knowing my work is useful to others.
I repeat once more what a buzz it was seeing sentences I'd written in
[[:en:Xenu]] reused in literally every news report on Tom Cruise
around mid-2005 ...

One thing I've been doing when shilling for the fund drive is add "If
you want to give something back but haven't got money, you could give
photos or writing instead." I don't know if adding that to the fund
drive page would overly distract from the important message, i.e. that
we're on the bones of our arse and NEED MONEY NOW. One to consider
between fundraisers, perhaps.

- d.


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard


list: wikien-l

from_name: Silas Snider

subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

body:
Well, actually, if you look at WP:UNDEL, the policy actually states
that undeletions may be requested if you think Wikipedia would be
better off with the article than without it, which seems quite content
based to me. The page that is specified as the place to put undeletion
requests for all of the listed reasons is WP:DRV, so I think that DRV
is actually supposed to consider content-based reasons for undeletion.

Sincerely,
Silas Snider

On 12/29/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with
> content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
>
> xaosflux
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guy Chapman aka JzG" <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:14 AM
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken
>
>
> > We deleted
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
> > due to sourcing issues.  It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing
> > issues ever being addressed.  It was relisted and speedy kept.  It
> > still has sourcing issues.
> <snip> Guy (JzG)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


list: foundation-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Oldak Quill schreef:
> On 29/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I am happy to see that the Wikimedia Foundation has the decency to
>> publicly thank those who make a difference. And I think you should see
>> that too.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>
> The problems are not about accepting or publically thanking Virgin
> Unite, it was the way Virgin Unite was thanked. Some users were
> concerned by the way in which they were thanked. According to an
> earlier post (was it dannywo or Brad?) we were contractually obliged
> to thank them in this way.
Hoi,
I fail to find it from either. What I do find is that it is the WMF
decides what they accept or do not accept when it comes to conditions
coming with monetary contributions . Reading back it is easier for me to
understand that it is the WMF who decided to post the small logo than
that it was insisted upon by Virgin.

I think it is wholly appropriate to thank for such a substantial
contribution in this way.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] How do "deletionists" find articles to delete?

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> I think the problem is that, doing their level best in good faith to
> deal with the FIREHOSE OF CRAP, they get punch-drunk from repeatedly
> being hit over the head with the sum total of human stupidity and
> eventually scream "AIEEEE IT'S ALL CRAAAAP KILL IT ALL KILL IT WITH A
> STICK!!!"

The feeling is not entirely unknown to me.

> Which is probably not good.

Yeah, if nothing else, I doubt the neighbours appreciate the screaming.

> So A7 needs to be much less grey-area that it appears to be in
> practice. This will reduce stress for all.

I agree.

-Gurch


subject: [Foundation-l] wikigogy.org

body:
Seen this? Saw it in a Google ad:

   http://wikigogy.org/Wikigogy

A wiki for teachers of English as a second or foreign language. CC-by-sa 2.5.

Any crossover with the planned teaching aid aspects of our projects?
Pity about the licence incompatibility.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] wikigogy.org


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

references:
<20061219152803.35269.qmail@web50915.mail.yahoo.com>
	<45951283.900@myrealbox.com>
	<b8jap2duh4hadqauhn72f6q3hrunvjupvj@4ax.com>

body:
On Friday 29 December 2006 11:15, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:05:07 +0000, Steve Block
>
> <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >Have to say
> >I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we
> >allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them?
>
> Because not all of them are trolls and POV pushers, some of them are
> clueless newbies.

And others are people who honestly (and possibly correctly) believe that they
were in the right.

--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVN: [18598] trunk/phase3/includes

body:
On 12/29/06, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking at gmail.com> wrote:
> simetrical at svn.wikimedia.org schrieb:
> > Revision: 18598
> > Author:   simetrical
> > Date:     2006-12-26 15:53:34 -0800 (Tue, 26 Dec 2006)
> >
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > (bug 7169) Use Ajax to watch/unwatch articles.  Patch by Dan Li with some modification by me.
>
>
> Should/Could/Will we activate this feature at WMF sites?

Brion wants some changes made first.  Maybe next week.


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
Hi all,

I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
reverted.

How does this sound?


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
James Hare wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
> the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
> of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
> order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
> If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
> stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> reverted.

There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why
require a reason for removal?

Also, it doesn't *have* to go to AfD.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
But it usually does, no?

On 12/29/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and
> then
> > the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the
> author
> > of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think
> that in
> > order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> > acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be
> PRODed.
> > If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> > there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if
> the
> > stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> > reverted.
>
> There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why
> require a reason for removal?
>
> Also, it doesn't *have* to go to AfD.
>
> -Jeff
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>         Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>         - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
James Hare wrote:
> But it usually does, no?

I'd say my experience has been about half and half.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
Steve Block wrote:
> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>
>> There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why
>> require a reason for removal?
>
>
> We do require a reason for prodding.

I'm currently seeing 8 on WP:PRODSUM with no reason given.  This is
admittedly lower than what I usually see during semi-daily patrols.

Should I simply remove them?

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] wikigogy.org

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seen this? Saw it in a Google ad:
>
>    http://wikigogy.org/Wikigogy
>
> A wiki for teachers of English as a second or foreign language. CC-by-sa 2.5.

Yes. I pointed out Wikiversity to them at
http://wikigogy.org/Talk:Main_page but they weren't interested in
co-operating.

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] wikigogy.org


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:21:31 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 28/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Every single thing you've said here is a reason not to act. Are you content
>>> with the way things are now as pertains to User Pages?
>>>
>>>
>> I am, actually. Mostly they're a very good indicator of what someone
>> is like *and* how seriously to take their contributions. Red-link user
>> page is one step above anonymous. Etc.
>>
>> I could do with a few zillion less userboxes, but even those are
>> helpful, e.g. someone with 200 userboxes is probably a step or two
>> below anonymous.
>>
> I agree.  How something is said on a user page can be more important
> than what is said.  A handful of user boxes that don't require scrolling
> to see them all can have a much higher impact.
>
> A study of the psychology of user pages could be fascinating.
>
> Ec

Ec,

Don't tempt me. :-)

Marc Riddell
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise
object to deletion of the article for any reason."

When people opt for the latter, what I'm proposing is that they must offer a
reason that makes sense or they can be reverted.

On 12/29/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?
> >
> >
> > Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing
> > it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.
> >
> > (Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to
> > address the issue as best you can.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> Okay, I kind of get the justification part.  But I was under the
> assumption that one actually has to work on the page if they want to
> take the tag off.  A tag says:
>
> > You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you
> otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.
>
> The former hadn't been done.
>
> --Ryan
>
> --
> [[en:User:Merovingian]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 29/12/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Okay. And sure you know how to get in contact with the whole
> > community?
>
> So a report from a certain portion might be useful ;) I would like to
> introduce another view we find on the community, I mean, a community
> of a certain language speakers as a part of the whole Wikipedia
> community; Japanese editors.
>
> I have seen no complaint, no grudges anywhere as far as I know - on
> Village pump, mailinglist   and some external usergroups. (I haven't
> access irc recently, but perhaps there was no reaction).

Lots of reaction on IRC, from which it seemed the biggest backlash was
in it.wp and nl.wp, both of whom had some very vocal people coming by.

The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking
advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian
equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke -
http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of
the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran
news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and
float on the NASDAQ ;-)

> Some was
> impressed by the generocity of Virgin and it is perhaps an exceptional
> reaction; It is obvious most of editors on the Japanese projects
> simply did not care for it. They have been fascinated in their daily
> concerns instead - editwar, disputes, votes and of course, editing
> articles.

enwp was broadly the same. Some noise kicked up by people discussing
it freely and frankly, and a number who Didn't Like It One Bit, but
not really much above the usual level we have of people Very Upset
Over Something. Certainly no repeated editwarring to remove the
sitenotice, attempts to disrupt it in other ways, or having it occupy
the attentions of the entire project...

As to the "broader community", our readers - as of last night, when I
checked OTRS, I couldn't find a single complaint about it. I'm welcome
to corrections from anyone who talked to someone, but keyword
searching drew a total blank in the day's mail. And given the random
things that cause some of our readers to write and complain*, I think
that's a pretty good figure.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

* Imagine our sillier deletion/pagename disputes, just even weirder


list: commons-l

from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] UI design on image pages

body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it technically possible to include a blank {{information}} template on
> > the image description page for new uploads? Or maybe redesign the upload
> > page to have several input fields corresponding to the template rather
> > than one single free-form box as now? Would this require a hack to
> > MediaWiki?
>
>
> Not sure. cc: to wikitech-l for opinions. (Did the German UI review
> cover Image: pages?)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
It is technically possible to select a license from a dropdown box and
then have it added to the image description page, so I would say yes.

Bryan


body:
On 29/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking
> advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian
> equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke -
> http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of
> the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran
> news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and
> float on the NASDAQ ;-)

Darnit, outdone! /me rushes off to steal the story for UnNews

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 29/12/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have been subscribed to this list for about a year and read (or
> skim) everything which passes through it. There has not, before a
> couple of days ago, been an explicit mention of the agreement with
> Virgin Unite.

Yeah, Virgin was first named specifically a couple of days ago.
Skimming back through the list (hurrah for gmail search), Brad
confirmed there were "two corporations" (then unnamed) on the 15th,
though people's attention was taken by how to handle the "anonymous"
chap in the sitenotice. Erik told us from the Board that matching
gifts were "probable" on the 12th, and the idea was originally put out
and kicked around by JamesF on November 8th.

But there was little response to these. On the 15th, no-one said
"wait, we're thanking the anonymous guy in sitenotice, what are we
going to do about thanking the corporations?" When the idea was
originally discussed, JamesF made a comment that a logo *might* be
excessive - no-one really picked up on it, though in retrospect the
tone of that discussion wanted something more muted than we got.

The problem is, we're applying an ex-post-facto standard. We want to
be told, well in advance, of "sensitive" decisions. But if you go back
and look through the foundation-l archives, this doesn't seem that
contentious - we all just let it slide when it was brought up, or
didn't realise the implications of what was being talked about.
Looking at it *without* the benefit of hindsight, the makeup of the
sitenotice doesn't seem particularly sensitive at all. Do we want
every decision the Foundation makes to be laid wide open for approval?

Yeah, we'll need to do better next time - we know this is contentious
now, and I am sure that'll be reflected in the next fundraiser. But I
think it's worth remembering that there were good reasons that people
could simply not have realised it would be contentious, even with the
community (well, foundation-l) informed of the outline of what was
going on, and that if we just rely on a "well, the community need to
know about things that will be contentious" the same sort of problem
is likely to return and bite us, no matter how hard we try.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement

body:
On 29/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looking at it *without* the benefit of hindsight, the makeup of the
> sitenotice doesn't seem particularly sensitive at all. Do we want
> every decision the Foundation makes to be laid wide open for approval?

Sorry, that should have read "to be held up waiting for general approval?"

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Foundation-l] Advertisement


subject: [Foundation-l] SpecialTranslate extention for the Incubator ..

body:
Hoi,
In the past I have urged for a better support for the translators who
work on the localisation of MediaWiki. I expressed that in BetaWiki we
have an environment where it is much easier for translators to work. It
does not require expert knowledge about thinks like Subversion and
Bugzilla. One added benefit is that many people can work on the
localisation of MediaWiki for the same language making it very much more
a Wiki approach.

I have asked Nikerabbit, who has been hosting the BetaWiki wiki, if it
were possible to make changes to the MediaWiki software available in an
extension. He has done so, and Brion permitting it can be implemented
elsewhere.

The reason for the extended list of recipients of this mail is, that in
my opinion the best place to concentrate the "SpecialTranslate"
extension is the Incubator. The reason is that when a project is being
prepared for a full project status, the localisation is very much part
of this preparation. With the localisation being part of the incubation,
the work done will be preserved when it moves from incubation to
production. Also it provides instant gratification while it is still in
the incubator stage.

For the other projects, it is as good a place as any. Having it in
Incubator concentrates the localisation effort and for the benefits this
provides I would propose to do all the localisation using the
SpecialTranslate in Incubator.

Finally I want to thank Nikerabbit both for hosting BetaWiki and for
modifying the software so that we can have it as part of a WMF project.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Wikitech-l] SpecialTranslate extention for the Incubator ..


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Matthew Brown wrote:
> > On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all
> >> the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all
> >> the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't.
> >
> > For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive
> > claim that can be sourced.  Stating that all of them have something in
> > common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO.
> >
> > A database search like that described is different; it's not
> > definitive and not a single source that can be cited.  It's headed
> > into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive;
> > there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be
> > exhaustive and complete.
> >
>
> Funny you discuss this.  At
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Allderdice_High_School&oldid=96979271
> I've got someone asserting in the article that "a search of WorldCat
> reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than
> sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on
> microfilm in a major library."  I agree this is original research, but
> can't find anyone to back me up. Fancy popping your head in and
> discussing the point?

And here we hit the problem with limited original research - bad
interpretation. He's shown that "fewer than sixty high schools in the
world are known to have...", not that "fewer than sixty high schools
in the world have..." It's based on a false premise - that WorldCat is
some kind of "grand global catalogue", which it isn't; it doesn't
claim to be comprehensive, just large.

Looking in further detail, he's also demonstrated it only for cases
where the originating body is called (and catalogued as) "XYZ High
School", and has made no attempt to figure out how many of the 56 hits
are actually in "major libraries" rather than, say, a microfiche copy
acquired by the local public library. It doesn't apply in cases where
the journal is catalogued with the school as an author rather than a
corporate author (technically wrong, but does happen, and if there's
one thing you won't get in WorldCat it'll be consistent cataloguing).
So it's not even automatically a comprehensive or accurate listing of
what he intended to be looking for...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Michiel Bontenbal

subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!

body:
Being bold has always been an guiding principle in Wikimedia projects.
Starting from scratch, we've come a very long way by believing in what we
thought was possible. We made possible what seemed impossible, just by
simply doing it.

Many in the board seem to believe that a Wikipedia without showing sponsor's
logo's is impossible. I don't believe that. I think a Wikipedia without
sponsor's logo's is possible, as it has been in the past.

I would like to ask the Board to boldly believe in the future. Don't give in
to demands from sponsors or donors, don't give in to the principle of
independence, not just a tiny little bit.

Please live up to that guiding principle of being bold!

Best regards,

Michiel Bontenbal
(nl:Gebruiker:Bontenbal<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Bontenbal>
)


subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!


from_name: Bruno Martelli

body:
Hi everyone.

I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
like to explain that below.

His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
day".

1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
magazines, etc.

2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
all parameters: the adv is tiny on
each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
people.

3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
that.

4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
"no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
(was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
"inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
the same.

5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
in good health.

A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
license is simply magic.

That's all.
  best,

 Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons

body:
On 29/12/06, Patrick-Emil Z?rner <paddyez at yahoo.de> wrote:
> I am quite appalled about how things have a nasty tendency to a nasty
> outcome on commons. M?nchen is being moved to Munich, Praha is moved
> to Prague,... and all on a specious kind of based argumentation. I
> know how the cities are called. I have seen the traffic signs! The
> cities are actually called M?nchen, Praha,...
>
> I read e.g. that [M?nchen, Germany] would look silly. Yes it does.
> That is why it should have been [M?nchen, Deutschland] in the first
> place with the redirect being [Munich, Germany] or even a
> disambiguation on [Munich] as it already is on the en-WP. What was
> clear to many people in the beginnig of commons now gets overthrown
> and people keenly start their bots.
>
> Moreover I do not mind having [東京] as log as there is a
> redirect on [Tokyo], [Tokio] etc.
>
> As far as I remember commons was planed for all projects to coexist
> but not to assimilate them until a bad english gets the upper hand.
>
> I am appalled about this and do not know if I carry on in this pile of
> shards.
>
> disappointed greetings
>
> paddy

Was there a concensus on this or are individuals doing it off their
own back? If it is the latter, I suggest we begin moving the article's
back to their rightful names.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I've been doing when shilling for the fund drive is add "If
> you want to give something back but haven't got money, you could give
> photos or writing instead." I don't know if adding that to the fund
> drive page would overly distract from the important message, i.e. that
> we're on the bones of our arse and NEED MONEY NOW. One to consider
> between fundraisers, perhaps.

I know the money is important, but it'd be nice to express it
differently: "If you want to give something back but don't have the
time to edit, please contribute a small financial donation instead."

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Patrick-Emil Zörner

body:
I am quite appalled about how things have a nasty tendency to a nasty
outcome on commons. M?nchen is being moved to Munich, Praha is moved
to Prague,... and all on a specious kind of based argumentation. I
know how the cities are called. I have seen the traffic signs! The
cities are actually called M?nchen, Praha,...

I read e.g. that [M?nchen, Germany] would look silly. Yes it does.
That is why it should have been [M?nchen, Deutschland] in the first
place with the redirect being [Munich, Germany] or even a
disambiguation on [Munich] as it already is on the en-WP. What was
clear to many people in the beginnig of commons now gets overthrown
and people keenly start their bots.

Moreover I do not mind having [東京] as log as there is a
redirect on [Tokyo], [Tokio] etc.

As far as I remember commons was planed for all projects to coexist
but not to assimilate them until a bad english gets the upper hand.

I am appalled about this and do not know if I carry on in this pile of
shards.

disappointed greetings

paddy

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verf?gt ?ber einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!

body:
Michiel Bontenbal wrote:
> Being bold has always been an guiding principle in Wikimedia projects.
> Starting from scratch, we've come a very long way by believing in what we
> thought was possible. We made possible what seemed impossible, just by
> simply doing it.
>
> Many in the board seem to believe that a Wikipedia without showing sponsor's
> logo's is impossible. I don't believe that. I think a Wikipedia without
> sponsor's logo's is possible, as it has been in the past.
>
> I would like to ask the Board to boldly believe in the future. Don't give in
> to demands from sponsors or donors, don't give in to the principle of
> independence, not just a tiny little bit.
>
> Please live up to that guiding principle of being bold!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michiel Bontenbal
> (nl:Gebruiker:Bontenbal<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Bontenbal>

One may argue that the board was precisely being *bold* in setting up
matching donations...


subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

body:
Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with
content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Chapman aka JzG" <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:14 AM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

> We deleted
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
> due to sourcing issues.  It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing
> issues ever being addressed.  It was relisted and speedy kept.  It
> still has sourcing issues.
<snip> Guy (JzG)


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!

body:
On 12/29/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Michiel Bontenbal <wikipedia.bontenbal at gmail.com wrote:
> > Don't give in to demands from sponsors or donors, don't give in to the
> > principle of independence, not just a tiny little bit.
>
> We should also not give in to dogma, or to those who shout the loudest
> and complain the longest, for that is not democracy. We should
> continue to have a reasoned debate about the best fundraising
> strategies, and consult and involve the community in this process as
> much as possible.
>
Absolutely.  And I have to say I really don't have a good sense of
what the community feels about the Virgin Unite matching donation and
acknowledgement.  There are certainly some people who feel strongly
against it, and some people who don't mind it at all.  Personally I
think it's slightly annoying, but I thought the sitenotice was
annoying even before the mention of Virgin Unite.

I also don't have a really good sense of how necessary the matching
funds were.  It seems to me that the funds already raised already far
exceed what's needed to keep the site running, but at least two
employees of the foundation have implied (or maybe it was outright
disputed) otherwise.

Those of you on the board have a fun time ahead trying to read the
reaction of the community.  Hopefully you can read it better than I -
you probably can as that's part of the reason you were elected.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Be bold!


from_name: Aphaia

body:
On 12/29/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. And sure you know how to get in contact with the whole
> community?

So a report from a certain portion might be useful ;) I would like to
introduce another view we find on the community, I mean, a community
of a certain language speakers as a part of the whole Wikipedia
community; Japanese editors.

I have seen no complaint, no grudges anywhere as far as I know - on
Village pump, mailinglist   and some external usergroups. (I haven't
access irc recently, but perhaps there was no reaction). Some was
impressed by the generocity of Virgin and it is perhaps an exceptional
reaction; It is obvious most of editors on the Japanese projects
simply did not care for it. They have been fascinated in their daily
concerns instead - editwar, disputes, votes and of course, editing
articles.

What we as editors' community pursue here and now on the project is
both sustainability and neutrality in my opinion, and I cannot think
one time donation and one time expression of gratitude hurt the
neutrality.  If we were asked to make a favor to donors on our
content, it were a serious damage, but here and now I haven't seen
such threatening.

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Foundation-l] Attempt at a compromise (Re: Advertising)

body:
How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
donates $200K.

Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.

You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
just because you're richer.

On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'd like is a link to a list of donors, and big sponsors like Mr.
> Anonymo and Virgin Unite can be listed by the top then following that is a
> generic list of the other donors. I also like how there's a thank-you letter
> on the WMF wiki for Virgin Unite.
>
> On 12/29/06, Tom Holden <thomas.holden at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
> > ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
> > to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
> > for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
> > threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
> > has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
> > tone.
> >
> > Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
> > solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
> > Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
> > that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
> > seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
> > gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
> > dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
> >
> > Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
> > end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
> > together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
> > in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
> > benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
> > increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
> > Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
> > like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
> > Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
> > wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
> > discussion a significant time before the event.
> >
> > It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
> > a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
> > capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
> > distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
> > the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
> > mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
> > mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
> > arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
> > in the past.
> >
> > Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
> > just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
> > thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
> > has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
> > with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
> > not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
> > to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
> > day long thank you notice?
> >
> > In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
> > something like the following:
> > "All donations today will be matched by a
> > (corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
> > them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
> >
> > I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
> > ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
> > us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
> >
> > As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
> > continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
> > organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
> > charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
> > one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
> > the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
> > accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
> >
> > Yours in peace,
> >
> > Tom Holden
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
So does Wikipedia.

On 12/29/06, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> You missed Brion's point. It doesn't matter if it's actually an ad.
>
> Besides, your definition of ad labels almost all forms of sponsorship
> and underwriting "advertising."
>
> Bruno Martelli wrote:
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > I have read Brion Vibber's long message yesterday. I appreciated the
> > frankness of the message: however, I have a different opinion, and I would
> > like to explain that below.
> >
> > His analysis could maybe (roughly) summarized as follows: "we need the
> > money, we really need it, we understand that a little adv is annoying, but
> > it's really tiny, it's not exactly advertising, and it's only for one
> > day".
> >
> > 1) A company pays and gets some webspace with its name and
> > hopefully a logo in it. This is proper 100% advertising. The same one
> > which every big company does every day all over the world on TV, web,
> > magazines, etc.
> >
> > 2) The icon is thin, should we deduce that the advertising is just
> > tiny and harmless? When measuring the impact of it, one should look at
> > all parameters: the adv is tiny on
> > each page, little in time (1 day), but really enormous in number
> > of web pages (some millions: every page on every project!). Summing all
> > up, it is a huge advertising campaign, reaching many thousands of
> > people.
> >
> > 3) Reaching many thousands of people (editors and readers) with a little
> > annoying message. That is what it is, concretely. There is a name for
> > things like that, which everyone knows and detests: it's "spam". Don't we
> > all detest spam? I think so, there should be no need of discussion about
> > that.
> >
> > 4) For this simple reason I disagree with the choice of the WMF of putting
> > name and logo of a donating company on each page. We editors do our little
> > constant work everyday against self-promotion on the encyclopedia. We say
> > "no" to unknown artists, tourist agencies, little companies who simply try
> > to write few lines about themselves on a single page. Recently, a message
> > (was it from the WMF?) was written in order to wake the troops: "we
> > are losing the battle against self-promotion!". In the meanwhile, we see
> > a big company spammed *everywhere*... One could argue that promotion
> > "inside" the encyclopedia is different from "outside", but the web page is
> > the same.
> >
> > 5) We need the money. Ok, but how much? Of course I have no idea of the
> > answer. My humble opinion is however that we shouldn't spread names and
> > logos all over the encyclopedia. Donations from big companies have to
> > be encouraged, but they should be thanked in a single appropriate page,
> > not in the main namespace. Of course we will get less money from each of
> > them, but we could stress this fact when asking for funds: "following our
> > policies, we have no ads: please be generous". Some very well known NG
> > Organizations apply this policy since years, and they are still alive and
> > in good health.
> >
> > A thing is maybe worth saying to avoid misunderstandings. I know
> > what the GFDL says, I am not by far "anti-commercial" or whatever like. I
> > am happy that more people earn some money thanks to our work: this kind of
> > license is simply magic.
> >
> > That's all.
> >   best,
> >
> >  Bruno Martelli AKA Ylebru (from it:wiki)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:17:11 +0000, Steve Block
<steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Wikipedia isn't the place for them to report that.
>  We aren't a place for original research

Reporting the key signature of a score is not really OR, though.  It's
a trivial fact verified from a reliable source.  If there are
absolutely no secondary sources about the piece at all, then of course
we can't have an article, but if they exist and simply forget to
mention the key signature then there is no real problem reporting it
since any editor *can* cross-check it without specialist knowledge
(albeit with additional work).

Translating Mozart's comments to Leutgeb based on the original scores
of the horn concerti would be OR, though - they are virtually
unreadable :-)

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


body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking
> > > advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian
> > > equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke -
> > > http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of
> > > the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran
> > > news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and
> > > float on the NASDAQ ;-)
>
> > Darnit, outdone! /me rushes off to steal the story for UnNews
>
>
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing
>
That's hilarious.


body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:59:14 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think the problem is that, doing their level best in good faith to
>deal with the FIREHOSE OF CRAP, they get punch-drunk from repeatedly
>being hit over the head with the sum total of human stupidity and
>eventually scream "AIEEEE IT'S ALL CRAAAAP KILL IT ALL KILL IT WITH A
>STICK!!!"

One of the best and most persuasive statements of both the problem and
the reason it can't be easily solved :-)

This is why I only do CAT:CSD every now and then.  You get very
cynical very quickly.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

references:
<7267p2php71rri38m6etjr7sbhsd7fk1av@4ax.com>
	<4593C6BA.6030102@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<j4q7p2huovhq4jft1p1insbnvflft1q2uc@4ax.com>
	<4593E99E.2080500@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<42f90dc00612290435k5ac5cb31pc9f9bb07641d2641@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:35:44 -0800, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'd guess a good plan to source such a list would be to find an
>authoritative source - e.g. a trade journal - listing publications
>that cater to this market.  One could then define the list as being
>'models who have appeared in publications classified as 'big bust' in
>Adult Industry Journal', or something like that.  Of course,
>equivalents would have to be found in other worldwide markets, but I
>would imagine that similar things can be found elsewhere.

That would be perfectly acceptable.  What we had was a group of
editors getting together to decide that these women had big tits,
then, on being challenged, deciding on an arbitrary definition of big
based on what they thought was big, and then using the invariably
unreliable self-reported data from the women themselves to judge
inclusion.  That is problematic on many levels.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:05:07 +0000, Steve Block
<steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Have to say
>I find the whole advocacy process a bloody farce too, why on earth do we
>allow trolls and pov pushers to have people speak for them?

Because not all of them are trolls and POV pushers, some of them are
clueless newbies.  And the advocates should be able to tell the
difference.  Yes, Pat, that means you.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] More drama

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:21:44 +1100, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>In any case, if you're nominating a
>page for deletion because you don't like the name, shame on you...

No, I identified three problems, all unresolved for two months - and I
didn't nominate it, either.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] oh no, not again

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:10:39 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E

Best way forward, IMO.  It's a troll's charter.

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


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Oldak Quill schreef:
> On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One thing I've been doing when shilling for the fund drive is add "If
>> you want to give something back but haven't got money, you could give
>> photos or writing instead." I don't know if adding that to the fund
>> drive page would overly distract from the important message, i.e. that
>> we're on the bones of our arse and NEED MONEY NOW. One to consider
>> between fundraisers, perhaps.
>>
>
> I know the money is important, but it'd be nice to express it
> differently: "If you want to give something back but don't have the
> time to edit, please contribute a small financial donation instead."
Hoi,
Think big.. "please contribute a financial donation instead."
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Virgin United creates article for Virgin Unite

body:
On 12/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for
> any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does
> or fails to do.  Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can
> simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to
> delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without
> allowing debate, for engaging in too much time-wasting debate instead
> of useful action, for being too fascistic, for being too anarchistic,
> for being too highbrow, too lowbrow, too middlebrow, too left-wing,
> too right-wing, too pro-American, too anti-American, too academic,
> too anti-academic, too pop-cultural, too anti-pop-cultural; for
> airing too much dirty laundry in public, for trying to shove its
> flaws under the carpet; because it's an unstoppable juggernaut,
> because it's an unstable mess that's about to collapse; it's
> capitalist, it's communist; Jimbo screws it up by exercising his
> personal whims, Jimbo is a do-nothing figurehead who refuses to act
> at all; critics get harrassed, critics get ignored; people get banned
> unfairly, people don't get banned who deserve it; its mailing lists
> and IRC rooms have nothing but idle, pointless, off-topic chitchat;
> its mailing lists and IRC rooms are where all the important policy
> decisions get made to the exclusion of people who participate on the
> actual Wikipedia discussion pages.

This should be on a plaque somewhere.

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


from_name: cohesion

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFC

body:
On 12/28/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not always true. Cluey people sometimes add a section like this to the
> talk page:
>
> ==Request for comment==
> I've posted a request for comment. The issue is [...]. Those who
> believe that [...]. The opposing argument is [...]. RFC'ers place your
> comments here:
> *...
>
> Steve

Yes, I love when people do that :)

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
>>
>
> Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for
> any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does
> or fails to do.
Wikipedia Review is like a club of kids who all got expelled from a US
high school (which is difficult, you have to really be a screwup), and
then get together to complain about it. Even real-life expellees have
the sense to shut up and go on to their career in crime or whatever :-)
; at Wikipedia Review they're too pathetic even to get on with their lives.

Stan


from_name: Tom Holden

body:
I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
tone.

Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.

Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
discussion a significant time before the event.

It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
in the past.

Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
day long thank you notice?

In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
something like the following:
"All donations today will be matched by a
(corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."

I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.

As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.

Yours in peace,

Tom Holden


from_name: Josh Gordon

body:
It reminds me a lot of the almost identical bash-everything-possible
forums that popped up a little while after eBay starting getting big.
20 people with big mouths somehow think their volume trumps 20,000
people who aren't in the room.

On 12/29/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> > On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
> >>
> >
> > Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for
> > any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does
> > or fails to do.
> Wikipedia Review is like a club of kids who all got expelled from a US
> high school (which is difficult, you have to really be a screwup), and
> then get together to complain about it. Even real-life expellees have
> the sense to shut up and go on to their career in crime or whatever :-)
> ; at Wikipedia Review they're too pathetic even to get on with their lives.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--jpgordon ????


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:18:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>>No, I don't think it does - or if it does it's not relevant.  We will
>>allow sources of varying degrees of reliability as long as overall
>>there are one or two really solid sources for the core premise of the
>>article (because, unlike academic papers, we don't allow original
>>research).  But as long as the subject itself is fundamentally
>>supported by good, credible sources, it's not necessary to cite
>>Britannica for every trivial fact.

>Where I have difficulty is in finding that this view still rests on a
>number of highly subjective notions:  "reliability", "really solid",
>"good, credible", "trivial".  ven leaving aside "original research" and
>how we view that there is still a wide gap in how we understand these
>subjective terms.  If I use the academic paper as a reference point it's
>considerably more than what we might find in popular publications, and
>noticeably less than what is wanted by those who view each article as an
>isolated whole that strives for independence from the rest of the
>encyclopedia.

I'd say that the subjectivity was largely illusory.  There would, I
think, be little dissent form the view that Nature is a solid reliable
source, and equally little dissent from the idea that a political
extremist's blog is a bad source on which to base an article.

Nor would there be much dissent form the notion that contentious ideas
require robust secondary sources and attribution to known authorities,
whereas small and uncontentious ideas can often be sourced from
primary sources.  Compare and contrast: X is a blonde; X is a
*natural* blonde.

Everything must be stated form the neutral point of view.  If there
are no secondary sources, how can we check that?  So it's fair to
require that we can verify the overall article from reputable sources,
and equally fair that minor elements within that article might be
sourced from the International Journal of Everybody Knows That.  Which
is, of course, not infallible, so is open to challenge.

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


body:
Ah, but there are more of the first guys.

On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
> > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > donates $200K.
> > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.
> > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > just because you're richer.
>
>
> That idea has some heartwarming qualities, but it doesn't get us more
> of the cash. Because the second guy gave us more *we* can use than the
> first did. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 12/29/06, Teun Spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds very socialist and even more impractical.

I don't think you understand socialism very well.

> Give anyone with a gift > 100.000$ a sitenotice of 1 day. If our costs have
> doubles, double the amount to get a sitenotice mention. It doesnt hurt to
> thank our friends. But we should communicate clearly, timely and in an open
> mind with the community. That communication lacked.
>
> teun
>
> On 12/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
> > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > donates $200K.
> >
> > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the
> > idea.
> >
> > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > just because you're richer.
> >
> > On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I'd like is a link to a list of donors, and big sponsors like Mr.
> > > Anonymo and Virgin Unite can be listed by the top then following that is
> > a
> > > generic list of the other donors. I also like how there's a thank-you
> > letter
> > > on the WMF wiki for Virgin Unite.
> > >
> > > On 12/29/06, Tom Holden <thomas.holden at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
> > > > ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
> > > > to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
> > > > for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
> > > > threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
> > > > has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
> > > > tone.
> > > >
> > > > Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
> > > > solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
> > > > Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
> > > > that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
> > > > seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
> > > > gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
> > > > dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
> > > >
> > > > Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
> > > > end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
> > > > together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
> > > > in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
> > > > benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
> > > > increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
> > > > Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
> > > > like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
> > > > Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
> > > > wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
> > > > discussion a significant time before the event.
> > > >
> > > > It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
> > > > a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
> > > > capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
> > > > distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
> > > > the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
> > > > mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
> > > > mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
> > > > arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
> > > > in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
> > > > just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
> > > > thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
> > > > has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
> > > > with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
> > > > not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
> > > > to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
> > > > day long thank you notice?
> > > >
> > > > In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
> > > > something like the following:
> > > > "All donations today will be matched by a
> > > > (corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
> > > > them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
> > > >
> > > > I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
> > > > ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
> > > > us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
> > > > continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
> > > > organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
> > > > charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
> > > > one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
> > > > the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
> > > > accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in peace,
> > > >
> > > > Tom Holden
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 12/29/06, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course all small bits help us, but larger bits help us more than
> small bits.

But there are more people who contribute smaller bits.

> So I would say the more money you give, the higher you are
> listed. But that is of course my capitalist pov.

What does that have to do with capitalism? Capitalism isn't about
rewarding the rich.

>
> On 12/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
> > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > donates $200K.
> >
> > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.
> >
> > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > just because you're richer.
> >
> > On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I'd like is a link to a list of donors, and big sponsors like Mr.
> > > Anonymo and Virgin Unite can be listed by the top then following that is a
> > > generic list of the other donors. I also like how there's a thank-you letter
> > > on the WMF wiki for Virgin Unite.
> > >
> > > On 12/29/06, Tom Holden <thomas.holden at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
> > > > ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
> > > > to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
> > > > for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
> > > > threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
> > > > has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
> > > > tone.
> > > >
> > > > Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
> > > > solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
> > > > Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
> > > > that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
> > > > seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
> > > > gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
> > > > dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
> > > >
> > > > Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
> > > > end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
> > > > together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
> > > > in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
> > > > benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
> > > > increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
> > > > Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
> > > > like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
> > > > Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
> > > > wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
> > > > discussion a significant time before the event.
> > > >
> > > > It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
> > > > a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
> > > > capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
> > > > distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
> > > > the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
> > > > mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
> > > > mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
> > > > arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
> > > > in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
> > > > just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
> > > > thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
> > > > has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
> > > > with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
> > > > not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
> > > > to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
> > > > day long thank you notice?
> > > >
> > > > In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
> > > > something like the following:
> > > > "All donations today will be matched by a
> > > > (corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
> > > > them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
> > > >
> > > > I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
> > > > ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
> > > > us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
> > > > continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
> > > > organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
> > > > charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
> > > > one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
> > > > the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
> > > > accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in peace,
> > > >
> > > > Tom Holden
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:55:28 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Saying that a musical work is in E-flat is not criticism; it's meta-data
>where there is a high degree of probability that subject-educated
>readers will draw the same conclusion from identical data contained in
>the musical score.  Other information that could constitute original
>research in a musical context when it is not put there by the composer
>would be terms like "andante" or "allegro" to indicate the speed of the work

Or stating that a song is in a given time signature, or perhaps in
triple metre, based on listening to it (a real-world example from some
time back).  The fact that the editor in question asserted that 6/8 is
triple metre rather weakened their argument, in my mind anyway.

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


from_name: RCTLocoWikiSpam

subject: [WikiEN-l] I appeared to be banned from Wikipedia.

body:
If they didn't request unblocking i was banned permanently for removing
semiportected tags. It's against Wikipedia policy. I'm not spamming anymore.

"I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!"
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I-appeared-to-be-banned-from-Wikipedia.-tf2897550.html#a8095323
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:

> There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why
> require a reason for removal?

We do require a reason for prodding.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
> I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?

I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.


subject: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

body:
Ok, I retract that, was a little overstated.  Although I've seen way to many
items brought to DRV in the past just to have another go at them (generally
in the case of xfd's ended in Keep).

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] OK, so DRV *is* broken

> On 29/12/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Last I checked, DRV is NOT AFD part2, and should not be involved with
>> content based decisions, just proceedural / consensus measuring ones.
>
>
> No, that's completely and insanely wrong. It is indeed supposed to
> review the decision and discussion and content and everything.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?

Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing
it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.

(Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to
address the issue as best you can.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> > > by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> > > article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?

> > I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.

> That just doesn't seem right to me.

It is. The whole point is that PROD is for uncontested deletion - a
lightweight process to take the load of obvious-but-not-quite-speedy
rubbish off AFD. If the original PRODder really thinks it should be
dead, they can bother with an AFD.

PROD is intended to be lightweight - that's its main point. It doesn't
need complication - an AFD is not *that* hard to make.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:08:16 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>That sounds very much like sucking and blowing at the same time.  On the
>one hand you admit it's not really OR, and then proceed with
>consequences based on its being OR.

"Novel synthesis" is the hallmark of original research.

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


body:
On 29/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The Catalan wp responded to it in a rather delightful way, by taking
> > advantage of the presence of the "Day of the Holy Innocents" (Iberian
> > equivalent of April 1) to treat it all as a grand joke -
> > http://ca.wikinews.org/wiki/Imatge:Wiki-ca-Innocents.png is a copy of
> > the modified logo that went up, and both ca.wnews and es.wnews ran
> > news stories saying we were going to charge 20 EUR for editing and
> > float on the NASDAQ ;-)

> Darnit, outdone! /me rushes off to steal the story for UnNews

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikimedia_Foundation_to_introduce_paid_editing

- d.


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
"Ryan Wetherell" wrote

> On 12/29/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then
> > the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author
> > of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in
> > order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an
> > acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed.
> > If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If
> > there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the
> > stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be
> > reverted.
> >
> > How does this sound?
>
> I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page
> by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the
> article, and no stated opposition to the PROD.  This is okay, right?

Would 'this is never a PROD in a million years' be an acceptable reason? It is how I have felt a couple of times. Bear in mind the tendency on the site for people to think that material should be deleted, if _they_ can't see what it is for. Whereas PROD should be for material that, in effect, no one without a direct and personal connection could see what it is for.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
>> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>>
>>> There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why
>>> require a reason for removal?
>>
>> We do require a reason for prodding.
>
> I'm currently seeing 8 on WP:PRODSUM with no reason given.  This is
> admittedly lower than what I usually see during semi-daily patrols.
>
> Should I simply remove them?

If you want to game the system.  Alternatively you could add a reason.
To be honest I don't care.  You do whatever you think is best.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
"Ryan Wetherell" wrote

>  Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an
> excuse to remove it.  It's not hard at all to give a sentence about
> why you think an article is important.

My story about PROD: User:Arthur Rubin stuck one on [[Hillel Furstenberg]] shortly after I made it. With some nonsense about 'no assertion of notability' and then some other nonsense about not meeting [[WP:PROF]]. As far as I can see, Furstenberg meets each of the six criteria in section 1 of WP:PROF. So my reason for objecting to a PROD on an article about someone who is a member of both the US and Israeli Academies of Sciences is that the thing was ludicrous. Please bear in mind the number of people with time on their hands.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
So, is "I don't think this should be deleted." a reasonable objection?
If so, it's pointless asking for a reason as it's implicit in the
removal, if not, "this is never a PROD in a million years" isn't
either, as it means exactly the same thing.


from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVN:  [18598] trunk/phase3/includes

body:
simetrical at svn.wikimedia.org schrieb:
> Revision: 18598
> Author:   simetrical
> Date:     2006-12-26 15:53:34 -0800 (Tue, 26 Dec 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> (bug 7169) Use Ajax to watch/unwatch articles.  Patch by Dan Li with some modification by me.

Should/Could/Will we activate this feature at WMF sites?

Raymond.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061229/5221609f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.

Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for
any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does
or fails to do.  Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can
simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to
delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without
allowing debate, for engaging in too much time-wasting debate instead
of useful action, for being too fascistic, for being too anarchistic,
for being too highbrow, too lowbrow, too middlebrow, too left-wing,
too right-wing, too pro-American, too anti-American, too academic,
too anti-academic, too pop-cultural, too anti-pop-cultural; for
airing too much dirty laundry in public, for trying to shove its
flaws under the carpet; because it's an unstoppable juggernaut,
because it's an unstable mess that's about to collapse; it's
capitalist, it's communist; Jimbo screws it up by exercising his
personal whims, Jimbo is a do-nothing figurehead who refuses to act
at all; critics get harrassed, critics get ignored; people get banned
unfairly, people don't get banned who deserve it; its mailing lists
and IRC rooms have nothing but idle, pointless, off-topic chitchat;
its mailing lists and IRC rooms are where all the important policy
decisions get made to the exclusion of people who participate on the
actual Wikipedia discussion pages.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
> > So, is "I don't think this should be deleted." a reasonable objection?
>
> Yes or no.  I'm thinking it's a circumstantial thing.

If it's not simple to decide if something is reasonable, then the
system won't work.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:

> So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?

If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs
dead, sure :-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 29/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Would 'this is never a PROD in a million years' be an acceptable reason? It is
> how I have felt a couple of times. Bear in mind the tendency on the site for
> people to think that material should be deleted, if _they_ can't see what it is for.
> Whereas PROD should be for material that, in effect, no one without a direct and
> personal connection could see what it is for.

I'd say - remove a prod if you think it's silly, adding a reason makes
it less likely someone will re-prod it or AFD it.

- d.


body:
On 29/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:

> Oh brother!

Note edit summary for article's creation.

(It's amazing the Fair Use a satirical site can get away with under US law.)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Matthew Brown wrote:
>>> On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all
>>>> the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all
>>>> the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't.
>>> For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive
>>> claim that can be sourced.  Stating that all of them have something in
>>> common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO.
>>>
>>> A database search like that described is different; it's not
>>> definitive and not a single source that can be cited.  It's headed
>>> into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive;
>>> there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be
>>> exhaustive and complete.
>>>
>> Funny you discuss this.  At
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Allderdice_High_School&oldid=96979271
>> I've got someone asserting in the article that "a search of WorldCat
>> reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than
>> sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on
>> microfilm in a major library."  I agree this is original research, but
>> can't find anyone to back me up. Fancy popping your head in and
>> discussing the point?
>
> And here we hit the problem with limited original research - bad
> interpretation. He's shown that "fewer than sixty high schools in the
> world are known to have...", not that "fewer than sixty high schools
> in the world have..." It's based on a false premise - that WorldCat is
> some kind of "grand global catalogue", which it isn't; it doesn't
> claim to be comprehensive, just large.
>
> Looking in further detail, he's also demonstrated it only for cases
> where the originating body is called (and catalogued as) "XYZ High
> School", and has made no attempt to figure out how many of the 56 hits
> are actually in "major libraries" rather than, say, a microfiche copy
> acquired by the local public library. It doesn't apply in cases where
> the journal is catalogued with the school as an author rather than a
> corporate author (technically wrong, but does happen, and if there's
> one thing you won't get in WorldCat it'll be consistent cataloguing).
> So it's not even automatically a comprehensive or accurate listing of
> what he intended to be looking for...
>

That's great, ta.  I've used this onto the talk page but this is turning
into a revert war now.  There's a lot of subtle interpretation that I'm
dealing with here and I am really out of my depth.  The editor has
uploaded scans of the paper to Berkley, is citing them, and wants to
make the claim that the fact that the school publishes a page of the
school newspaper on its web site indicates its non-benign attitude
toward drugs in February 2005, since the page published contains an
article entitled "Drugs' presence felt despite school effort." I mean,
that's interpretation, surely?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 29/12/06


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 29/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:

> ....
> make the claim that the fact that the school publishes a page of the
> school newspaper on its web site indicates its non-benign attitude
> toward drugs in February 2005, since the page published contains an
> article entitled "Drugs' presence felt despite school effort." I mean,
> that's interpretation, surely?

Deducing the school's policies from which issue of their newspaper
they happen to give as an example? That's not interpretation, that's
[[Kremlinology]]...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 29/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How about sponsors get listed in the order of the percentage of their
> > > > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > > > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > > > donates $200K.
> > > > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the idea.
> > > > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > > > just because you're richer.
>
> > > That idea has some heartwarming qualities, but it doesn't get us more
> > > of the cash. Because the second guy gave us more *we* can use than the
> > > first did. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
>
> > Ah, but there are more of the first guys.
>
>
> Yeah, but you need both. As I said earlier, donations almost always
> follow a power law, like Alexa ratings or whatever. And you don't get
> the first without the thank-yous, because they're used to them.
>
So let's retrain them. Don't charitable entrepeneurs want to break the
traditional paradigms?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

body:
On 29/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> A study of the psychology of user pages could be fascinating.

I dare you to write one for Uncyclopedia ;-p

- d.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget the various cleanup categories -- tags like {{wikify}} and
>> {{notability}} don't lead to immediate deletion, but will eventually draw
>> the attention of experienced editors who may decide to nominate a given
>> article for deletion.
>
> Still, it must take a lot of time to do the research necessary to
> determine "deletability". Therefore, with the exception of obvious BS,
> you would still have to see something in the article that prompts you
> to stop and do such research. The "prod" tag probably saves time in
> this respect. The only disadvantage with this is that it may cause
> good but inactive articles to get deleted simply because nobody
> removes an improperly added prod. That's why a "prod patrol" would be
> a good idea if there already isn't one.
>
>> And there is always [[Special:Random]], but I try to stay away from using
>> that too often.
>
> I,m sure that a common vision of "antideletionists" is of this geek
> with no life sitting around all day pressing the random button looking
> for deletable articles similar to the image of the antispammer sitting
> in front of his PC waiting for spam to come in so he can complain
> about it. (now of days he doesn't have to wait long :(
>

I will write a script that will randomly delete pages (ie. hit
[[Special:Random]], make a random choice, and delete the page if true);
how much will you pay me for it?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061229/3b8a9552/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?

> > If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs
> > dead, sure :-)

> Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?!  My instinct is to go the
> regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of
> silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.

Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and
delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p

- d.


body:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On 12/28/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lack of establishing notability according to the different notability
>> criteria at [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:MUSIC]], etc would be a reason to investigate
>> it further. A lot of people don't even mention what makes an article subject
>> worth being written about.
>
> I would think that this one would be easy as not even going through
> the motions of establishing notability is grounds for speedy. Come to
> think of it I wonder if this has ever happened...
>
> Someone writes an article about "Joe Shmoe".
>
> Same someone fails to assert notability.
>
> Article gets speedy deleted.
>
> It turns out that "Joe Shmoe" actually is notable, just unknown to
> those who speedied it.
>

Reminds me of the article that Jimbo wrote which was speedied because
the content was "He won the Nobel prize!"...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061229/4fef99fc/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gurch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slight adjustment for PROD

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
>
>>> If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs
>>> dead, sure :-)
>
>> Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?!  My instinct is to go the
>> regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of
>> silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
>
>
> Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and
> delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p

And then chop it into little pieces and jump up and down on them. Don't
forget that bit, that's the important part.

-Gurch