body:
I think it would be really cool when this gets up, having a common store of
pictures, sound, and video.  Saving space, and using common pictures in
articles, say of the DNC Convention or RNC Convention, but having the
articles appear in different wikis, with the images simply linked to from
the separate articles.  Can't wait.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 4:31 PM
To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
Cc: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikicommons

Brion-
>> Please let us start the Wikicommons and add functionality when we
>> think of some, when we program some.

> Erik M?ller proposed specific things for WikiCommons. When he gets
> some code written, I'm sure we'll be happy to put it online.

It'll still be a week or two until I can hack on MediaWiki again. However,
several people would like to use a wiki purely for putting up and cataloging
some of the open content images they have taken/created which do not yet
have a home on Wikimedia.

I still believe that starting without any way to actually use these images
elsewhere, and with a structure that will likely change significantly later,
is not a very good idea, but I'll state here again for the public record
that, given that I haven't been able to start work on the Commons code in
the timeframe I originally suggested, I have no formal objections to a basic
wiki being set up for those interested in sharing and cataloging images,
developing a category structure, basic policies etc.
Andre in particular feels very strongly about this and other than my own
original objection, nobody seems to have voiced any opposition.

The proposal being discussed here, although running under the name Wikimedia
Commons, is not identical to what is on meta. It is merely a wiki for
cataloging multimedia. Whatever decision you arrive at, I have nothing to do
with it and there's no need to consult me on anything.

Regards,

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


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikicommons


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Pedro M V Oliveira

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
"One additional etiquette guideline that you might consider is
something like our rule on en: "Articles which focus on a topic
specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim
to conform to the spelling of that country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling"

We've already discussed that (I proposed that!), but some disagreed, stating that we didnt need that.
in fact, We need to discuss "neutral words", not to raise future problems.

Pedro M. Vidal de Oliveira


list: wikien-l

from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Federal depository libraries

body:
(Cross-posted to the village pump)

I'd just like to make everyone aware of this - as most of you know,
US Government documents are public domain. What most of you
probably don't know is that some libraries across the country are
"Federal document repositories" - IE, they are storehouses for goverment
documents. A Federal respository library is *THE* biggest cache of
public domain information you will ever find. So if you are in need of
pictures, maps, or diagrams on any topic, you can go to one and get
them by the kilo. Here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html ) is
a listing of federal repository libraries.

--Mark


list: wikitech-l

from_name: evan at wikitravel.org

subject: [Wikitech-l] One wikimedia for lots of different wikis?

body:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 03:44:30PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
> >I use wikimedia 1.3.1. I need a lof of wikis. Can i use the wikimedia
> >software to install lots of different wikis? If yes, how can i reach
> >this?
>
> You only need one LocalSettings.php for each wiki you set up; the rest
> of the code needs to exist only once. We do that on wikipedia as well.

That'd probably be worth documenting. I tried keeping one set of files with
a bunch of different LocalSettings.php files in different virt server dirs,
with little success. The installation, update, and command-line scripts
don't really favor that approach.

So, how is it done for Wikipedia?

~ESP


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Apoplectic? Dialectic!

body:
In time of need call on the editor's creed:
   Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!
If you think what you read should be NPOV-ed,
   Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!
So plant a good seed
And do a good deed
And don't ever stop until all have agreed
And then they will call you a real Wikiped-
Ian.
   Thesis, antithesis, synthesis!


from_name: leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Article history link

body:
Jens Ropers <ropers <at> ropersonline.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:42:14 -0700
> > From: Brion Vibber <brion <at> pobox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Article history link
<snip>
> > Jens Ropers wrote:
> >> Could this be changed, so that on the history list, the top/newest
> >> link, too, would be the respective "oldid"-link?
> >> (The link to the article tab should stay generic.)
> >
> > An oldid is not assigned until the revision is saved into the old
> > table.
> > Hence, you see, the problem.
>
> Ugh.
> I suppose there's no way to change that and save the revision into
the
> old table immediately?
> Or don't really save it but at least assign an oldid that can later
be
> used when it does actually get saved?
>
> - Jens

I have submitted this as an enhancement "bug" at MediaZilla, see:

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181

--Guttorm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
avail
> of them if we don't want.

First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is being
used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
not AP has refused to allow us to use it.  Secondly, clarifying our options
doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we have
the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.

> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> proxy political dispute:

> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)

That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the problem
came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs to be
resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.  We've
started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.

Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.

> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> people can THEN deal with it.

> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> kingdom come.

I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I actually
think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
diametrically opposed viewpoints.

I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
*encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
the GNU Projects definition of Free Software (see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.

> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
> avail of them if we don't want.

First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is being
used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
not AP has refused to allow us to use it.  Secondly, clarifying our options
doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we have
the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.

> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> proxy political dispute:

> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)

That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the problem
came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs to be
resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.  We've
started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.

Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.

> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> people can THEN deal with it.

> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> kingdom come.

I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I actually
think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
diametrically opposed viewpoints.

I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
*encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.

> Thanks and regards,
> Jens Ropers

Anthony


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Mailing List admins

body:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:30:42 -0700, Poor, Edmund W
<edmund.w.poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Two or three very responsible Wikipedians have volunteered recently to
> serve.
>
> * Ronny ('fire at zwinger.wikimedia.org')
> * David Gerard (very active, level-headed Wikipedian)
> * Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, professor from Taiwan)

s/Taiwan/Hong Kong/. Same neighborhood, different island.

--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih at gmail.com


from_name: Michael Becker

subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Personally, the *free*ness of wikipedia concerns me a lot too. This was my first concern when I first submitted the image to vfd. I personally had NO political or censorship concerns. That is pretty obvious if you check out the history of the Clitoris article. In any case,  I'm also VERY concerned about the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's freeness. As I see it now though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no longer free, and we have failed in our goals IMHO. At the moment, the lines drawn between free and non-free content in the wikipedia are very thin. This is a line drawn by the users , and we are essentially trusting people who upload these non-free images/content to make sure it is easy to distinguish their added content as non-free. I'm not very comfortable with this. IMNSHO, it would be better if we had some sort of hard line drawn on the software side of things between free and non-free content so that it can easily be removed in the future.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400, Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> > reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> > could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
> > avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it.  Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we have
> the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.
>
> > Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> > proxy political dispute:
>
> > The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> > removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> > political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> > this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
> nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.  We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
> > My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> > people can THEN deal with it.
>
> > If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> > kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
> could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
>
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Jens Ropers
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Michael Becker


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: UTF-8 for nl:wikipedia

body:
Kai F. Lahmann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. August 2004 21:51 schrieb Brion Vibber:
>>That should work fine, can you give some examples?
>
> see there:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umstellung_auf_Unicode/Prozent-Links

Those should only ever be used in interwiki links (or of course URLs
when linking from elsewhere).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040820/689c2399/attachment.pgp>


body:
evan at wikitravel.org wrote:
>>You only need one LocalSettings.php for each wiki you set up; the rest
>>of the code needs to exist only once. We do that on wikipedia as well.
>
> That'd probably be worth documenting. I tried keeping one set of files with
> a bunch of different LocalSettings.php files in different virt server dirs,
> with little success. The installation, update, and command-line scripts
> don't really favor that approach.
>
> So, how is it done for Wikipedia?

There's a smattering of into at http://wp.wikidev.net/Wiki_farm

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040820/2d873959/attachment.pgp>


from_name: xmlizer

subject: [Wikitech-l] obscure part of Parsing.php

body:
Can someone explain me

# Match the end of a line for a word that's not followed by whitespace,
# e.g. in the case of 'The Arab al[[Razi]]', 'al' will be matched
static $e2 = '/^(.*?)([a-zA-Z\x80-\xff]+)$/sD';

Does it mean transforming : ala[[bama]] --> alabama ?

Xmlizer


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
--- Michael Becker <mbecker at jumpingjackweb.com> wrote:

> In any case,  I'm also VERY concerned about
> the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's
> freeness.

What are you talking about? Wikipedia is *protected* by copyright. We happen to
license our text under the GNU Free Documentation License to make it freely
usable. "Proprietary" would be a better word to use since Wikipedia is most
definitely copyrighted.

-- mav

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


from_name: Patrick Collison

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [X] Yes i want to delete this,

body:
You could empirically measure whether there's any point to having the
check-box with relative ease: check from usage logs what percentage of
people who passed step 2 did not end up deleting the page.

Chances are, it's low, and thus step 3 should go.

On 20 Aug 2004, at 03:23, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>>>> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could the [X] yes i want to delete this button one has to click to
>>>>>> delete pages/images be abolished? I dont think  anyone would by
>>>>>> accedent click 2 links in a row (delete -> delete) so i dont
>>>>>> think the
>>>>>> checkbox is needed and just slows me and others down when doing
>>>>>> mass
>>>>>> deletion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At least it forces users to review their choices and to enter a
>>>>> comment.
>>>>>  I am personally against removing this checkbox.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A little safety valve is always a good idea.  One additonal
>>> keystroke should not seriously make demands on a person's.  The
>>> argument in support of it has nothing to do with trusting sysops;
>>> one operating is bad faith is no prevented from action by this one
>>> keystroke.  Sysops can make mistakes as much as anyone else.
>>
>>
>> I think here is a misunderstanding happening: the safety valve would
>> still be kept, it's just the question to remove one of two additional
>> keystrokes.
>>
>> To delete a page I currently have to
>> 1) click the link "delete"
>> 2) fill in a reason for the deletion
>> 3) mark the checkbox "Yes, I really want to delete this page"
>> 4) press the button "delete"
>>
>> How I understood Evar, he wants to have step 3) removed. My opinion:
>> this can safely done (you still have to click two times and give a
>> reason)
>>
>> Could we do this please?
>
> Deletion still works perfectly well if you leave the reasons blank.
> Making the reasons obligatory would be a lot more burdensome than
> checking a box.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Pedro Fortuny Ayuso

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Mailing List admins

body:
Mmmhhh, imagine saying

 * Ed Poor (professional from Mexico)

:) just kidding.

Pedro.

> > Two or three very responsible Wikipedians have volunteered recently to
> > serve.
> >
> > * Ronny ('fire at zwinger.wikimedia.org')
> > * David Gerard (very active, level-headed Wikipedian)
> > * Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, professor from Taiwan)
>
> s/Taiwan/Hong Kong/. Same neighborhood, different island.
>
> --
> Andrew Lih
> andrew.lih at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 25000 free images?

body:
I just stumbled on
http://www.morguefile.com/
who apparently host 25000 images that are free for use. Consulting their
FAQ:

*1.* Are the images really free?
Yes, all images are really free and they can be used in your commercial
projects without permission or credit from the photogrpaher. Although
selling prints, selling the images directly or claiming the photo is
yours is prohibited.
*Note:* You are responsible for the content of the photos you use. It is
very much the same as if you had taken the photograph yourself, you must
still obtain proper permission for property or people depicted in the
photos if any.

*2.* Why?
This web site follows in the tradition of the world wide web. It is
dedicated in the proposition of free thought and exchange.

All that seems to be quite compatible with our line of efforts. Maybe we
can even convince them to license the images under GFDL; someone
"official" (foundation) should write a mail. At the very least, we can
use them in the wikipedia, as we do not intend to sell prints or files
"as such", but within an encyclopedia at most. A note to cite the
source, and not to sell these images as high-quality prints or files
should suffice; all other use is allowed.

The animal photos alone appear to be a gold mine for us.

Magnus


from_name: Guido Brombach

body:
I use wikimedia 1.3.1. I need a lof of wikis. Can i use the wikimedia
software to install lots of different wikis? If yes, how can i reach this?

Regards
Guido Brombach


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Sorry- we have a problem... message

body:
"If you'd like to help, please [donate]." message is worthless when the wikis
are down since the [donate] link goes to a page that is hosted on a wiki.

Could somebody cache an HTML copy of that, put it in the same directory that
the "Sorry-we have a problem" message is in and point the [donate] message to
it?

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Sorry- we have a problem... message


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:13:38AM +0200, xmlizer wrote:
> Can someone explain me
>
> # Match the end of a line for a word that's not followed by whitespace,
> # e.g. in the case of 'The Arab al[[Razi]]', 'al' will be matched
> static $e2 = '/^(.*?)([a-zA-Z\x80-\xff]+)$/sD';
>
> Does it mean transforming : ala[[bama]] --> <a
> href="wiki/Bama">alabama</a> ?

There must be an "if" somewhere there, it's only
enabled for some languages, e.g. Arabic. The
syllable "al" in Arabic is similar to the word
"the" in English.

Best regards,

JeLuF


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: anoncvs/webcvs mirror for mediawiki

body:
I've added some syntax hilighting on all PHP files, for your pleasure :)

Cheers,
Domas

-----Original Message-----
This is *extremely* useful. Thank you! Not just for anons, but for me
also. Those SourceForge ad banners and the entire misconfiguration of
..


subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
I'm forwarding my message to the wikitech list because I think this might be of more interest to you people than wikipedians at large.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Becker <mbecker at jumpingjackweb.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:43:09 -0400
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

Personally, the *free*ness of wikipedia concerns me a lot too. This was my first concern when I first submitted the image to vfd. I personally had NO political or censorship concerns. That is pretty obvious if you check out the history of the Clitoris article. In any case,  I'm also VERY concerned about the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's freeness. As I see it now though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no longer free, and we have failed in our goals IMHO. At the moment, the lines drawn between free and non-free content in the wikipedia are very thin. This is a line drawn by the users, and we are essentially trusting people who upload these non-free images/content to make sure it is easy to distinguish their added content as non-free. I'm not very comfortable with this. IMNSHO, it wo uld be better if we had some sort of hard line drawn on the software side of things between free and non-free content so that it can easily be removed in the future.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400, Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
> > reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal) from AP
> > could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/ to
> > avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it.  Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we have
> the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a dispute.
>
> > Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
> > proxy political dispute:
>
> > The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
> > removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
> > political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
> > this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem has
> nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.  We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
> > My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
> > people can THEN deal with it.
>
> > If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
> > kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think it
> could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
>
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Jens Ropers
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________

--
Michael Becker


subject: [Wikitech-l] Old messages

body:
We're going to be tweaking the backup mail server configuration a bit to
not suck so much. In the meantime, I'm cleaning out the forgotten
moderation queue on the backup server; some of these postings may have
been reposted and answered already.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040820/82cbbec8/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Sorry, you are correct, I was missing a qualifier there. I meant to say "non-free copyrighted material." Clearly you knew what I meant anyway ;).

Pointing this out has brought up an interesting point to me though. How can we morally justify using other peoples copyrighted material, against their copyright agreement, and then expect others to respect our copyright agreement? Wouldn't people also be able to make a case of fair use when using our content? I for one have for a long time opposed other websites using our content without following our copyright agreement (i.e. the GFDL). However, I don't find it morally justifiable for us to in one breath say, we have a right to break other peoples copyright agreements, and then in the next, attack people who break ours, even though they often too have a case for fair use.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Michael Becker <mbecker at jumpingjackweb.com> wrote:
>
> > In any case,  I'm also VERY concerned about
> > the effects of using copyrighted material in the wikipedia will have on it's
> > freeness.
>
> What are you talking about? Wikipedia is *protected* by copyright. We happen to
> license our text under the GNU Free Documentation License to make it freely
> usable. "Proprietary" would be a better word to use since Wikipedia is most
> definitely copyrighted.
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

--
Michael Becker


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki down?

body:
Just got this message from en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.
Can't connect to MySQL server on '207.142.131.244' (111)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki down?

body:
I just answered my own question when I checked http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status

"August 20: New servers being installed. Some downtime possible"


from_name: Joel Reed

subject: [Wikitech-l] per page rss recent/change or history feeds

body:
I'd like to hack SpecialRecentChanges so that one could
retrieve per page RecentChange RSS/Atom feeds or alternatively
hack PageHistory to offer RSS/Atom feeds.

Can anyone direct me as to which approach might be more
useful for mediawiki user's in general?

If I could get such a feed, and augment it slightly to
show the save page "Summary" comment as part of the
title for each feed item, then i think i could use
mediawiki to host a blog with a nice rss-feed.

hacking SpecialRecentChanges seems the easier approach
but thought i'd check first if one of the two was preferred.

thanks,

jr

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Reed                                    412-257-3881
----------   http://home.comcast.net/~joelwreed/  ----------


from_name: Benedikt Mandl

subject: [Wikitech-l] call 4 developers

body:
Dear wikitech-I readers,

I am trying to initiate an open, wiki-based species directory (those of you
who read wikimedia-I will know about that) at www.wikispecies.org, which
should become a wikimedia project. There are already several wikipedia
authors who promised support for the project and detailed discussions are
going on in forums and by e-mail.

The current problem is that we need developers who set up the basic
structure for wikispecies, so that authors can start to supply contents. As
Jimbo Wales suggested, the initial structure would be basically identical
with the one of wikipedia.

I add a suggestion for the initial structure at the bottom of this e-mail.
If you think that you could help, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Every help will be appreciated. Best,

Benedikt

--------------------
MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE

Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional user,
therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search page that
provides a determination key as well.

Search terms

A general division in ?standard search? and ?advanced search? with details
would be good.

NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.)
CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a PDA
compatible one for field applications)
GLOSSARY
FAMILY (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail search functions see at fishbase: ?country?)
ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
TOPIC (special topics and articles)
TOOLS (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a
reference/literature search)
BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at fishbase)
MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available)

Subpage for species:

CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path)
NAMES
MORPHOLOGY (incl. picture or illustration)
BEHAVIOUR
RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION
HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.)
CLIMATE
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms of countries)
CONSERVATION STATUS
DANGERS
REFERENCES

entered/checked/modified

--
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f?r e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail


body:
You only need one LocalSettings.php for each wiki you set up; the rest
of the code needs to exist only once. We do that on wikipedia as well.

Magnus

Guido Brombach wrote:

> I use wikimedia 1.3.1. I need a lof of wikis. Can i use the wikimedia
> software to install lots of different wikis? If yes, how can i reach
> this?
>
> Regards
> Guido Brombach
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
> Ok, fair point. But if they refuse it would be a strong indication to
> us to maybe only "go against them" once we got 100% agreement and a
> rock solid case as regards our legal standing -- neither of which would
> apply given the dispute. So this *would* resolve it in telling us "yea,
> it may still be fair use, but it's really too hot to handle"

If we're not 100% sure that the image is fair use, we shouldn't be using it
anyway.  By permission only images are not allowed on Wikipedia.

> Ack. War of words. What I mean is that some people think we CAN include
> the pic under fair use and and some people think we CAN'T.

And some of us think that we can but we shouldn't.

> I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really
> don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects.

You're probably right, but to some extent that just means it's more
important that we resolve these wider issues in a content-neutral fashion.

> Please don't see this as a personal attack of any sort, but it is my
> impression that the general establishment of firm *free encyclopedia*
> definitions and attendant ground rules is something that /you/
> particularly care about (I would have written "pet project", but I
> don't mean to offend).

Of course I'm not offended.  It *is* something that I particularly care
about.  I wouldn't have brought it up when I ran for the board if it wasn't.
I just think this situation is an excellent example of why we need it.

> I think you're going to find that most parties to the TrangBang image
> dispute will claim that the existing rules are totally clear and
sufficient,
> only the *other side* is so politically skewed that they misinterpret the
> rules towards their ends, consciously or not.

Really?  Do you feel this way?  Because the way I see it, we don't have any
existing rules.  In fact, we've resorted to listing an image on a page which
is meant for articles precisely because we don't have any existing rules for
this sort of thing.

> I don't think you're going to find huge motivation for the wider
> "defining Wikipedia" policy initiative as you seek pursuing it -- not
> among the parties to this dispute anyway, because either side thinks
> the rules are already on their side and would perceive any
> "(re-)definition initiative" as a policy change initiative that could
> work against them.

I don't know if I will find motivation to define things or not.  I've
brought it to the mailing list because I think there's a chance some people
here will find the motivation, though.  If not, I'll be ignored, and no harm
is done.

But the fact that both sides think the rules are already on their side is my
point.  This isn't something we should be arguing about.  We should all be
on the same side here.  The only way to get everyone on the same side is to
come together and make a decision.

> For these reasons, if it's the wider policy initiative that you care
> about, then this dispute IMHO is among the absolute worst opportunities
> to push for it -- *even if* you're right and the rules aren't clear and
> need improvement.

I see it as one of the best opportunities.  Go figure.

> (btw. the image is now up again, so we're going round in circles)

And we'll continue to go in circles until we get together and make a
decision.

> - Jens

Anthony


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 55

body:
On 20 Aug 2004, at 15:44, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:42:14 -0700
> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Article history link
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <41251EB6.9080109 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>> Could this be changed, so that on the history list, the top/newest
>> link, too, would be the respective "oldid"-link?
>> (The link to the article tab should stay generic.)
>
> An oldid is not assigned until the revision is saved into the old
> table.
> Hence, you see, the problem.

Ugh.
I suppose there's no way to change that and save the revision into the
old table immediately?
Or don't really save it but at least assign an oldid that can later be
used when it does actually get saved?

- Jens


from_name: Kai F. Lahmann

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: UTF-8 for nl:wikipedia

body:
Am Donnerstag, 19. August 2004 21:51 schrieb Brion Vibber:
> That should work fine, can you give some examples?

see there:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umstellung_auf_Unicode/Prozent-Links

--
Kai F. Lahmann

1zu160-Bahner
http://www.1zu160.net


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Yes, if you read my last post to the wiken list, viewable here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/029985.html, I think I made it clear that I was using the term copyright too loosely. What I meant, was material released under a non-gnu-compatible license. We should draw a line between gnu-compatable content, and non-gnu-compatable content on the software side, to better facilitate removal of that content by future users of our content. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the freeness of our encyclopedia. If we leave things the way they are, there is no telling how hard it will actually be to remove this non-free content in the future.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:23:55 -0300, Jeff Warnica <jeffw at chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 12:58 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
> > I'm forwarding my message to the wikitech list because I think this
> > might be of more interest to you people than wikipedians at large.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Michael Becker <mbecker at jumpingjackweb.com>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:43:09 -0400
> > Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> >
> > though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and
> > GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't
> > facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no
>
> The opposite of copyrighted is "public domain". Works covered by the
> GPL, and the FDL ARE copyrighted. It is copyright law that provides for
> the legal backing of the GPL/FDL (and for that matter, _any_ license).
>
>

--
Michael Becker


subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: defining Free Encyclopedia


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Image:TrangBang.jpg (was defining Free Encyclopedia
	(originally Image:TrangBang.jpg and other copyright confusion))

body:
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:12 -0400
> From: "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>  "Anthony DiPierro" <anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the email has been sent already, so why don't we see what they
>> reply with?  I hardly see how any kind of permission (or refusal)
>> from AP
>> could [be] bad for us: It clarifies our options, but we don't /have/
>> to
>> avail of them if we don't want.
>
> First of all, refusal wouldn't clarify our options.  If the image is
> being
> used in a way which is fair use, then it's fair use regardless of
> whether or
> not AP has refused to allow us to use it.

Ok, fair point. But if they refuse it would be a strong indication to
us to maybe only "go against them" once we got 100% agreement and a
rock solid case as regards our legal standing -- neither of which would
apply given the dispute. So this *would* resolve it in telling us "yea,
it may still be fair use, but it's really too hot to handle". None of
us, I think, would want to make the Wikipedia /ask/ for a lawsuit.
Besides, even the Associated Press is aware of fair use legislation and
I don't have reason to believe that they would maliciously exaggerate
their rights. Maybe I'm naive and overly optimistic in that.

> Secondly, clarifying our options
> doesn't resolve the dispute.  Having options is exactly the reason we
> have
> the dispute.  If we didn't have any options, we wouldn't have a
> dispute.

Ack. War of words. What I mean is that some people think we CAN include
the pic under fair use and and some people think we CAN'T.
Once we know whether we realistically (ie. w/o asking for a lawsuit)
can include the picture that should for all intents and purposes remove
one of these alternatives (or alternating views if you prefer).

>> Besides, the root of the problem _as I perceive it_ is that this is a
>> proxy political dispute:
>
>> The very people pushing hardest against that picture's use and for its
>> removal on copyright grounds made edits that would seem to hint at a
>> political affiliation which might make them feel uncomfortable about
>> this picture. (That's not a judgment, just an observation.)
>
> That's certainly not the *root* of the problem.  It may be why the
> problem
> came to light in this particular instance, but the root of the problem
> has
> nothing to do with these details.  The root of the problem is that we
> haven't decided what it means to be a *free* encyclopedia.  This needs
> to be
> resolved in a way which provides objective criteria for inclusion.
> We've
> started along on that path, but we've still got a long way to go.
>
> Incidently, this is somewhat analogous to the problem of deciding what
> it
> means to be a free *encyclopedia*.  We're farther along with that
> definition, and have already come up with somewhat objective criteria
> at
> [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].  But we still resort to
> [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], still have ongoing inclusion
> disputes, and
> people still abuse the abiguities for political purposes.
>
>> My motivation was to settle the copyright situation, yay or nay, so
>> people can THEN deal with it.
>
>> If we first wanted to wait till we had agreement, we'd wait till
>> kingdom come.
>
> I don't think that's at all the case.  I'm probably one of the biggest
> objectors to having non-free images on Wikipedia, and I've come a long
> way
> toward accepting some non-GFDL images as being "free enough".  I
> actually
> think the majority of the problem is a lack of understanding rather
> than
> diametrically opposed viewpoints.
>
> I think we can come to an agreement on what it means to be a *free*
> *encyclopedia*.  It would probably speed things up to organize the
> effort,
> and that's why I proposed as part of my platform when I ran for the
> Wikimedia board to start a committee with the task of defining those
> terms
> by community consensus (i.e. what the term means to us).  I think a
> definition of the term "Free Encyclopedia", similar in concept and
> spirit to
> the GNU Project's definition of Free Software (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), formed by the community
> as a
> whole and ratified by the board, would *be* an agreement, and I think
> it
> could be reached.  Maybe I'm just overly optimistic.

I think most folks embroiled in the Image:TrangBang.jpg dispute really
don't care that much about the underlying and wider aspects. Please
don't see this as a personal attack of any sort, but it is my
impression that the general establishment of firm *free encyclopedia*
definitions and attendant ground rules is something that /you/
particularly care about (I would have written "pet project", but I
don't mean to offend). I think you're going to find that most parties
to the TrangBang image dispute will claim that the existing rules are
totally clear and sufficient, only the *other side* is so politically
skewed that they misinterpret the rules towards their ends, consciously
or not.
I don't think you're going to find huge motivation for the wider
"defining Wikipedia" policy initiative as you seek pursuing it -- not
among the parties to this dispute anyway, because either side thinks
the rules are already on their side and would perceive any
"(re-)definition initiative" as a policy change initiative that could
work against them.

For these reasons, if it's the wider policy initiative that you care
about, then this dispute IMHO is among the absolute worst opportunities
to push for it -- *even if* you're right and the rules aren't clear and
need improvement.

(btw. the image is now up again, so we're going round in circles)

- Jens


from_name: Jeff Warnica

body:
On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 12:58 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
> I'm forwarding my message to the wikitech list because I think this
> might be of more interest to you people than wikipedians at large.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Becker <mbecker at jumpingjackweb.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:43:09 -0400
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and
> GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't
> facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no

The opposite of copyrighted is "public domain". Works covered by the
GPL, and the FDL ARE copyrighted. It is copyright law that provides for
the legal backing of the GPL/FDL (and for that matter, _any_ license).


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: UTF-8 for nl:wikipedia

body:
Am Freitag, 20. August 2004 18:57 schrieb Brion Vibber:
> Those should only ever be used in interwiki links (or of course URLs
> when linking from elsewhere).

"should", yes ;)

--
Kai F. Lahmann

1zu160-Bahner
http://www.1zu160.net


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Article history link

body:
On 20 Aug 2004, at 20:29, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org wrote:

> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
> From: <leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Article history link
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040820162843.92854.qmail at web13424.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> <snip>
>>> An oldid is not assigned until the revision is saved into the old
>>> table.
>>> Hence, you see, the problem.
>>
>> Ugh.
>> I suppose there's no way to change that and save the revision into the
>> old table immediately?
>> Or don't really save it but at least assign an oldid that can later be
>> used when it does actually get saved?
>>
>> - Jens
>
> I have submitted this as an enhancement "bug" at MediaZilla, see:
>
> http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181
>
> --Guttorm

THANK YOU very much !!! ;-) :-)

Especially so because from the one time I was forced to use (another
implementation of) BugZilla, I remember I hated it and found it far too
unwieldy.
<n00b>However I didn't even know we used bugzilla here.</n00b>
So thanks again for putting this forward! Much appreciated! It would
really help if this were implemented.
:-)
:)
- Jens


from_name: Timwi

references:
<51dd1af804081402531d5dd247@mail.gmail.com>	<cflr65$aj7$3@sea.gmane.org>	<51dd1af8040815105546b5b32f@mail.gmail.com>	<cfoodi$6bl$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<51dd1af804081600596f6da1bb@mail.gmail.com>

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:33:36 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>You are the one who proposed this. The onus lies with you to set up a
>>vote on Meta and convince us that the community at large really does
>>want this change. :-)
>
> Every bugfix and feature request needs a vote on meta now?

Every controversial one, I would assume.  If we just blindly change it
the way you suggest, people are going to complain, I bet you.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] lex/yacc parser

body:
Hi,

I'm going on holiday for the next week.  Accordingly, I will not be able
to work on the lex/yacc parser that I have written during the past weeks
or so.  I will check into CVS my work so far, and anyone interested can
continue the work while I am away.

So far, the parser can do:

* paragraphs
* pre-lines (lines beginning with spaces)
* lists (* and # only)
* extensions (<math>, <hiero>)
* headings
* bold and italics

I am sorry I took so long to do bold and italics, but, just as I
originally anticipated, it was quite hard.  I had discarded two failed
attempts until the third one finally worked out.  There is one special
case in which I had to apply a bit of a hack, but I am sure that this is
okay, given that it works pretty much perfectly now.

As for "extensions", it currently recognises anything as an extension
that is an HTML tag without attributes and its corresponding closing
tag.  Using this mechanism, <nowiki> and <pre> can be considered
"extensions" for the purposes of the parser.

What is missing:

* links, images, categories (everything in [[ ... ]])
* template inclusions and variables ({{...}} and {{{...}}})
* tables
* HTML tags that should be allowed but are not extensions (esp. div)

The lexer already recognises tokens for the former two, but not for
tables or HTML tags. In particular, it will recognise something like
<b>''something''</b> as an "extension" and not parse the '' as italics.
Obviously, this needs to be fixed.

If anything is unclear about how things work, please drop me an e-mail
and I will document the relevant bits when I am back.

Timwi


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l] nice & easy: replace MediaWiki:newpageletter "N" by an
 <img src=.....> link

body:
UPDATE

We found an much easier way to change the letter "N" indicating NEW
PAGES for an UPLOADABLE icon.

See the result **LIVE** on the page
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Recentchanges

The whole patch:
see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:newpageletter

<img src=/upload/X/YY/Neu.png>

* Replace "/upload/X/YY/Neu.png" with the relative URL on your wiki
* The URL is shown on the [[Image:Neu.png]] page after you uploaded it
to your wiki.

The uploaded image file page should be locked against unintended  and
unwanted changes.

Tom
Berlin


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Jeff Warnica wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 12:58 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
>
>
>>though, as long as there is a hard line drawn between copyrighted and
>>GPL material, it should be easy enough to remove. If we don't
>>facilitate the easy removal of this content, the wikipedia is no
>>
>>
>
>The opposite of copyrighted is "public domain". Works covered by the
>GPL, and the FDL ARE copyrighted. It is copyright law that provides for
>the legal backing of the GPL/FDL (and for that matter, _any_ license).
>
>
"Opposite" is a misleading term.  "Public domain" should really be taken
to mean that the copyright is owned by the public, and thus is a public
right that is deserving of protection.  The criminal part of US
copyright law does include a provsion to allow a $2,500 fine for
claiming that something is copyright when it isn't.  In theory this
would seem to give credence to that idea of the public domain, but in
practice that provision is a joke.

The legal backing for licensing is not copyright law but contract law.

Ec


from_name: Kate

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Today's Featured Article" by email

body:
[I sent this yesterday, but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
 Apologies if it ends up arriving twice.]

Morning,

Raul654 and I were having a discussion earlier about sending a daily
featured article via email, similar to "word of the day" at m-w.com
etc.

The easiest way to do this would be via a mailing list which users
subscribe to; however, mailman's interface isn't really very obvious
for someone who's just looking to sign up for something.  So, it would
be nice if something could be added which would handle the initial part
of the subscription when the user enters their email address into a
(simple) form, and they just have to reply to the mailman email to
subscribe.

Is there any chance of something like this being done, or does anyone
have any other suggestions on how to handle it?

Kate.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] RE: defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
On Fri, 2004-20-08 at 17:22 -0400, Michael Becker wrote:
> Yes, if you read my last post to the wiken list, viewable here:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/029985.html,
> I think I made it clear that I was using the term copyright too
> loosely. What I meant, was material released under a non-gnu-
> compatible license. We should draw a line between gnu-compatable
> content, and non-gnu-compatable content on the software side, to
> better facilitate removal of that content by future users of our
> content. Otherwise, we are sacrificing the freeness of our
> encyclopedia. If we leave things the way they are, there is no telling
> how hard it will actually be to remove this non-free content in the
> future.

Ok. I just jumped into the thread after someone bounced that one message
to wikitech-l. I see you know what I mean. But anyway, Ill diverge to a
slightly different point: when discussing legal issues you should be
very precise in your wording - perhaps even more so then with technical
issues. Its far easier to get a computer to undo something then a
judge :)


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikicommons: start an action plan

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> On 08/18/04 12:07, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> I have asked for this for several months now, but it seems that those
>> who actually can do something prefer to use extreme delay policy
>> here. I propose to hijack one of the currently inactive Wikimedia
>> Wikis, and just start this. I'm tired of waiting.
>
>
>
> Hmm. So what is the technical delay?
>
> Can we get together an action plan needed to implement it?
>
> Things needed:
>
> * place to put it
> * syntax to easily include images and media files
>
> I assume it can use the current MediaWiki software.
>
> Anything I've missed
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
There is nothing stopping us from starting.

*We need an environment where we can upload media.
*We have to appreciate that it will be an experimental place where new
software will be tested.

That is what is needed to start with.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikicommons

body:
On 08/18/04 20:31, Erik Moeller wrote:

> The proposal being discussed here, although running under the name
> Wikimedia Commons, is not identical to what is on meta. It is merely a
> wiki for cataloging multimedia. Whatever decision you arrive at, I have
> nothing to do with it and there's no need to consult me on anything.

OK ... the question then is, if we start now throwing bucketloads of
images and oggs into a MediaWiki instance, how easy it will be to put
it somewhere more sensible later.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Getting mark-up-text from the wikipedia

body:
Eckhart W?rner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a possibility to get
>
> a) the markup text of a wikipedia article,

[[Special:Export]] or grab it from the edit page.

> b) the markup of a specific article version and

Snarf it from the edit page.

> c) the current version number of an article?

What do you mean by version number? If you mean the timestamp when it
was edited, this should be in both Special:Export output and snarfable
from the edit page. If you mean the count of how many edits have been
made, there is none. If you mean the old_id of the *current* revision,
it doesn't exist -- old_id identifies rows in the old table, and cur
revisions thus don't have one.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040821/5ee15947/attachment.pgp>


from_name: phil hunt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Brazilian Portuguese

body:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:49:32 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> American English isn't the same as British English nor is Mexican Spanish the
>> same as Spanish Spanish.
>
>American films that are filmed in American English are shown unaltered
>in Britain. The German dubbed version of films is shown unaltered in
>Austria and Switzerland. However, as far as I'm aware, Brazil and
>Portugal tend to prepare separate dubs.

I've heard that UK TV programs such as _Eastenders_ are subtitled in
the USA; not sure if that's true.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] personal threats again

body:
leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
> are there any other policies that you consider global?

Neutrality (NPOV) as expressed in my original exposition of the
concept.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (there can be some cultural variation in
what is considered appropriate for an encyclopedia versus a
dictionary, but my point is just that Wikipedia is not a joke book or
a personal chat site, etc.)

There's probably some other things that I'm forgetting right now, but
that's the essence of it.  Decisions about how to select sysops or
exactly what to do about particular trolls are so case-specific and
culture-specific that it would be silly of us to imagine that non-en
wikipedias will follow the same path.

Things like naming conventions or style conventions are going to be
highly culture and language specific.

Indeed, I would imagine that some of the younger/smaller wikis will
learn from the mistakes of the older/larger wikis.

Even the detailed implementation of a broad rule like "no personal
attacks" is going to be culture specific to a degree.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:
> I agree with Jimbo here.  Portuguese is one language,

Just to be clear, and I'm not disagreeing with James at all, I just
wanted to make clear that *I* have not said that "Portuguese is one
language".  I am not even remotely qualified to make a judgment about
that.

What I am qualified to do is to talk about the right kinds of reasons
we should use for deciding the matter, reasons that for example don't
include nationalism, and that do include trying to relax and get along
with people and try hard to learn about other people.

--Jimbo


from_name: Emmanuel Engelhart

subject: [Wikitech-l] lex/yacc parser

body:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:07:51 +0100
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I'm going on holiday for the next week.  Accordingly, I will not be able
> to work on the lex/yacc parser that I have written during the past weeks
> or so.  I will check into CVS my work so far, and anyone interested can
> continue the work while I am away.
>
> So far, the parser can do:
>
> * paragraphs
> * pre-lines (lines beginning with spaces)
> * lists (* and # only)
> * extensions (<math>, <hiero>)
> * headings
> * bold and italics
>
> I am sorry I took so long to do bold and italics, but, just as I
> originally anticipated, it was quite hard.  I had discarded two failed
> attempts until the third one finally worked out.  There is one special
> case in which I had to apply a bit of a hack, but I am sure that this is
> okay, given that it works pretty much perfectly now.
>
> As for "extensions", it currently recognises anything as an extension
> that is an HTML tag without attributes and its corresponding closing
> tag.  Using this mechanism, <nowiki> and <pre> can be considered
> "extensions" for the purposes of the parser.
>
> What is missing:
>
> * links, images, categories (everything in [[ ... ]])
> * template inclusions and variables ({{...}} and {{{...}}})
> * tables
> * HTML tags that should be allowed but are not extensions (esp. div)
>
> The lexer already recognises tokens for the former two, but not for
> tables or HTML tags. In particular, it will recognise something like
> <b>''something''</b> as an "extension" and not parse the '' as italics.
> Obviously, this needs to be fixed.
>
> If anything is unclear about how things work, please drop me an e-mail
> and I will document the relevant bits when I am back.
>

Hi

I don't manage to compile your source files.
<<
wikiparse.y: conflits: 119 d?calage/r?duction, 13 r?duction/r?duction
>>

Can you give us the required versions of flex and bison ?

thx

Emmanuel
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Il y a deux produits majeurs qui sont sortis de Berkeley: Le LSD et BSD.
Nous ne pensons pas que ce soit une co?ncidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Engelhart      ICQ UIN : 53388731   TEL (+49)(0)6.22.15.88.03.31


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>  The root of the problem is that we haven't decided what it means to
> be a *free* encyclopedia.

I don't have any idea why you think this.  There has never been any
question about this at all.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Michael Becker wrote:
> Pointing this out has brought up an interesting point to me
>though. How can we morally justify using other peoples copyrighted
>material, against their copyright agreement, and then expect others to
>respect our copyright agreement? Wouldn't people also be able to make
>a case of fair use when using our content? I for one have for a long
>time opposed other websites using our content without following our
>copyright agreement (i.e. the GFDL). However, I don't find it moral?ly
>justifiable for us to in one breath say, we have a right to break
>other peoples copyright agreements, and then in the next, attack
>people who break ours, ?even though they often too have a case for
>fair use.

I find this line of argument confusing and not very compelling.

Fair use (and fair dealing) is a limitation on the bounds of
copyright.  Using something under fair use is not a violation of
copyright at all.  Fair use is not (and must not be) just a handwaving
justification -- there are specific (though maddeningly vague and hard
to apply) conditions for fair use.  (And for fair dealing, which is
not quite the same thing.)

If someone finds something in Wikipedia and has a fair use defense for
using it without our permission, then more power to them.  This is not
a violation of our rights in any way.

Fair use is a very good aspect of copyright law, and it should be
relied upon by us (though, it should be relied upon carefully, we are
not legal risk takers).  And if someone takes some of our content
under fair use, we should be glad of it.  This is not an invitation
for people to violate the GNU FDL -- fair use is not a violation of
the GNU FDL.

--Jimbo


from_name: Stephan Walter

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: lex/yacc parser

body:
Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

> I don't manage to compile your source files.
> <<
> wikiparse.y: conflits: 119 d?calage/r?duction, 13 r?duction/r?duction
>>>

It *does* work (you should now have a file called wikiparse.tab.c)

"Conflicts" means that the grammar isn't perfect yet.

Regards,
Stephan

--
Stephan.Walter at epfl.ch  --  http://lart.info/~stw/  --  PGP: B2421799


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: lex/yacc parser

body:
Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

> I don't manage to compile your source files.
> <<
> wikiparse.y: conflits: 119 d?calage/r?duction, 13 r?duction/r?duction

Here's how you compile it:

bison -d wikiparse.y
flex wikilex.l
gcc wikiparse.tab.c parsetree.c lex.yy.c -o wikiparse

Regards,
Stephan

--
Stephan.Walter at epfl.ch  --  http://lart.info/~stw/  --  PGP: B2421799


from_name: Eckhart Wörner

body:
Hello,

is there a possibility to get

a) the markup text of a wikipedia article,
b) the markup of a specific article version and
c) the current version number of an article?

Eckhart


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:59:31 +0200, Eckhart W?rner <ew at ewsoftware.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a possibility to get
>
> a) the markup text of a wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=article&action=raw&ctype=text/css
> b) the markup of a specific article version and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Article&action=raw&ctype=text/css&oldid=5326300
> c) the current version number of an article?
No idea
>
> Eckhart
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:59:31 +0200, Eckhart W?rner <ew at ewsoftware.de> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>is there a possibility to get

>>c) the current version number of an article?
>
> No idea

see http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181
Currently not.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
It should be noted, however, that a "tomahawk" is specifically a hand ax
used for fighting and esp. throwing.  And a very destructive missile.

--
Austin D. Hair <austin at austinhair.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Callidus
http://www.austinhair.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040821/7f2ca4e8/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [Foundation-l] Please vote: domain name donation

body:
I have now started a poll at:

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Village_pump#Domain_donation_.26mdash.3B_please_vote.21

about whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation should accept my donation
of the wikipaedia.net domain name and make it a working redirect to
wikipedia.org.

You are kindly asked to contribute your vote.

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please vote: domain name donation


from_name: babulGogoi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] help install WiKi

body:
Hi, here's the report. MediaWiki DOES NOT install in my server!!
whts' teh problem?

===================
MediaWiki 1.3.1 installation
Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.

Checking environment...
PHP 4.3.8: ok
PHP server API is apache; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
Have zlib support; enabling output compression.
Found GD graphics library built-in, image thumbnailing will be enabled
if you enable uploads.
Installation directory: /home/shillong/public_html/babul/wiki
Script URI path: /babul/wiki


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >  The root of the problem is that we haven't decided what it means to
> > be a *free* encyclopedia.

> I don't have any idea why you think this.  There has never been any
> question about this at all.

>  --Jimbo

Apparently you could clear it up for me then.  Should a free encyclopedia be
redistributable by anyone in every country, or only the United States, or
need it not be redistributable at all?  Should it be free for commercial
redistribution?  Does the entire encyclopedia need to be editable?  What
types of edits must be allowed?  Can there be centralized control, for
instance linkback requirements?

All this talk of whether or not things are "free enough" led me to believe
that there was a lot of grey area.  Maybe I'm wrong, and we do agree on what
it means to be a free encyclopedia, we just haven't agreed that we want to
be a free encyclopedia.

Anthony


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
On Thursday 19 August 2004 22:54, James R. Johnson wrote:
> I agree with Jimbo here.  Portuguese is one language, just as English is
> one language, despite regional differences, and despite some ignorant (in
> my view) people saying they don't speak English, but American.  And though
> I may find British accents and spelling funny, that's simply what they do,
> and if I were to move there or visit, I'd change how I spell things to
> follow their norms.  But despite our differences, we are all still English
> speakers, just as Mexicans, Colombians, and Spaniards are all Spanish
> speakers, and Germans, Swiss, and Austrians are all German speakers.

German is three distinct languages: Plattdeutsch (which has its own
Wikipedia), Hochdeutsch (standard German), and Oberdeutsch (spoken in higher
lands such as Switzerland). Swabian, an Oberdeutsch dialect, is pretty hard
for a Hochdeutscher to understand. Luso and Brasileiro are hardly different
at all: septimo/setimo, seu/dele (one of them, I forget which, says "seu" for
"your" (de voc?) and "dele" for "his"), ananas/abacaxi. This is no different
than American and British color/colour or tomahawk/hatchet (both A and B say
"hatchet" but "tomahawk" is an Algonquian word - which somehow got all the
way to PNG as "tamiok").

phma

--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
Plattdeutsch isn't really German...it's Low Saxon, descended from Old Saxon,
a Germanic relative of Old High German and Old English.  It has the one
plural form in the present and past like OE, but shares features of German,
except the Second Consonant Shift.  Swiss is like German Ebonics to me, but
ask a German what he thinks.  Or I will once I move there in a
month...actually...I'll get back to you on that last comment, after I e-mail
one of my fellows at FHK.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pierre Abbat
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:53 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

On Thursday 19 August 2004 22:54, James R. Johnson wrote:
> I agree with Jimbo here.  Portuguese is one language, just as English
> is one language, despite regional differences, and despite some
> ignorant (in my view) people saying they don't speak English, but
> American.  And though I may find British accents and spelling funny,
> that's simply what they do, and if I were to move there or visit, I'd
> change how I spell things to follow their norms.  But despite our
> differences, we are all still English speakers, just as Mexicans,
> Colombians, and Spaniards are all Spanish speakers, and Germans, Swiss,
and Austrians are all German speakers.

German is three distinct languages: Plattdeutsch (which has its own
Wikipedia), Hochdeutsch (standard German), and Oberdeutsch (spoken in higher
lands such as Switzerland). Swabian, an Oberdeutsch dialect, is pretty hard
for a Hochdeutscher to understand. Luso and Brasileiro are hardly different
at all: septimo/setimo, seu/dele (one of them, I forget which, says "seu"
for "your" (de voc?) and "dele" for "his"), ananas/abacaxi. This is no
different than American and British color/colour or tomahawk/hatchet (both A
and B say "hatchet" but "tomahawk" is an Algonquian word - which somehow got
all the way to PNG as "tamiok").

phma

--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] LanguageJbo update

body:
I just put LanguageJbo.php on meta. Could someone check it for mismatched
quotes and install it on jbo.wikipedia.org?

phma
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

body:
Speaking as an American, most places I go, I simply hear "axe."

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Austin Hair
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 12:13 AM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Brazilian Portuguese

It should be noted, however, that a "tomahawk" is specifically a hand ax
used for fighting and esp. throwing.  And a very destructive missile.

--
Austin D. Hair <austin at austinhair.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Callidus
http://www.austinhair.org/


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PATCH "last modified on .. by user(talk)" and
 "revision as of .. by user(talk)"

body:
Coming from UseMod wiki software, where this information is always
present, I would like to introduce these patches in the coming versions
of MediaWiki:

to show and link who edited last the article (or revision)
==========================================================

(1) on every article's footer
"This page was last modified on .. (date) by userX(talk)"
=========================================================

For this patch the page MediaWiki:lastmodified needs to be
modified, add $2 and/or $3 if you wish to display the user and usertalk
information and links:

page MediaWiki:lastmodified
1.3.1 Original: "This page was last modified $1."
1.3.1 TG Patch: "This page was last modified $1 by $2 ($3)."

(2) on each article's revision page
"Revision as of .. (date) by userX(talk)"
=========================================

For this patch the page MediaWiki:revisionasof needs to be
modified, add $2 and/or $3 if you wish to display the user and usertalk
information and links:

page MediaWiki:revsionasof
1.3.1 Original: "Revision as of $1"
1.3.1 TG Patch: "Revision as of $1 by $2 ($3)"

The patch is for the modules Skin.php and Article.php of version 1.3.1;
the patch is ready and will be published soon.

Tom


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: lex/yacc parser

body:
Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

> I don't manage to compile your source files.
> wikiparse.y: conflits: 119 d?calage/r?duction, 13 r?duction/r?duction

This is normal. This is not an error.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: lex/yacc parser

body:
Stephan Walter wrote:

> It *does* work (you should now have a file called wikiparse.tab.c)
> "Conflicts" means that the grammar isn't perfect yet.

While I won't claim my grammar is perfect, the conflicts don't mean
there's anything wrong with it. The grammar is written in such a way
that the default disambiguation rules do the right thing. There is no
need to get rid of the conflicts. It would only make the grammar less
legible.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Apparently you could clear it up for me then.

Sure, glad to help.  I won't be saying anything new, though.

> Should a free encyclopedia be redistributable by anyone in every
> country, or only the United States, or need it not be
> redistributable at all?

It should be as widely redistributable as is practical.  Due to
differences in jurisdiction, there can be difficulties associated with
this.  We must not bend our NPOV/encyclopedia policies to conform to
censorship, for example, but we can try as hard as we can to
accomodate minor differences in copyright laws.

>  Should it be free for commercial redistribution?

Yes.

> Does the entire encyclopedia need to be editable?  What types of
> edits must be allowed?  Can there be centralized control, for
> instance linkback requirements?

None of these questions have anything at all to do with the question
of GNU-freedom.  These are internal policies of administration, and we
have pretty well-developed answers for all of them, right?

> All this talk of whether or not things are "free enough" led me to believe
> that there was a lot of grey area.  Maybe I'm wrong, and we do agree on what
> it means to be a free encyclopedia, we just haven't agreed that we want to
> be a free encyclopedia.

With all due respect, Anthony, I think you're just trolling here.

We know what it means to be a free encyclopedia, and we draw on
longstanding traditions in the free software community to flesh out
the details of that meaning.  We have been committed from day one (day
one of Nupedia, even) to be a free encyclopedia in the sense of
GNU-freedom.

We *do* have ongoing discussions about particular details, and we will
*always* have those discussions.  Some of these issues are complex,
and the answers to them are not always going to be obvious.

Acting as if there's some deep philosophical division within the
project, or some less-than-complete commitment to freedom is an insult
to many of us who have been working so hard for so long to achieve
exactly that.

--Jimbo


from_name: Jens Frank

body:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 09:35:23AM +0100, Kate wrote:
> [I sent this yesterday, but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
>  Apologies if it ends up arriving twice.]
>
> Morning,
>
> Raul654 and I were having a discussion earlier about sending a daily
> featured article via email, similar to "word of the day" at m-w.com
> etc.
>
> The easiest way to do this would be via a mailing list which users
> subscribe to; however, mailman's interface isn't really very obvious
> for someone who's just looking to sign up for something.  So, it would
> be nice if something could be added which would handle the initial part
> of the subscription when the user enters their email address into a
> (simple) form, and they just have to reply to the mailman email to
> subscribe.
>
> Is there any chance of something like this being done, or does anyone
> have any other suggestions on how to handle it?

Call me an ignorant techie, but what is complicated in this form:

 Subscribing to Wikitech-l

 Subscribe to Wikitech-l by filling out the following form. You will be
 sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously
 subscribing you. This is a private list, which means that the list of
 members is not available to non-members.

      Your email address:    [___________________]
      Your name (optional):  [___________________]

 You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security,
 but should prevent others from messing with your subscription. Do not
 use a valuable password as it will occasionally be emailed back to you
 in cleartext.

Regards,

JeLuF


from_name: Kate

body:
On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 11:41, Jens Frank wrote:
> Call me an ignorant techie, but what is complicated in this form:
>
>  Subscribing to Wikitech-l
>
>  Subscribe to Wikitech-l by filling out the following form. You will be
>  sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously
>  subscribing you. This is a private list, which means that the list of
>  members is not available to non-members.
>
>       Your email address:    [___________________]
>       Your name (optional):  [___________________]
>
>  You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security,
>  but should prevent others from messing with your subscription. Do not
>  use a valuable password as it will occasionally be emailed back to you
>  in cleartext.

More like:

  ==Using Wikitech-l==

  To post a message to all the list members, send email to
  wikitech-l at wikimedia.org.

  You can subscribe to the list, or change your existing
  subscription, in the sections below.

  ==Subscribing to Wikitech-l==

  Subscribe to Wikitech-l by filling out the following form.  You
  will be sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others
  from gratuitously subscribing you. This is a private list,
  which means that the list of members is not available to non-
  members.

  Your email address:                  [_____________________]
  Your name (optional):                [_____________________]

  You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild
  security, but should prevent others from messing with your
  subscription. Do not use a valuable password as it will
  occasionally be emailed back to you in cleartext.

  If you choose not to enter a password, one will be automatically
  generated for you, and it will be sent to you once you've confirmed
  your subscription. You can always request a mail-back of your
  password when you edit your personal options. Once a month,
  your password will be emailed to you as a reminder.

  Pick a password:                     [_____________________]
  Reenter password to confirm:         [_____________________]

  Which language do you prefer to
  display your messages?               [English (USA)________]

  Would you like to receive list mail
  batched in a daily digest?           [No_]

The "using the list" text is irrelevant - as subscribers wouldn't be
able to post to it anyway.  Is a typical end-user going to understand
"cleartext"?  Digest mail is irrelevant: there's only one mail per day
anyway.  Language is misleading at best, since the mail would only be in
English anyway.

If this can all be removed or reworded on a per-list basis, that's fine:
it's basically what I'm asking for.

(And yes, I really do think that form may confuse a typical end-user.
Someone who's editing Wiki anyway, no - but this isn't aimed at only
those people.)

Kate.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wrong headlines cause wrong sections

body:
Hello,

I don't know whether this is a known bug:

There is a problem with headlines not well-formed.
I grabbed some examples from the German Wikipedia:

== wrong headline

== Italienisch ==stimmt das denn??

Both lines are not parsed as headlines, but when you edit a section of
the article containing these lines you get a different section from what
you expected, because it seems that the software increments the section
counter at these lines, too.

Eckhart


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> I think you misunderstood the question, as it was related to what types of
> edits, and linkback requirements are required under copyright law, but I can
> guess your answer, anyway.

There is nothing about copyright law that would require anyone to
accept edits.  I don't even know what you're saying.  Linkback
requirements are a part of attribution, and basically people just have
to follow the requirements of the license.  There are better and worse
ways of doing that, and it is well known that the license itself is
complicated and hard to apply to a wiki or web context.

>  For example, it was only when you made an official statement that
> noncommercial only images weren't allowed in Wikipedia that many
> Wikipedians would even consider them to be a bad thing, and even now
> there is no effort to remove these images and there are people
> actively fighting against their removal.

There is no current effort to remove them because we have decided that
the *first* priority is to get everything tagged, and then the
*second* priority is to try to convert as many of those
noncommercial-only images into free images.  If those efforts fail,
then they will eventually be removed or used under "fair use/fair
dealing" where that can be properly applied.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree with you, Michael.  The one
uniformly consistent thing that comes from everyone is that at a bare
minimum, we have to get all the existing images tagged, and have a
much better system for making sure that things are tagged and sourced
properly.

We all ought to do more work in this area, I think.  The people who
are working on it are finding it very slow and difficult.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
> > Does the entire encyclopedia need to be editable?  What types of
> > edits must be allowed?  Can there be centralized control, for
> > instance linkback requirements?

> None of these questions have anything at all to do with the question
> of GNU-freedom.  These are internal policies of administration, and we
> have pretty well-developed answers for all of them, right?

I think you misunderstood the question, as it was related to what types of
edits, and linkback requirements are required under copyright law, but I can
guess your answer, anyway.

> > All this talk of whether or not things are "free enough" led me to
believe
> > that there was a lot of grey area.  Maybe I'm wrong, and we do agree on
what
> > it means to be a free encyclopedia, we just haven't agreed that we want
to
> > be a free encyclopedia.

> With all due respect, Anthony, I think you're just trolling here.

My comments were rhetorical.  If that makes them trolling, then I guess I
was trolling.  But I wasn't *just* trolling.

> We know what it means to be a free encyclopedia, and we draw on
> longstanding traditions in the free software community to flesh out
> the details of that meaning.  We have been committed from day one (day
> one of Nupedia, even) to be a free encyclopedia in the sense of
> GNU-freedom.

You have been.  Most of the other early members have been.  But much of the
community is not.  This isn't to say that many people reject having a free
encyclopedia, but there are many who just don't understand what that means
to Wikipedia.  For example, it was only when you made an official statement
that noncommercial only images weren't allowed in Wikipedia that many
Wikipedians would even consider them to be a bad thing, and even now there
is no effort to remove these images and there are people actively fighting
against their removal.  I don't see how you can say that the community is on
the same page on this.  It's clearly not true.

> Acting as if there's some deep philosophical division within the
> project, or some less-than-complete commitment to freedom is an insult
> to many of us who have been working so hard for so long to achieve
> exactly that.

I'm sorry that you're insulted by this.  But at this point the amount of
work that is necessary to legally redistribute Wikipedia, even in the United
States for non-commercial purposes, is enormous, and so in that sense
freedom has not been achieved.

As you've been insulted and don't even believe I'm being serious, I'll
continue this discussion no further.  Feel free to reply publically and/or
privately if you'd like, but I give up.

> --Jimbo

Anthony


body:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:43:51PM +0200, Eckhart W?rner wrote:
> I don't know whether this is a known bug:
>
> There is a problem with headlines not well-formed.
> I grabbed some examples from the German Wikipedia:
>
> == wrong headline
>
> == Italienisch ==stimmt das denn??
>
> Both lines are not parsed as headlines, but when you edit a section of
> the article containing these lines you get a different section from what
> you expected, because it seems that the software increments the section
> counter at these lines, too.

Submitted as BUG#186
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186

Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, if possible.

Regards,

JeLuF


from_name: Michael Becker

subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:51:22 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
*Snip*
>
> >  Should it be free for commercial redistribution?
>
> Yes.
>
*Snip*

Well, for anyone to commercially redistribute wikipedia, they would have to go through and remove all of the non-GNU copyrighted material. They could rely on the current community created labeling scheme to remove any labeled free-use images, but there is always the off chance of an image that wasn't labeled properly would stay in. This means that to commercially redistribute wikipedia, someone would have to look through every image, and make sure they are not copyrighted. Now, maybe this is desirable to some wikipedians, to make it harder for someone to profit off of our work. However, I personally think that it would benefit our cause for us to have commercial distributions of our work; it would help spread the word of our cause. In any case, I think it would be beneficial for us to come up with a better system for including non-GNU copyrighted material. We never know who in the future is going to want to use our content, and it is going to be much easier to separate the non-GNU material out now than 10 years from now.

--
Michael Becker


body:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:14:24PM +0100, Kate wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 11:41, Jens Frank wrote:
> > Call me an ignorant techie, but what is complicated in this form:
>
> More like:
>
> [skipped]
>
> The "using the list" text is irrelevant - as subscribers wouldn't be
> able to post to it anyway.  Is a typical end-user going to understand
> "cleartext"?  Digest mail is irrelevant: there's only one mail per day
> anyway.  Language is misleading at best, since the mail would only be in
> English anyway.

He should learn what cleartext means. It's important to teach people about
security. Perhaps change the wording, to make it more obvious.

The other points are valid and I think I start to understand your issues.

> If this can all be removed or reworded on a per-list basis, that's fine:
> it's basically what I'm asking for.

That should be possible. Something like
	http://mediawiki.mormo.org/mail.html
perhaps?

Regards,

	JeLuF


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: An alternate parser

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> I think I like Magnus' one better. Gabriel's might be alright if it
> was in CVS, but it's not as far as I can see. Will I be stepping on
> any toes if I do some work on it?

Caveat: Mine's rather a converter than a parser, though it *should*
return similar output (not the same, since we don't use the same XML).
In the long run, a real parser will likely become the solution of choice.

Magnus


body:
On 22 Aug 2004, at 10:51, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:43:07 +0200
> From: Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> is there a possibility to get
>
>>> c) the current version number of an article?
>>
>> No idea
>
> see http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181
> Currently not.
>
> greetings,
> elian

You are kindly and most cordially invited to vote for this bug!

:-)

- Jens


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: help install WiKi

body:
babulGogoi wrote:
> resend message. pls anyone getback with an answer
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: babulGogoi <shillong at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:07:34 +0530
> Subject: help install WiKi
> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>
> Hi, here's the report. MediaWiki DOES NOT install in my server!!
> whts' teh problem?
>
> ===================
> MediaWiki 1.3.1 installation
> Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.
>
> Checking environment...
> PHP 4.3.8: ok
> PHP server API is apache; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
> Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
> PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
> Have zlib support; enabling output compression.
> Found GD graphics library built-in, image thumbnailing will be enabled
> if you enable uploads.
> Installation directory: /home/shillong/public_html/babul/wiki
> Script URI path: /babul/wiki

What's happening after that ? Does the script just die ?

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: help install WiKi

body:
resend message. pls anyone getback with an answer

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: babulGogoi <shillong at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:07:34 +0530
Subject: help install WiKi
To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org

Hi, here's the report. MediaWiki DOES NOT install in my server!!
whts' teh problem?

===================
MediaWiki 1.3.1 installation
Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.

Checking environment...
PHP 4.3.8: ok
PHP server API is apache; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
Have zlib support; enabling output compression.
Found GD graphics library built-in, image thumbnailing will be enabled
if you enable uploads.
Installation directory: /home/shillong/public_html/babul/wiki
Script URI path: /babul/wiki

--
www.Shillong.com


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: An alternate parser

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
>> Gabriel Wicke wrote:
>>
>>> This is what i'm writing currently
>>
>>
>>
>> So how many people are currently working on a new parser?  :-)
>
>
> Never heard of redundancy? We'll get at least *one* parser done, even if
> some of us go bluescreen in the process ;-)

I think I like Magnus' one better. Gabriel's might be alright if it was
in CVS, but it's not as far as I can see. Will I be stepping on any toes
if I do some work on it?

-- Tim Starling