from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Zachte wrote:

>Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html
>
>* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
>paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
>management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
>outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
>be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
>tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
>find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.
>
>All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
>community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
>mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
>people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
>committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
>don'ts is what really matters.
>
>
>Erik Zachte
>
>
I hope that this isn't a serious proposal.  In almost every situation
that I've seen an outside CEO, particularly for successful organizations
(a bankrupt company might be an exception), the results have been simply
disasterous.  This includes both for-profit companies and non-profit
organizations.

The point is that by bringing in an outside CEO, they don't understand
the interal structure and culture of the organization, nor often even
the "industry" that the organization is working within.  Quite often
decisions are made by these CEOs that alienate huge sections of the
company or group because they are reacting as they would in the realm
they are much more familiar with.... and the rules simply don't apply in
this new situation they are facing.  I could give countless examples of
how this has been a failure for both Fortune 500 companies as well as
NGOs and even government agencies.  In addition, quite often CEOs that
are appointed in this manner from outside the group have a
hyper-inflated sense of self-importance, which is also one of the issues
that results in CEOs having hyper-inflated salaries as well--- a chronic
problem with many larger companies and even many non-profits.

It simply takes time to try and learn what the group or company is all
about, and in particular with an organization like Wikimedia projects
this is something that much more important, simply because of the huge
number of volunteers involved.  This issue doesn't necessarily apply to
professional staff that is promoted from within to become CEO, but that
is largly because they have taken the time to try to get to know what is
going on first and are already familiar with the organization culture.
 And people in that organization are already familiar with such an
appointment and know what to expect (for good or ill).  I would give the
same advise for the WMF as I would for the Boy Scouts or the Red Cross
in this case.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


list: wikien-l

from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures (was: cancelation of the
	deletion review of the satanism userbox)

body:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are
> they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?

No, obviously not.

> Worth raising this much ruckus over?

I have raised no ruckus.  I simply edited some pages to remove some
unnecessary formatting.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On 6/5/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, this "I don't have to piss people off" bizzo implies
> that *nobody* ever has a legitimate complaint against Tony Sidaway.

No, that's a non-sequiture.  The sentence "I don't have to piss people
off" is simply an acknowledgement that it is not necessary to piss
people off.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
On 6/4/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I already do this for wikien-l and checkuser-l, so I know what is involved.
>
> Didn't she say "off-list"? You suuure you know how to work it? ;-)

Long drive yesterday, many pictures taken, I was tired.  (I have
several pictures of Jimbo in medieval garb, but not sure what I'll use
them for.)  My apologies.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
Steve Summit wrote:
>
> When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature,
> it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and
> (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
> Yes, you and I think it's silly and inconsequential, but to them
> it's very important.  So when you delete or alter it, it's a
> direct personal affront, a slap in the face, the equivalent of an
> ad hominem argument.  They react angrily, and this should come as
> no surprise.
>
So send them off to read WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and in the meantime check out
the bit on every edit page about "merciless editing".

Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about
anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to be
handed a bunch of clues.

If that does not work, a few sharp taps with a cluebat should help, and if
they still insist on their "right" to scrawl graffiti across the
encyclopedia, then maybe they should take time out to sit on the naughty
chair and think about their activities. If it works for naughty children, it
should work for them.

Obviously some people are simply not educable in this fashion and will just
have to be shown the door.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4714843
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category analysis with perl

body:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > You could always put "See also: [[:Category:The Beatles]]" (I think
> > that's the syntax) in the  description for [[Category:British rock
> > bands]].
>
> That's probably not bad. The page would have a basic structure like:
>
> Description
> Related categories <-- new
> Subcategories
> Articles in this category
>
> People *want* to put "related categories", but they break the category
> system if they make them subcats. We need to channel that desire.
>
> Steve

While playing around with perl and [[Category:Airports]] last night I
noticed an instance of what will probably be another common one:
[[Category:Lists of airports]] is a subcategory.  There are probably
enough instances of that sort of thing that we would have to make an
exception (in the interest of consensus), but the cleaner solution
would be to go with something like the related categories idea above.

I should also note that [[Category:Airports]] itself is treated like a
theme for articles, but the subcategories are treated like attributes.
 (Actually, now that I look at it directly on Wikipedia I see "Airport
lounges" and "Airport operators" are also subcategories.  I didn't
notice that in my original, very fast, skim of the tree, but looking
back it *was* there).

If anyone wants to take a look at my "tree" for airports, or my perl
script (which is really simplistic), let me know where I can upload
it.  To run it you need to download and import two mysql database
files, enwiki-20060518-categorylinks.sql (290 megs) and
enwiki-20060518-page.sql (354 megs).  The "tree" looks like this:

Airports_by_country
*Airports_in_Afghanistan
*#Bagram_Air_Base
*#Kabul_International_Airport
*Airports_in_Albania
*#Rinas_Mother_Teresa_Airport
[...]
*Airports_in_Australia
**Royal_Australian_Air_Force_bases
***Former_RAAF_Bases
***#RAAF_Station_Archerfield
***#RAAF_Station_Bairnsdale
***#RAAF_Base_Rathmines
***#RAAF_Station_Tocumwal
**#RAAF_Base_Amberley
**#RAAF_Bare_Bases

Are air force bases airports?  I'd say so.

I also tried making a tree for [[Category:Buildings and structures]]
(a "parent" of airports).  That one grew quite messy, and my script
bailed at 10 levels of recursion, so I haven't really analysed it
much.  I'll try turning it up to 20 or 25 and see what happens.

Anthony


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Instant Commons : INCORRECT

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNOEDADBAA.erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
	<b80736c80605312105l432e7c58yec39677bc6462028@mail.gmail.com>
	<44822044.7030601@wikia.com>
	<b80736c80606050027n663e0c90ked86903853494847@mail.gmail.com>
	<e60vas$mq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 6/5/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem now is to get the grant from Kennisnet.

I very much doubt that given our discussions in February, but I'll be
happy to call Jan-Bart to clarify things. I think, if you had chosen
the route of simply letting Gerard handle the communications and
contracts with Kennisnet, and only communicated the support of WMF for
the project, it would already be underway.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/5/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> All in all, there are arguments why I am not in there. Given that
> people are chosen by the existing committee members, it does not help
> argueing publicly about why someone is or is not in a committee.

No. But it very much does make sense arguing about whether this
process is a reasonable process.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category analysis with perl

body:
On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> I also tried making a tree for [[Category:Buildings and structures]]
> (a "parent" of airports).  That one grew quite messy, and my script
> bailed at 10 levels of recursion, so I haven't really analysed it
> much.  I'll try turning it up to 20 or 25 and see what happens.

Well, that problem became obvious really quick.

Coastal_construction
*Ports_and_harbours
**Port_cities
***Edinburgh
****Education_in_Edinburgh
*****University_of_Edinburgh
******University_of_Edinburgh_alumni
*******Arthur_Conan_Doyle
********Sherlock_Holmes
*********Arthur_Conan_Doyle
**********Sherlock_Holmes

Guess I have to add in some sort of loop detection.  Of course, "Port
cities" shouldn't be in "Ports and harbours", "Edinburgh" shouldn't be
in "Port cities", and "Arthur Conan Doyle" shouldn't be in "University
of Edinburgh alumni" :).

Anthony


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

body:
>From: John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:48:26 +0800
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
>
> >The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
> >referring to another proposal
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> >in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version
of
> >the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
> >convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
> >further explanations about them.
> >
> >Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
> >relatively new user who lived through some hard
times
> >because of some structural problems. I would like
to
> >see the success of this project like many others,
> >liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and
would
> >like to suggest some small changes for a better
> >environment at which Wikiediting has some written
> >ethical statements and standards and user rights
and
> >admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
> >will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
> >proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia
will
> >be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
> >same time in the future while it is growing.
> >
> >
>Just so we're all on the same page, what is the
"philosophy" behind the
>Wiki movement? Also, what makes this relevant to
Wikipedia? Wikipedia is
>an encyclopaedia being built through a wiki because a
wiki happens to be
>the most efficient way to write an encyclopaedia, not
for any
>philosophical reasons.
>

The philosophy behind wikipedia refers to: writing an
online free encyclopedia by contribution of the
volunteers.

> >(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
> >people during the discussion on this list. I
combined
> >the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list
if
> >anyone else missed them too.)
> >
> >------------
> >[[WP:OURS]]
> >------------
> >
> >[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
> >ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
> >between sysops and users.
> >
> >[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
> >RelationS) as well.]
> >
> >
>Um....what problems are there between sysops and
users that need
>clarification? I rarely see a strict dividing line
between admins and
>ordinary users. In many polemical meta issues,
Wikipedians have not been
>divided along any demarcation boundary that would
indicate a significant
>causatory relationship between the sysop flag and
one's views of a
>particular subject.  The fact that admins often seem
to "gang up" is
>usually caused by the fact that they've been here the
longest, so they
>*tend* to have a better view of what's going on.
([[Correlation does not
>imply causation]], for anyone who's interested.)

If you are reading the messages on this list that
would be enough to see the problems.

>
> >1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
> >
> >'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
> >encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
> >well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
> >(e.g.
>
>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
> >
> >
>Those "ethics" are controversial and are not
supported by the community.
>What's wrong with current policy that necessitates a
new policy?

It cannot be said that they are not supported by the
community, as explained at the end of last message.
Discussing the standards and ethics in Wikipedia and
related policies and guidelines coherently is very
useful for both newcomers as a guide and old users as
a reference.

>
> >[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
> >controversial issue are very important to address.
If
> >the standards are applied strictly to everyone,
that
> >would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
> >disputes.]
> >
> >
>This ignores the fact that in a [[meritocracy]]
(which includes
>encyclopaedia publishing houses), some people's
opinions do count more
>than others.
>
>

If the problem is about how Wikipedia works that might
be true. If the dispute is related to a content of an
article that connot be true. Whoever knows the subject
should be listened.

>
> >[It is easier to write an article on a purely
> >technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
> >etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause
some
> >problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
> >admins are also part of the disputes. Their
experience
> >and privileges then does not constitute a base for
> >neutralization of the article but -let me put it
this
> >way- rather make them a target for
> >accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to
explain
> >only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
> >realize that there is no stronger factor to polish
the
> >reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
> >of the controversial issues.]
> >
> >
>This seems to be grandstanding to me. What're you
getting at?
>
> >[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
> >started. I could not have a chance to put it to a
vote
> >properly.]
> >
> >2. '''Subject oriented study groups and
committees'''
> >
> >Based on the area of specialization and interest,
> >experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
> >experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
> >work on the controversial articles categorized
> >as being related to their area of specialization
and
> >can make recommendations on particular points. If
> >necessary, the study groups may also supervise
> >controversial articles until the dispute is
resolved.
> >
> >
>This idea may have some merit, and is worth
exploring. It depends on how
>the community reacts, however. Such committees should
not be placed on a
>pedestal, nor should they be given excessive
privileges. Standing
>mini-arbcoms for dealing with content disputes is
something worth
>considering, nevertheless.
>

Yes. It does not have to be in an ArbCom form either.
It is natural to think that people with similar
interests and area of specialization have better view
on a related article. It is not hard to find a way
that they form groups to discuss the points which lead
to disputes. Can you imagine how can that eliminate
edit-wars and 3RR violations, etc?

> >[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is
to
> >form some study groups based on the area of
> >specialization of the users, say 'history of
science',
> >etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
> >the users may ask the opinion of the related study
> >groups. The group may vote if necessary on the
dispute
> >and comes up with a decision. It does not have to
be a
> >final decision though, as usual. Many
> >violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
> >diminished that way which may result in a more
> >friendly atmosphere between users and admins who
feel
> >obligated to force the rules consciously.]
> >
> >3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
> >
> >Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
> >admin mentor when s/he create an account in
Wikipedia.
> >The users blocked by more than 3 admins are
required
> >to have a mentor. Users can change their
> >mentor anytime they like before involved in a
dispute
> >by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
> >mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and
these
> >accounts will be managed as before.
> >
> >
>What is the purpose of this? Isn't this just coddling
confirmed problem
>editors? This smells like pointless [[m:instruction
creep]].
>

This is already explained below. This part propose to
educate the users about wikiediting rather then
irritate them, teach them a lesson by blocking, etc.

> >[This will indicate the popularity of the admins
and
> >will provide a dynamic measure of their success.
This
> >dynamic approach might be better than reelecting
them
> >periodically. There is almost no accountability of
> >admins in a practical way. They should be
accountable
> >to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
> >added to this too, if someone thinks is of
paramount
> >importance.]
> >
> >
>We've gone down this road before. RECONFIRMATION OF
ADMINS IS NOT A GOOD
>IDEA. (Refer to the talk page archives of RfA.) Also,
[[WP:NOT]] a
>democracy. Popularity should never be a factor in
deciding whether an
>admin should remain an admin or not. The only thing
that matters in any
>encyclopaedia publishing house is whether an editor
or supervisor's net
>contribution is positive or negative.
>

I did not propose reaffirmation process. I did not
propose that the popularity should be a factor in
determining adminship either. All I am saying is this:
popularity is an indication of how admins do
their job. If they are nice to users, trying to help
them, educate them related to wikiediting the users
will chose them as a mentor. The proposal does not
talk about if an admin becomes unpopular s/he
should quit.

> >4. '''Limited block policy'''
> >
> >A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the
case
> >the mentor is not available, an explanation should
be
> >posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
> >unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is
appropriate.
> >Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
> >
> >Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not
by
> >an admin.
> >
> >
>Any reason for this? As far as I can tell, rogue
decisions are undone
>pretty quickly (refer to Carnildo's actions in the
Joeyramoney scandal)
>and legitimate decisions stand. If it ain't broke,
why fix it?
>

The indefinite block is an ultimate decision in my
opinion. An admin should not have that privilege.

> >[Admins know the rules better. If there is a
concern
> >about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
> >agreement on a block based on the rules. It should
not
> >be hard to convince an admin about the
applicability
> >of a specific policy. This approach put the
discussion
> >of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
> >rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
> >surprisingly, results in a block. This part also
gives
> >the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
> >unnecessary but do not want to step on another
admin's
> >toe.]
> >
> >[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so
far
> >should be able to ask for an unblock,
unconditionally,
> >after this policy gets approval, if it does. That
may
> >bring some reconciliations and peace
> >to the project.]
> >
> >
>WHY?
>
>This seems to be a very poorly thought out proposal
to me, with no
>unifying theme. It appears to be something created
solely for the
>purpose of mollycoddling trolls who have issues of
their own. Wikipedia
>is not a counseling centre, and it is not a place for
the reformation of
>editors who cannot work with other editors either. If
you have personal
>problems in working with other Wikipedians, and as a
result are
>contributing a net negative, you have no place here.
End of story. We're
>an encyclopaedia publishing house, not a democracy.
>
>John
>

It is explained why [[WP:OURS]] is proposed at the
beginning. It will serve as a toll to strengthen and
improve the efficiency of the bridges between
community and encyclopedia component of Wikipedia.
It can also serve as a tool to enhance community
spirit. I did not say it is perfect. It is a first
step towards clarification and balancing admin-user
relations, though.

Best,

Resid

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


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

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

Selina . stated for the record:

> Racism is illegal...

{{citation needed}}

- --
 Sean Barrett     | So many stupid people, so few asteroids.
 sean at epoptic.com |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEhDg7MAt1wyd9d+URAvZTAJ9OYmhEOFVDfvhrt350WSqxQT+aoQCgg0md
AryonFCXKRd2Do1TeKwRpPQ=
=JTpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Katie the Obscure

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Psychology of problem Wikipedians: excessive "need
	for cognition"

body:
On 6/5/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> >Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of
> >>psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often
> >>reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus
> >>diagnosed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >[snip long post not addressing the point at all]
> >
> >
> >Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious
> >problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem,
> >because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.
> >
> >
> >- d.
> >
> >
> On a similar topic, I would like to know if anyone has added "Wikipedia
> is not a counseling or rehabilitation centre" to [[WP:NOT]] yet. We're
> here to write an encyclopaedia, not deal with people who have issues,
> however deserving of our help and/or sympathy they may be. If they need
> help, the Befrienders, Alcoholics' Anonymous, and other such
> organisations are in /that/ direction.
>
> I don't believe people should attribute to insanity what can be
> attributed to ignorance or plain dickery, but when the insanity/problem
> is obvious, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
>
> John

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy
It's only an essay, but it says a lot.

--
niht-hr?fn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 6/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are
> > they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
>
> The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all
> over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be
> treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another
> bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist
> on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both
> groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the
> whole silly issue deserves.

Except that, while there is a rationale for complaining about the userbox
issue (campaigning, divisive userboxes, etc), there is no inherent problem
with sigs beyond the obvious space usage and that, while it can be annoying,
rarely poses a real problem, since sigs belong at the end of paragraphs.
It's certainly no more of a problem than is subst:'ing {{unsigned}}

Not only is the software set up to use custom sigs, they are also quite
useful.  It takes two clicks to get to the talk page of a standard sig like
I use, only one with a custom sig.  It's also easier to follow conversations
long conversations when you can pick out the sigs without reading them
(though that may only apply to people who read "whole paragraph").  That
said, of course, there's nothing wrong with refactoring sigs on your talk
page.  Of course, since it's Tony doing it, it looks like WP:POINT, yet
again.  Once again, the cure seems worse than the disease (from a person
with an unformatted sig and only one "vanity" userbox)

Ian


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> It is my expectation that Tim will be replaced by the end of this year.
>
> Notice that such decisions are not up to me, but up to the entire board.
>  We have been discussing board expansion, and it is a complex matter.
> We are not prepared to say at the moment exactly how or when it will
> happen.  My expectation is that we will see at least one additional
> member from the community, and one additional member (likely from the
> free software / free culture world) to provide additional external
> oversight.

These are at least two important statements to have on the record, so
thanks for that, in spite of the fact that you ignored all my other
points. Why "by the end of this year" and not "within the next couple
of months"? What is it that makes these decisions so complex and hard
to take? The Board situation hasn't changed since Angela and Anthere
were elected two years ago -- in fact, their one year terms were
extended to two year terms without much discussion. I understand the
need for continuity. I do not understand the conservative and very
slow process in which Wikimedia is reorganizing itself.

Of course you cannot make such a decision alone, but you can certainly
communicate your intent and your rationale fully, as can all other
Board members. When that is done, it should become fairly clear where
the community stands on an issue, and that could very well be a good
way to resolve a standstill. And when it comes to inviting an outside
member, how is that member going to be chosen? Will there be a public
dialogue about who the best figure is for this role, or will they
simply be appointed?

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
geni wrote:
>
> On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about
>> anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to
>> be
>> handed a bunch of clues.
> So why do people keep complaing about others undoing their blocks and
> deletions?
>
Maybe because on the "Block User" and "Delete Page" interfaces there is no
rubric which reads: "If you don't want your writing Block or
Deletion to be edited reversed mercilessly or
redistributed disputed by others, do not submit it."

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4716224
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Some statistics I wish I had...

body:
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Yes, that would be interesting to know, but what I am thinking of is
> more like:
>
> When a person becomes "active" (by some definition), how long do they
> tend to remain "active" (by that same definition).
>
> I would say looking at this in a variety of ways would be useful.  Anons
> pose special problems in interpreting the data, of course, and so
> probably we won't get much useful information out of those.  But since
> we know that almost all people who are really part of the community get
> a user account, I suspect that looking at the activity patterns for user
> accounts would be the most interesting.

I thought of a simple mood metric: the percentage of wikipedians
(active for at least two months) who made more edits this month than
the previous month. It would be affected by seasons but it might be
interesting.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
On 6/5/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good idea, but maybe it can be improved slightly by assuming that most
> people are somewhat lazy.
>
> Instead of:
>   (Redirected from _Lyon metro_)
>
> You could have:
>   (Redirected from _Lyon metro_ - _create redirect_)

Sounds good, although "create redirect" doesn't sound totally
intuitive to me. Better than the current situation though. What's
required for implementation?

Steve


body:
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment.  Can
> you send it to me?

It was sent to this list under the heading "[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A
proposal for admin-user relations" (apparently deleted twice off en).

Steve


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

body:
It'd be nice to have something like this outside of wikimedia though...

On Jun 5, 2006, at 5:51 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as
>>>
>>> "For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the
>>> editor?"  "For any given edit, what is the median length of
>>> service of
>>> the editor?"  These could be measured by either time since first
>>> edit,
>>> or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted average
>>> of the
>>> edit history.
>>>
>>
>> Turns out we can.
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Days_since_first_edit.png
>>
>> Average was easiest, so I did that as a first try. It shows an
>> initial
>> upward trend, stabilising in early 2005 at about 300 days.
>>
>> How's that?
>
> That's pretty cool. :)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:

> Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are
> they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?

The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all
over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be
treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another
bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist
on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both
groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the
whole silly issue deserves.

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


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I don't apologize for the essay. I think it is useful. Basically it
says, "We are not equipped or qualified to offer therapy to you, but
you are welcome to use Wikipedia if it is helpful to you and you are
not too disruptive.

Fred

On Jun 5, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Selina . wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?
> action=history
> As you can see it was written only about 2 months ago, ENTIRELY by
> Fred
> Bauder (see differences between his last edit and the most recent
> edit -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy?
> diff=48498374&oldid=45622959).
> It's his personal opinions, it's not policy at all.
> In fact it should probably be in his userspace.
>
> --
> Selina -


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are headed)

body:
Anthere wrote:
>> Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.

Troy Hunter wrote:
> This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere
> and Angela except on matters of grave importance.

Not at all.  I consider this issue to still be a live issue, and I am in
agreement with the spirit of the resolution.  The problems with it were
and remain purely technical, and I am confident that a compromise
version can be reached.

The legal opinion that we got on the resolution is as follows: "My legal
opinion is that the resolution as stated does not accomplish what its
drafters would otherwise intend, and that it will create problems in the
future if relied upon."

Therefore, a rewrite is in order.

--Jimbo


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
On 6/5/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> (I have
> several pictures of Jimbo in medieval garb, but not sure what I'll use
> them for.)

Blackmail?


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as
>>
>> "For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the
>> editor?"  "For any given edit, what is the median length of service of
>> the editor?"  These could be measured by either time since first edit,
>> or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted average of the
>> edit history.
>>
>
> Turns out we can.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Days_since_first_edit.png
>
> Average was easiest, so I did that as a first try. It shows an initial
> upward trend, stabilising in early 2005 at about 300 days.
>
> How's that?

That's pretty cool. :)

--Jimbo


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re : Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are
	headed)

body:
> daniwo59 a ?crit :
>> This is an example of why I find the questions "Who voted for it?" and "Who
>> voted against it?" immensely troubling. In a true democratic system, the
>> secret  ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting for
>> popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot.

Just to be clear, this was of course Danny's personal opinion, and not
one I think is shared by anyone on the board.   I have no problem with
my own votes being public.

--Jimbo


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
Tony wrote:
> You were going okay until you got to "draconian action". I just don't
> see how editing  talk pages in small increments that make it easier
> for everybody to edit can be described as "draconian".

Go read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".

When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature,
it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and
(b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
Yes, you and I think it's silly and inconsequential, but to them
it's very important.  So when you delete or alter it, it's a
direct personal affront, a slap in the face, the equivalent of an
ad hominem argument.  They react angrily, and this should come as
no surprise.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:37:55 -0700, you wrote:

>Another key to the problem here, Sam.  You don't see yourself as
>having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth.  You
>percieve your biases as neutral.

Wise words.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> So, Wikimedia is shaped by people who feel that the very philosophy
>>> that made WP a success is not applicable to organizations.
>> And Erik wonders why I felt that he misrepresented my views in that meeting.
>
> With all due respect, I wasn't talking about you above.

Ok, I am sorry then.

> And your remarks in this thread have been exemplary for the same kind
> of vague, non-committal statements of reassurance. Instead of "I think
> we should have two more community-elected members by the end of
> August", you'll say something like "We continue to be deeply committed
> to the ideal of increasing the number of people on the Board, and
> whether or not these are community members is secondary to  meeting
> our charitable goals and thoughtfully finding the most qualified
> people to help us do so" (made up quote).

I apologize, too, that a quote of me that you made up is too vague. ;-)

> Another question: How much does Tim Shell actually participate in any
> Board-level decision making, meetings, resolutions, open and private
> discussions? If this is not about your control, why is he still on the
> Board?

It is my expectation that Tim will be replaced by the end of this year.

Notice that such decisions are not up to me, but up to the entire board.
 We have been discussing board expansion, and it is a complex matter.
We are not prepared to say at the moment exactly how or when it will
happen.  My expectation is that we will see at least one additional
member from the community, and one additional member (likely from the
free software / free culture world) to provide additional external
oversight.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Gavin Chait

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Is there any formal, consistent method to consolidate, resolve and end any
particular discussion thread?

I am unable to see: 1) how we know how many people are participating in a
discussion; 2) when they've all had their say; 3) at what point a moderator
(and I'm assuming that this must be a board member at this point) is able to
say: this was the problem, these were the suggestions, this is the
resolution and this is how it will be implemented.

Without this every discussion is going to end leaving some  people feeling
they didn't get to say their piece.

I propose the following:

1) Create a new, dedicated tool for the proposition and discussion of ideas
and projects (everything is all jumbled up in this list)
2) Create a list of moderators who will be randomly assigned in strict
rotation to any approved new thread (like a judge)
3) Anyone can propose a new major discussion
4) Every proposal must receive two votes of agreement from accredited
members (how accredited, up to you)
5) A discussion has a week in which to resolve itself
6) Submissions must further the discussion and offer ideas for refining the
problem, solution, or implementation
7) The moderator has the task of ensuring the discussion remains on track
8) At the end of the discussion the moderator summarises the problem, the
suggested solutions and suggests a resolution - this is posted to this
discussion forum
9) If the moderator feels that no resolution has taken place then the
discussion is closed and the topic must be re-proposed
10) The proposal and solution are now up for voting
11) Voting takes place (and you'll need some form of voters roll so that you
know how many people are voting) within a strict time-frame

Complete discussion and voting result gets archived for purview.  Clearly
this system can only be used where you have two weeks to resolve a problem.
Critical problems are still going to have to be assigned and solved
unilaterally.

This proposal, which is not comprehensive (who gets the task of
implementation?) can just as easily be subjected to the review process I
describe.  That way we end these "I-said-You-said-Who-said-Why-said"
discussions.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> The composition of the board is of critical importance to insuring that
> our core mission and community values are respected.

Of course. But "if someone isn't active anymore, they shouldn't be on
the Board" seems pretty much like a no-brainer to me. And there seems
very little risk in accepting one or two more members from the
community on the Board. After all, this is how we ended up with Angela
and Anthere. It would be nice to hear some of the more concrete
concerns and arguments why we do not speed up this process a little
bit.

> It would be absolutely fine to start a public dialogue about it right
> now.  Who do you recommend we approach?

Well, as Delirium said, we should try to figure out why we need
someone like this on the Board in the first place, and what the exact
roles and responsibilities would be. If our goal is outreach and
fundraising, then it might actually be advisable to not put these
individuals on the regular Board, but on a special Advisory Board,
where their role is to give input on specific questions we send to
them, and where we retain the final authority.

Such an approach has the advantage that we could pick a much larger
number of outside people to serve us, without diminishing the
executive power of the core individuals who actually run the
organization. Here I would recommend people like Lessig, Stallman,
Negroponte, and/or people from the European free culture / free
software community who have good name recognition. I would have
reservations about all these individuals being asked to participate in
votes on resolutions and such, because of availability and strong
opinions that may clash with our culture.

If our goal is to have someone who actually participates in executive
decisions and provides fresh thinking that we may not find within our
community, then I think we should look more closely in non-profits
associated with ICT in the developing world, given our stated mission.
One person who immediately comes to mind is Achal Prabhala, an
important, charismatic and brilliant international leader in the
"Access to Knowledge" movement, i.e. availability of free textbooks
and other learning resources, international IP law, etc. (he gave an
excellent speech at Wikimania on the topic).  Someone associated with
Geekcorps (I only know Kaspar Souren) or the Shuttleworth Foundation
would also make sense, I think. Sj could probably drop a few other
important names in that area quickly.

So, let's first figure out which direction we want to take, and then
narrow down the list of names.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
On 6/5/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Dear god that was the worst pun ever. You should be ashamed.

Oh, come on.  Puns are the best. Googled "medieval puns" and got this
gem (and you thought what I wrote was bad...):

Back in the middle ages, there was a travelling show which travelled
throughout Europe. It was famous across the whole continent for it's
fabulous and death defying shows.
The show was named "The Show of Tension", because of the daring nature
of most of the stunts, and thus the performers and other staff
associated with the show gained the nickname "Tensions".
Sadly, the shows didn't survive the poverty that swept Europe in the
middle ages. As people got poorer, they couldn't afford to spend money
on frivolous things like a travelling show.
And thus was born the expression "unable to pay a tension"...

Now that's some bad writing there.


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


body:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500, you wrote:

>I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am unable to comment.  Can
>you send it to me?

As noted, it's in here as a thread.  It starts with this:

  'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
  encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
  well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
  (e.g.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])

That "well-established standard" is the soundly rejected
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] proposal, which was essentially a proposal to
allow censorship, and the "problem" to be fixed is that admins block
tendentious and incivil users.

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


body:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:

>My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
>for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that
>justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.

Up to a point, I'd say.  As far as I can tell Tony's beef with
"process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to
replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal.  He has no
patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at
whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not.  The
decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community,
guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.

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


from_name: Traroth

subject: [Foundation-l] Re : Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are headed)

body:
daniwo59 a ?crit :

>This is an example of why I find the questions "Who voted for it?" and "Who
>voted against it?" immensely troubling. In a true democratic system, the
>secret  ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting for
>popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot.

>A commitment to openness should not be misused so cynically.

>Danny

That's really nonsense. Obviouly, representative have to show that they respect their commitments, what's not possible with secret ballot. For example, show me only *one* parliament using secret ballot ! I hope you were joking.

Traroth


body:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:45:14 -0700, you wrote:

>It is never good to piss people off.

I disagree absolutely.  It is very often good to piss them off, when
the alternative is letting them deface the project.  This list is full
of people who are pissed off because they have been prevented from
degrading the encyclopaedia.

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


body:
Anthere wrote:
> I did not see any problem whatsoever in Jimbo abstaining himself in this
> vote.

Thank you.  I did not think of it as voting against Angela and Anthere.

> I also realised afterwards that both Tim and Michael comments absolutely
> made sense and that such a resolution could not really fit, because each
> committee must organise itself and create its own rules. I support the
> underlying concepts behind the resolution, but also recognise that the
> resolution in itself was making all this a bit too much "one shoe fits all".

Me too.  My feeling is that another resolution in this area is possible
and desirable, but it is tricky to word in a way that is not vague "feel
good" sentiments, but which also does not try to micromanage what
committees decide for themselves.

> PS : generally, I think all committees will grow in avoiding the trap of
> excessive and unreasonable secrecy.

And in part, this is not about a resolution, of course, but about day to
day practices and cultural norms, which need to be adjusted over time in
response to actual problems.  (And there will be some!  There always are...)

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

body:
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >>    The admins are only part of the community now
and
> >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
> >> see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
> >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> >> developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> >> is feasible?
> >
> > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment.  Can
> > you send it to me?
> >
>
>I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
>
>--
>Raphael
>

   Raphael, I do appreciate for it. You are sure
brave. The troublemaker ([[User:TT]]) is in action
though, did you realize that?
   Best, Resid

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


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I removed the moderation bit put on Anthony.

Lucky him.  I hope he behaves.


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/5/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One person who immediately comes to mind is Achal Prabhala, an
> > important, charismatic and brilliant international leader in the
> > "Access to Knowledge" movement, i.e. availability of free textbooks
> > and other learning resources, international IP law, etc. (he gave an
> > excellent speech at Wikimania on the topic).
>
> I met Achal when I was in South Africa, and again at Wikimania last
> year. If there is to be an advisory board, he should definitely be
> considered for that since he has a lot of very relevant experience and
> would seem to support our goals. I'd rather keep the actual board
> limited to people with experience of Wikimedia though, rather than
> outsiders to increase the chance the Board members are aware of the
> community's concerns and have some motivation to follow the wishes of
> the community.

Here the question is what we consider to be experience with Wikimedia.
If they are very experienced with Wikimedia, then I think they should
be elected by the community. If we're talking about "Have you edited a
wiki / posted to the mailing list / etc. at least a few times", then I
think this is symbolic experience which can easily be acquired within
a couple of weeks.

In other words, _if_ the Board is going to _appoint_ a new member with
full voting rights (and we have not really fully established that it
should), I think the level of experience with Wikimedia should indeed
be a secondary concern. The primary concern should be what additional
qualifications they bring to the table that we are unlikely to easily
find through an open election process.

In the case of Achal, what also makes a difference to me is, that
after long discussions with him, I found him to be a very reasonable
person. He would only get involved where it makes sense for him to get
involved.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On 6/4/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> So, to summarize what I believe has been proposed:
>
> Taxonomic categories (plural):
>  * Subcategories are subsets (and always taxonomic).
>  * Members are instances.
>
> Thematic categories (singular):
>  * Subcategories are subthemes (thematic) or sets of related things
> (taxonomic).
>  * Members are related things.

Now we're getting somewhere. We still don't have a solution/policy for
attributes or meta-attributes though.

With attributes, one problem is perhaps that people force an "is a"
relation where it's not natural "X is a winner of the Y prize",
whereas the more natural relation in most cases would be "did" or "has
a", as in "Am?lie did win the C?sar Award" and "Paris has a world
heritage listed site".

Just for fun, here are the categories currently on the Am?lie article
(ironically, Paris is not one of them...)

Incomplete lists  (meta-attribute)
Articles with unsourced statements  (meta-attribute)
Fantasy films (taxonomic)
Romantic comedy films (taxonomic)
Comedy-drama films (taxonomic)
French films (taxonomic)
French-language films (taxonomic)
2001 films (taxonomic)
C?sar Award winners (attribute)
Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nominee (attribute)
Films shot in Super 35 (?)

Some of these "taxonomic" categories would really be better split up
into taxonomies and attributes that only apply to certain taxonomic
categories. In this case:
Films (taxonomic)
French (film) (attribute)
French-language (attribute)
etc.

> The plural/singular distinction may not be ideal, but does feel very
> natural in many cases.  It's not without problems, though: what about,
> for example, the category "Sheep"?

I can't think of many items in that taxonomic category other than
Dolly, in which case you could probably "cheat" by renaming the
taxonomic category "Famous sheep" or "Notable sheep" or something.
Breeds would be under "Breeds of sheep" and everything else sheepish
would be under the thematic category "Sheep".

Unless we wanted to start a new naming convention of "Sheep-related"
or something.

Steve


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re : Re : Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are
	headed)

body:
<!-- DIV {margin:0px;}-->Mathias Schindler a ?crit :

>To a certain extend:

>* European Parliament (Article 162 GO)
>* German Bundestag (?49 GO)
>* Israeli Knesset

That's for very special cases. Secret ballot is definitivly not the usual voting method, even is these parliaments, so stop trolling.

Traroth


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> These are at least two important statements to have on the record, so
> thanks for that, in spite of the fact that you ignored all my other
> points. Why "by the end of this year" and not "within the next couple
> of months"?

To give time in case the process takes longer than we would like.  I see
no reason to publicly commit to a timetable when I am not sure.  Under
promise, over deliver.

> What is it that makes these decisions so complex and hard
> to take?

The composition of the board is of critical importance to insuring that
our core mission and community values are respected.  A healthy
discussion in the community takes time.  Recruitment of board members,
assessing our needs, interviewing candidates, all of these things take
time.  A wrong decision could be disastrous, as the board is the
ultimate legal authority.  I make no apologies for moving cautiously and
with great thought, because I think that transitioning us from a tiny
club into a large organization is my highest responsibility to us all.

> And when it comes to inviting an outside
> member, how is that member going to be chosen? Will there be a public
> dialogue about who the best figure is for this role, or will they
> simply be appointed?

It would be absolutely fine to start a public dialogue about it right
now.  Who do you recommend we approach?

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >>    The admins are only part of the community now
and
> >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
> >> see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
> >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> >> developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> >> is feasible?
> >
> > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment.  Can
> > you send it to me?
> >
>
>I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
>
>--
>Raphael
>

By the way, I would like to thank you for also
improving the proposal to a more professional and a
better version.

Resid

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


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category analysis with perl

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Guess I have to add in some sort of loop detection.  Of course, "Port
>> cities" shouldn't be in "Ports and harbours", "Edinburgh" shouldn't be
>> in "Port cities", and "Arthur Conan Doyle" shouldn't be in "University
>> of Edinburgh alumni" :).
>
> Meanwhile, "Arthur Conan Doyle" shouldn't be a category, and if it is,
> it's a thematic one and should not be a subcategory of Alumni of any
> university.
>
> I can understand the confusion Doyle/Sherlock holmes though. Logic
> dictates that it's Doyle (or "Works of Arthur Conan Doyle") that's the
> supercategory though.

Way back in the mists of history when categories were first implemented
I created a couple of templates intended to be put onto the category
pages to identify whether the category contained articles that were
examples of the category's subject or articles that were just _about_
the category's subject. There seemed to be no interest in using them and
I didn't think it important enough to raise a fuss about, so I figured
I'd just sit back and watch how categorization actually got used rather
than trying to impose my vision on it.

Perhaps it'd be useful to recreate similar templates now, though, if
enough people think it's a problem? That way there'd be no major
disruption to the category tree, but people who wanted to do fancy
culling of subsets of articles could add just a little parsing
intelligence to whatever program they're using to determine what types
of categories they're dealing with.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060605/4dd76bbb/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tels

body:
Moin,

On Monday 05 June 2006 09:54, Tim Starling wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as
> >
> > "For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the
> > editor?"  "For any given edit, what is the median length of service
> > of the editor?"  These could be measured by either time since first
> > edit, or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted
> > average of the edit history.
>
> Turns out we can.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Days_since_first_edit.png
>
> Average was easiest, so I did that as a first try. It shows an initial
> upward trend, stabilising in early 2005 at about 300 days.
> How's that?

Cool :)

Does that mean after about 300 days after account creation, people give up
at editing?

best wishes,

tels

--
 Signed on Mon Jun  5 10:27:55 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 In computer science, we stand on each other's feet. -- Brian K. Reid

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060605/601ffaa5/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 6/5/06, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Turns out we can.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Days_since_first_edit.png
>
> Average was easiest, so I did that as a first try. It shows an initial
> upward trend, stabilising in early 2005 at about 300 days.
>
> How's that?

But what does it all mean?? Are people staying with the project
longer, or are newbies not sticking around?

A couple of possibilities:
* If everything remains constant - no newbies, just the same oldbies
editing at the same rate, it goes up.
* If people edit for a year then never edit again, then it presumably
remains flat, at around 150 days.
*It would take a seriously strange set of events for that graph to
come down (mass exodus of oldbies, and influx of newbies).

Bear in mind that the first year or so of data is a bit suspicious,
because it wasn't *possible* for any 2 or 3 year oldbies to be
editing. So I don't really see a lot of evolution in this data at all,
most closely matching my second hypothesis above - people arive, stick
around for (in this case, 2 years [1]), then piss off.

Steve
[1] I came up with 2 years by presuming that if the average edit was
by  a 1 year old, then editors have a lifespan of 2 years before no
longer editing. However, I'm not at all sure of my logic, and I can't
explain it. :)


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
Are there any volunteers to help with the administration and
moderation of this mailing list? Please contact me off-list if you can
help.

Thanks.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
> EINs are employer identification numbers.  They are essentially the
> corporation equivalent of the SSN, but they are not considered to be
> sensitive information.

Wikimedia's EIN is 20-0049703.

It's shown on the letter at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/aa/501%28c%29%283%29_Letter.png
and on sunbiz.org and has been mentioned on meta -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_meeting,_September_2005#5:_Corporate_charity_rosters

If you can think of better places to put it, please do.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


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

body:
I could be but am unable to travel (I care for my disabled brother).

Fred

On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Angela wrote:

> With the talk on this list recently of jobs that need doing, I'm
> interested to know whether there are many people who would be
> interested in being a member of the Board if there were more seats
> available. If that is something you'd consider, please let me know.
>
> Note that I'm not saying this is a possibility right now, but it would
> make planning easier if we had something more than guesswork of who
> might be a candidate to go on.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Psychology of problem Wikipedians: excessive "need for
	cognition"

body:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>When people attempt to explain other people's actions in terms of
>psychological disorders or oddities, it seems to me that it often
>reflects a lack of respect or human sympathy for the people thus
>diagnosed.

[snip long post not addressing the point at all]

Gosh, I guess that means we can't call obvious problem cases obvious
problem cases, and certainly can't try to address the actual problem,
because it might be rude to do so. Thanks for clearing that up.

- d.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Steve Summit wrote:

> Do you handle every aspect of your children's education with
> cluebats, paddles, and naughty chairs?  I pity your children.

Grown adults should know better, and are not as fragile as children.
Although I do agree with your basic premise.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] New error message

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Haven't seen this one before - was previewing a change to a page:

Don't worry about these, they're intermittent.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060605/ba4fa6b5/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On 6/4/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:
> Yeah, although it's a very common thing to do. The alternative is to write
> "See also: [[Category:Paris]]" in the Paris article, which is harder to
> find (especially if there are many external links or references). That's
> a very practical reason, though.

Perhaps something like the current boxes we have for Commons would do.
"Wikipedia has a category dedicated to '''[:Category:Paris|Paris]'''.

> If Amelie goes into that category, then the category means "related to
> Paris" and becomes almost meaningless. Do we add every movie that's got an
> Eiffel Tower in it? Every article on people who were born there, died
> there, or lived there? Even if the category remained small, how is such a
> vague piece of information useful? ... It seems that Amelie should be in
> "Films set in Paris" (or something like that), and that category should be
> in the category "Paris".

That would be good. (Pity for this example that Am?lie is currently
not in that category...bad choice on my part)

> It's mostly scripts that get confused. I suspect most normal users won't be
> confused but find that convenient.

It confused me :/

>
> Say I navigated down to "British rock bands" (taxonomic), discover The
> Beatles and would like to see what WP has got on them. With the proposed
> system, I need to open the article, scroll down to the bottom -- nope, if
> there is a category for them, the article can't be in it, so scroll back up
> several pages worth of navigation boxes, external links, and references to
> spot the "See also" section which hopefully contains a link to the category
> "The Beatles" if there is one.

Ok, taking into account the previous message, it seemed that the
proposed system is actually:

For thematic categories ("The Beatles"), the archetypical article
([[The Beatles]])*should* be in the category
For taxonomic categories ("British rock bands"), the archetypical
article ([[British rock music]]??) should not be in the category, but
should be prominently linked in the description of the category. The
article should also [[:category:]] link to the category .

That seems workable and keep all the benefits to me. Note that in this
case, The Beatles should be in both categories "The Beatles" and
"British rock bands", but the category "The Beatles" should not be in
the latter (maybe it could be in "British rock music" if that thematic
category exists).

> It's a trade-off. The sensible reason is that while your argument is
> correct, a category that contains hundreds of entries is equally unusable.

I think being able to see all the hundreds of entries in a category
(and its subcats) - on request - is useful.

> The higher category often serves as a waiting room for articles that have
> not been sorted into a subcat or make for a tiny subcat only (several
> subcats [[Category:Astronauts by nationality]] contain only one or two
> articles).

Yeah, and they end up getting greater prominence than they really
deserve. Also, the existence of those articles makes the reader think
that that's *all* the articles we have in that cat.

> > In this case, it would seem best that "Districts of Paris" was a
> > category of the thematic category "Paris".
>
> (I know it doesn't work too well with this example, but bear with me) And
> "Districts of Paris", being an attribute, is also in (taxonomic) "Districts
> of European Capitals" which in turn is in (thematic) category "Europe",
> right?

Sure. Given the proposed rule "thematic categories can have taxonomic
subcategories, but not the reverse", it is possible to have an article
which multiply inherits to the same supercategory. Given that tn is a
thematic category, and xn is a taxonomic category, that gives:

xn(tn(X)) is not possible
tn(xn(X)) is possible

t1(x1(X)), x2(x1(X)) is possible (X is in category x1, which is in
both a thematic category t1 and another taxonomic category x2)
t1(X), x1(t1(X)) is possible but probably not good (X is in thematic
category t1, and also in thematic category x1 which is in the same
thematic category...)

> > This is a perfect example of a problem aluded to in the MoS on
> > categories: Women is both a taxonomic category (it's a plural) and a
> > theme (eg, Women throughout the ages, or whatever). Disaster is
> > inevitable from that point onward.
>
> We can fix that.

Yep. We need to document these new rigid rules somewhere. I do like
the idea of making all categories inherit from some ultimate
"thematic" or "taxonomic" category. Failing that, a template to go on
every category like "This is a *taxonomic* category. Only items that
"are ____s" should go in it."

> > The taxonomic category "Women" could be split immediately into
> > fictional women and real women, then into living and dead women, then
> > again by various means.
>
> So "living women" is taxonomy, but "Living persons" is an attribute?

I haven't thought this one through - ideas would be good. Ideally, we
would have proper attributes, such that "living" could be stamped on
someone (but that "living" could not be applied to artworks, tv shows
or whatever...). I don't know a good way to taxonomise people, but I'm
sure others do.

> One obvious problem here is that you don't have the strict hierarchy that
> you proposed in your initial posting. For Bridges and France, there are
> natural hierarchies of higher or more generic concepts. The relations
> between France and Europe or between bridge and structure are directed.
> Women, living, and fictional have no directed relations. You could use them
> in any order.

Yep. (and all the other problems with my Bridges in France example.)

>
> And another thing I just noticed: The taxonomy in Category:Bridges breaks
> down after only one level, category [[Category:Buildings and structures]]
> which is a subcategory of four themes and nothing else. [[Category:Nobel
> Peace Prize winners]], one of your examples for an attribute, on the other
> hand, contains a stack of "Nobel laureates", "Prize winners", "People".
>
> Your definitions of taxonomies and attributes need work :-).

Heh :) Input welcome! I think the distinction between "taxonomy" and
"attribute" is probably a sliding scale. It comes down to what is
natural. Do we really think in terms of "nobel laureates"? I doubt it
- I think we think in terms of "scientists" who *also* "won the nobel
prize".

> Distinct namespaces for different types of categories. It would involve
> some coding and the migration must be planned, but it might be easier to
> explain and easier to maintain. It would also be another small step towards
> a semantic web.

How many? What would you call them? What are the arguments against?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> You could always put "See also: [[:Category:The Beatles]]" (I think
> that's the syntax) in the  description for [[Category:British rock
> bands]].

That's probably not bad. The page would have a basic structure like:

Description
Related categories <-- new
Subcategories
Articles in this category

People *want* to put "related categories", but they break the category
system if they make them subcats. We need to channel that desire.

Steve


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> And when it comes to inviting an outside
>> member, how is that member going to be chosen? Will there be a public
>> dialogue about who the best figure is for this role, or will they
>> simply be appointed?
>>
>
> It would be absolutely fine to start a public dialogue about it right
> now.  Who do you recommend we approach?
>

 From my perspective, it would be ideal if there were some well-known
outside figure who has at least some familiarity with our projects.  I
don't mean 3000 edits and posts to the mailing list regularly, but it'd
be nice if he/she had an account and occasionally edits or at least
reads.  Just about the worst possible thing, IMO, would be a complete
outsider who has no idea why things work here or don't, but is
well-known enough to try to impose some outside ideas of how things
"should" be done.  Whether that would end up being a real problem
depends partly on personality, of course.

Of the *very* prominent Free-with-a-capital-F folks, none come to mind
immediately.  Had this been a year ago, I might have suggested
approaching Lawrence Lessig, but he seems to currently be on the board
of advisors of Digital Universe, and his statement on joining suggests
he buys into their "Digital Universe is the cure for what Wikipedia does
wrong" mantra.  Bruce Perens is somewhat well-known for free software
advocacy, and is well-connected with tech companies if that's the sort
of thing we're after.

Partly it would help if people in favor of an outside board member said
why it would be helpful to have one, which would help guide how to
choose which one. =]

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Anthere

body:
Troy Hunter wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0 at lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
>>>
>>>
>>>With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
>>>a minimal level of openness in the committees:
>>>- Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
>>>against it?
>>>- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
>>>
>>>Erik
>>
>>
>>Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
>
>
> This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere and Angela except on matters of grave importance. The September 2004 Wikimedia Quarto states:
>
> "To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board discussion and decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In order to ensure that the community voice is real, Jimbo has pledged, as a matter of convention, never to vote against Angela and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an absolutely fundamental change of direction for the project -- which is not likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and Jimbo share the essential values of the community and the project. So as a practical matter, power is in the hands of the two democratically elected board members on most issues, and Jimbo defers to that."
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/1
>
> Restated in February 2005:
>
> "Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
> a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
> direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
> and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if they
> wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
> but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
> do."
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/20359
>
> and in April 2005:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/2922
>
> Jimmy wrote:
>
>>The first resolution was something that we discussed at the
>>board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion.  I think that's
>>one which we will revisit at some point in the future.  The general idea
>>was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which
>>is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them
>>with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the
>>time.  Different board members had different perspectives on how to get
>>those central points across.
>
>
> Yes, different board members had different perspectives. That's to be expected, they come from different backgrounds. Some of them represent the community, some do not. But the elected members were not arguing for an "absolutely fundamental change of direction", were they?

I did not see any problem whatsoever in Jimbo abstaining himself in this
vote.

I also realised afterwards that both Tim and Michael comments absolutely
made sense and that such a resolution could not really fit, because each
committee must organise itself and create its own rules. I support the
underlying concepts behind the resolution, but also recognise that the
resolution in itself was making all this a bit too much "one shoe fits all".

Angela and I made a mistake here. We should have allowed more time for
discussion beforehand. We might have all come to a phrasing that would
have been acceptable to all of us.
Note that another version of this resolution might be proposed again in
the future. If there is not till now, it may be because we finally did
not see the need for it ? Or because we thought these points could be
achieved differently ? Or because we did not have the time and energy ?

One point should be stressed. It is important that resolutions are
discussed and re-discussed, so that we try to have it in the voting
stage in the most satisfactory way for most of us. We sometimes fail to
do that, either because a decision might appear urgent, or because we
think that a resolution at some point is fine for all of us whilst it is
not. We are not perfect ;-)

ant

PS : generally, I think all committees will grow in avoiding the trap of
excessive and unreasonable secrecy.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Worth raising this much ruckus over?
>
> I have raised no ruckus.  I simply edited some pages to remove some
> unnecessary formatting.

"I didn't cause a traffic jam, I simply chose to park my semi-trailer
in the most convenient place for me".

Dude, I'm on your side, but let's be honest - some of your actions
cause community angst. Whether that angst is worth it or not is a
separate debate, as is the question of whether the angst is in good
faith or not, but let's not deny that that angst exists.

Steve


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> InstantCommons (see [[m:InstantCommons]]) is a perfect example of
> that. We met with Kennisnet in February, and they basically said "Wow,
> good idea, let's do it! But, we would like the WMF to authorize it."
> Since then, the project has been in organizational limbo, moving
> slowly as molasses through several layers of bureaucracy, from SP to
> Legal to SP to Board and back again, with complex contracts being
> drawn up when all that needed to be done was giving them a call and
> letting Gerard manage the project. This is about building a
> relationship with a developer in Ghana, who could have started work on
> this project as early as March. Now it's June and we still can't go
> ahead. We're talking about a EUR 5000-10000 project. How on Earth do
> you intend to manage large grants with that kind of attitude towards
> project realization?

Ah NO. No and No.

The WMF has authorized it. See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee/Resolutions#2006-23A

The authorization is from at least a month ago. And you know that Erik.

The problem now is to get the grant from Kennisnet. They have not yet
agreed to provide this sum for the development of the project. You
should not blame WMF for not convincing Kennisnet to support your
project. This is very largely incorrect.

Anthere


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

body:
On 6/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> > It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely banned
> > by administrators because his political views was diametrically
> > opposite to theirs.
>
> Ai yi yi.  I think you should take another look at this case.  I see no
> reason to think that political views had anything to do with it.

Then I guess you missed the dozens posts accusing Saladin 1970 of
being an Anti-Semite, Islamist and Al-Qaeida supporter? Did you also
miss SlimVirgin's statement, part of which reads "If the Arbitration
Committee hears appeals from every racist, anti-Semitic, and
Islamophobic account that's blocked after 20 edits for trying to
insert bigotry into Wikipedia..."?

Sorry, but I think it is you that should take a second look. It would
be enough to just skim through the recent threads to see how vile and
ridiculous (i.e: abumahza = Al-Qaeida) the motivations for
indefinitely banning Saladin1970 has been.

--
mvh Bj?rn


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed

body:
Angela wrote:
> Are there any volunteers to help with the administration and
> moderation of this mailing list? Please contact me off-list if you can
> help.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Angela.

I removed the moderation bit put on Anthony.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] List admin needed


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On 6/4/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> my version of the God intro:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&oldid=46819733
>
> or the current version:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

For what it's worth, and only because you asked, I vastly prefer the
current version.

"God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator
and ruler of the universe."

as opposed to

"God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the
majority[1][2][3] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of,
existence."

"believed by the majority" is an awful, weaselly, phrase (majority of
whom?) that has no place in the first sentence of such an important
article. I also take exception to "X is the term" articles - see
[[Wikipedia:Grapefruit]].

The fact that a majority of people in some sphere (all humans? all
Americans?) believe in God is highly relevant, but at the end of the
day, it is a belief system, and most people recognise that. I imagine
that most believers are happy with the statement "I believe in God,
but I recognise that others don't", rather than requiring "God exists,
but some people refuse to recognise that".

> And finally, what is abetter version of Human, the featured article
> version i endorsed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&oldid=24562750
>
> or the secular humanist version we find today:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Fwiw, I don't like your version here either. The initial sentence is a
bad definition "X defines itself in terms of Y"???

Since you asked.

Steve


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
>
> The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
> referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of
> the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
> convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
> further explanations about them.
>
> Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
> relatively new user who lived through some hard times
> because of some structural problems. I would like to
> see the success of this project like many others,
> liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would
> like to suggest some small changes for a better
> environment at which Wikiediting has some written
> ethical statements and standards and user rights and
> admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
> will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
> proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will
> be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
> same time in the future while it is growing.
>
> (The sections below are my earlier messages to some
> people during the discussion on this list. I combined
> the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if
> anyone else missed them too.)
>
[Snip of enormous proposal]

Wouldn't [[Welcome to Wikipedia!]] and [[WP:DICK]] be sufficient?

-- Neil


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] HTML normalization, transclusions, nesting

body:
[Brion Vibber wrote] :
> <b>First paragraph
>
> Second paragraph

Just thinking aloud, but could this be made equivalent to:

==============================
'''First paragraph

Second paragraph
==============================

... which currently produces HTML-compliant output?

[Adrian Buehlmann wrote] :
> We need them because the "|" of wiki
> table interferes with template "|" and ParserFunctions "|".

Yes, it is slightly unfortunate that "|" has been overloaded to mean
both a parameter and to perform table-related functions.

Of course with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say it could be useful to
have two different constructs for these purposes. I suppose it's
theoretically possible to introduce a new construct of some type
(example: "%") to indicate parameters (since I suspect parameter
delimiters are probably used less than "|" in tables), and have an
overlap period when both the new and the old construct work to allow
transitioning, and to then turn off/deprecate "|" for parameters. Then
the old HTML "<table>" syntax could be dropped if there was general
support for it (bias disclaimer: I personally prefer the
wiki-table-syntax to the HTML-table-syntax), because "|" would no
longer interfere with templates or ParserFunctions.

In such a scenario, the question main though is whether $gain >=
$pain. The pros and cons are probably something like this:

$gain:
* For people who prefer wiki tables to HTML tables.
* Gain in standardization (only one table format to understand, rather
than two).
* Gain in simplifying the Parser slightly by eliminating HTML table
syntax and "|" ambiguity (maybe?)
* Gain for people who want to use table-related syntax as parameters
to templates or ParserFunctions.

$pain:
* Transition costs in moving pages using old parameter syntax to new
parameter syntax.
* Transition costs in moving some pages from old HTML table syntax to
wiki table syntax.
* The Parser implementation pain.
* Adjustment pain for people who prefer HTML table syntax.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/5/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> > GerardM, who has a more impressive track record in special projects
> > than I do -- there would be no Kennisnet partnership and no
> > WiktionaryZ project without him, applied for membership and was
> > rejected. Frankly, this is not an example of an open organization that
> > accepts the most qualified people to do the right thing. It's an
> > example of "face by face" selection processes. No amount of rhetoric
> > is going to change that.
> >
>
> Hoi,
> The fact that I am not in the Special Projects committee is in a way a
> mixed blessing. It is a blessing in that it gives me more time to
> nurture the WiktionaryZ project, develop related ideas and make
> connections with people and organisations that share similar goals.
>
> It is sad because it means that I have less opportunity to make the
> WMF aware of what is happening with the WiktionaryZ project. I am
> grateful for the core people in WiktionaryZ, they make it possible to
> make it a true community project. We started with a commission and it
> would be easy to extend this with many people who have proven to be as
> worthwhile as its original members.
>
> My interest in the Special Projects committee is that I am interested
> in ensuring that the projects that are dear to my heart get the
> attention and integration that they require. I am interested in all
> the wikimedia projects, it is however obvious that my work is focused
> on the projects that are most dear to my heart, I can appreciate why
> people would not like to have me in the special projects committee
> because they are different from what is considered the mainstream.
>
> Then again, given that the Wikidata technology may have a great impact
> on Wikipedia, beneficial in my honest opinion, and given that the
> members of the Special Projects committee are pressed for time, it may
> be clear why I wanted to be in there in the first place.
>
> All in all, there are arguments why I am not in there. Given that
> people are chosen by the existing committee members, it does not help
> argueing publicly about why someone is or is not in a committee. The
> one thing I am interested in is cooperation. You do not achieve it by
> being resentful.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>

Thanks very much for this, Gerard. I had drafted a response to this
very point, but felt it was unfair on you to send it (ie. to be drawn
into a discussion about why we rejected your application).

You are doing great work on your projects, WiktionaryZ and
InstantCommons, which the SPC is working with you on. I hope we're
doing all we can to help them progress - but I don't agree that we
would be working on them any better if you were on the committee.
Really, all community projects are worked on outside the committee -
the SP committee simply evaluates them and, if approved, facilitates
whatever needs to be done in realising them. That's what the committee
exists for - simply to relieve the board of this responsibility
(amongst other things).

All the best (and thanks again),

Cormac


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature,
> > it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and
> > (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
>
> Yes, of course.  This isn't something to be encouraged.

Indeed not.  But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented
the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the
Preferences page, and (b) because it's an intensely personal
issue, when it comes time to discourage abuses, the way you do it
matters.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
> > Surely the most useful solution would be to make the Go button redirect
> > non-silently, i.e. in the same way as a real redirect. A wikilink [[Lyon
> > metro]] would still be a redlink, but typing "Lyon metro" in the Go box
> > or the actual URL should bring up [[Lyon Metro]] with the note,
> > "(redirected from _Lyon metro_)", where "Lyon metro" is, of course, a
> > redlink. You can then use that to create the page if you wanted to.
>
> Yes...why didn't I think of that?

Good idea, but maybe it can be improved slightly by assuming that most
people are somewhat lazy.

Instead of:
  (Redirected from _Lyon metro_)

You could have:
  (Redirected from _Lyon metro_ - _create redirect_)

Where "_create redirect_" would open a preview window at [[Lyon
metro]] with the contents already automatically prefilled as
"#REDIRECT [[Lyon Metro]]" and the edit description already prefilled
as "Redirect to [[Lyon Metro]]". Then if we guess correctly the user
does not have to type anything, and only has to click "Save".

Of course, if the "Go" guess is wrong then they do have to type
something. That's unavoidable though, but now they have to type less,
and also the prefilled content acts as an example of the preferred
redirect format.

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be
> > possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and
> > a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters.
> > Someone want to file a bug request for this?
>
> [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
>
> I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and
> brackets.  Just for reference purposes.

I was thinking about this last night, and he came to mind for me, too.

You could use (2x or 3x user name length + some fixed amount), to let people
have separate links to User: and User talk: pages, which I find useful.

Hmm.  I just checked my signature (standard, off the shelf, unprettified).
With 20 chars of username, I get 50 chars total.  I definitely want to
support a limit that would eventually let me at least put in a talk page
link eventually.

Tony (and others) - what length and display mode of page editing gets
signatures to the point that they bother you?  Past two lines of standard
screen size edit window?

I just checked, with my display settings I get about 130 characters width in
the window.  That would imply reasonable break points at 100-130 chars and
200-260 chars if you go by line length with what I guess typical window
widths are.

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


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:23:32 -0700, you wrote:

>Ok.  So apply your preferred order to the signatures refactoring.

No-brainer.  A sig which fills four lines of an edit window and which
renders discussions larger than the edit box capability of my wireless
handheld, is disruptive.  Refactoring talk pages for readability is
perfectly fine.

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


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Hoi,
The fact that I am not in the Special Projects committee is in a way a
mixed blessing. It is a blessing in that it gives me more time to
nurture the WiktionaryZ project, develop related ideas and make
connections with people and organisations that share similar goals.

It is sad because it means that I have less opportunity to make the
WMF aware of what is happening with the WiktionaryZ project. I am
grateful for the core people in WiktionaryZ, they make it possible to
make it a true community project. We started with a commission and it
would be easy to extend this with many people who have proven to be as
worthwhile as its original members.

My interest in the Special Projects committee is that I am interested
in ensuring that the projects that are dear to my heart get the
attention and integration that they require. I am interested in all
the wikimedia projects, it is however obvious that my work is focused
on the projects that are most dear to my heart, I can appreciate why
people would not like to have me in the special projects committee
because they are different from what is considered the mainstream.

Then again, given that the Wikidata technology may have a great impact
on Wikipedia, beneficial in my honest opinion, and given that the
members of the Special Projects committee are pressed for time, it may
be clear why I wanted to be in there in the first place.

All in all, there are arguments why I am not in there. Given that
people are chosen by the existing committee members, it does not help
argueing publicly about why someone is or is not in a committee. The
one thing I am interested in is cooperation. You do not achieve it by
being resentful.

Thanks,
    GerardM

>
> GerardM, who has a more impressive track record in special projects
> than I do -- there would be no Kennisnet partnership and no
> WiktionaryZ project without him, applied for membership and was
> rejected. Frankly, this is not an example of an open organization that
> accepts the most qualified people to do the right thing. It's an
> example of "face by face" selection processes. No amount of rhetoric
> is going to change that.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 6/5/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
> Dear Resid,
>
> unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version
> of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review,
> but it seems like some admins are already at a point,
> where they completely disregard any policy and act as
> one thinks best.

I deleted it because copy and paste moves of pages are unacceptable
normally, and especially unacceptable when the original page is
deleted, because of the GFDL requirement that the history of all pages
be kept. If you want the content, you need to post to DRV about the
original page, since there is no possibility that the copy will be
restored.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Monobook

body:
Berto, can you please give me the link to the template on en.wikipedia?

Thanks, Sabine

Berto schrieb:
> One more problem... when I copy the infobox to make the localisation I get
> this...
>
> http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_lenga
>
> Why? I'd like to keep the english template format, because it looks very
> efficient, but here must be something I did not import...
>
> B?rto
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com