body:
On 22/03/07, Manuel Schneider <manuel.schneider at wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> Before he wrote this mail he already yelled at me in the chat.

Not so. I came on to IRC and advised you of the situation. When you
failed to answer the question I posed, and failed to acknowledge the
mistake, I made it explicitly clear what the situation is.

Manuel, we have conventions for working on the code base which are a
lot looser than a vast number of open source projects which are
designed for "release", but we still have a release process, and it
ought to be followed in order to help combat regressions or serious
bugs entering the stable branches. The team at large, and especially
myself, have learned this the hard way.

You claimed that the fix in question was "critical" when it was not,
and gave no indication that you intended to undo the changes. You then
stated your intention to ignore my advice, which is completely
inappropriate and thoroughly obnoxious. [We got off on the wrong foot,
but it doesn't mean we have to continue running on it.]

All new committers should have read
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Commit_access - I would have thought
that making this mistake implied you did not read this information,
which is frankly unacceptable. We are exceptionally grateful for any
and all coding help, but it's all about gauging trust and competence,
and if you're asked to read a document, then it is a basic courtesy to
do so. [If the existence of this page was not made clear to you, then
I apologise.]

I've made a lot of mistakes during my involvement with the development
team, including a nasty merge of broken functionality into a release
branch prior to point-release time. This left a security vulnerability
in an old released version of the software. We no longer have such
gaping and fragile release policies, and so these need to be applied
and enforced consistently.

I'm certainly not calling for anyone to have their privileges revoked,
so don't make that assumption, but what I do think needs to be said is
that people need to stop, read up on how we operate, and appreciate
that when you dabble in the core code, you're no longer exclusively on
your own (extensions, some i18n) turf, and if you break a release,
then there is a problem.

Consistency of released "stable" code is what the release manager's
job is, and we only have one. Don't let's give him any additional
stress.

Rob Church


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
On 3/22/07, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There seems to have developed a rather stock story about Wikipedia.
>
> FF

Yep.  Kinda like Dan Quayle being the deer in the headlights, or John
Edwards as the Breck Girl.  You only have one shot at establishing you
reputation with the public, and timing is everything.  It's not like
Wikipedia wasn't warned about the direction they decided to travel.


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 21/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> > Very true. The problem for me, as I mentioned in the part you didn't
> > quote, is the gratuitous use of square brackets. If reference links
> > were to be formatted print-style as small raised numbers, that would
> > help a lot in terms of reducing clutter.
>
> There is an assumption that HTML size formatting is a useful way to
> differentiate certain text. It is not, as some of us cant stand the
> common use of small text, and set our browsers to show an actual
> readable size.  I know that a lot of times people use size formatting
> in templates, but these are negligible. Whatever convention for the
> display of reading basic text, including reference links, has to be
> functional for the rest of us.

It would be a natural for user preference setting - that way both of
us could be happy without affecting the other.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Gabriel Simões

subject: [Wikitech-l] SpecialPage with forms

body:
How can I write a form, with soma text input's, using a specialpage?
------------------------------------
Gabriel da Silva Sim?es
Mestrando em Ci?ncia da Computa??o
Instituto de Inform?tica - UFRGS
SBC #12250
ICQ #16149875
CEL #(51)93232480


subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny

body:
On 3/22/07, Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net <Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> I can't see any comments elsewhere here, so I thought I'd point you to
> these:
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BN#User:Dannyisme
>
>
> Unrelated, I understand.
>
>
> Guy (JzG)

Flo said, Feb 3 21:47:48

"This will enable Brad to focus on developing the role of
General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the
Foundation faces moving forward.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html

Six weeks later Brad jumps ship.

 Nobs01


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Thanks Gerard.

I absolutely understand your questions are intended as good faith ones
- but I still don't think it's fair to suggest that this study might
be (perceived as) a bunch of lies. The study will only aspire to be a
study of American Wikipedians - and it could be a very interesting one
within those imposed limitations. An essential part of research is to
be open and honest about the decisions taken and the limitations these
bring, rather than trying to cover them up. (I'm not saying here that
human-subject research methodology can't ever be discussed and
improved, but I *am* saying that it's never completely bias-free.)

Cheers,
Cormac

On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi Cormac,
> I totally agree. Please read what I reply to; my answer indicates that we
> are to blame ourselves when we "call it a bunch of lies" when we do not
> discuss methodology when we have a chance. I hope that you will find that I
> have questioned why the interviews are to be limited to US American
> residents only. I also hope you will find that I have indicated why cost is
> not the factor that was suggested.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider
> > it a
> > > bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the
> > > chance to do so.
> > >
> > > When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
> > much
> > > better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are
> > > obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads
> > to
> > > better science.
> > >
> > > If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
> > large
> > > ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >     Gerard
> >
> >
> > Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is
> > very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we
> > need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been
> > inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on
> > these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just
> > said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Cormac
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

body:
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? -
> 	"nofollow"decision
> On 3/22/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> This type of informality may have worked in the developmental
>> stage of WP,
>> but is it capable of sustaining the Project as it becomes more
>> complex?
>>
>
> I just have to add a strong yes to this! Distributed decision making
> and organic processes are new for organizations this large, but that
> doesn't mean they are bad.
>
> I would ask another question, Are old forms of hierarchical control
> and management capable of sustaining something so complex as
> wikipedia? :)

I have yet another take on it. I think that _in reality_ most large
organizations _do_ operate like Wikipedia--or at least more like
Wikipedia than the org charts suggest--and thus Wikipedia's
governance is not anywhere near as novel as people think.

What's different about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia acknowledges the
truth and describes its governance openly.

In traditional organizations everyone _pretends_ that things are more
rigid, authoritarian, and command-and-control than they really are.
Yet it is a common observation that the people "in charge" are unable
to "fight the bureaucracy." And the relationship between, say, "the
law" (about speed limits or sexual behavior or the use of illicit
drugs) and what people (and the police) actually _do_ is complicated
and surprisingly loose.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Yonatan Horan

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
I'm sorry to hear this.

-Yonatan

On 3/22/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 22/03/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  To
> >> ensure that there are no misunderstandings or claims of an  abuse of
> power, I ask
> >> that all admin status on the various projects be revoked.  If I feel I
> can
> >> help as an admin, I will ask to be reelected by the normal  process. I
> look
> >> forward to this opportunity to reenter the community as a new  user and
> to share
> >> in the building of free  knowledge.
> >
> >
> > You were elected as an admin to en:wp in the normal manner, surely it
> > wouldn't be crossing the streams to keep that.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> well, I don't *really* know you..but i always like to welcome people
> willing to enhance wp..so welcome to the real work ahead :P
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

body:
on 3/22/07 9:49 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp at gmail.com wrote:

> Hmm. Most volunteer organisations start with structures dictating
> officers, power structures, decision making etc. We haven't needed
> that,

Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in
building and  defining the solid structure within which a dynamic,
free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no
amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process
- can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there.
Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a
solid canvass.

There seems to be a fear that creating such "formal" elements will somehow
limit or interfere with the creative process and stifle such creativity. Not
so!

>but we're starting to need to formalise our decision making a
> bit.

Yes! That is where everyone gets involved. That is a part of what the
culture of an organization is all about.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] purpose served by anonymity / unmoderated edits

body:
On 20/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> John Lee wrote:
>
> >Yes, I was just about to sugges a similar system myself. An ongoing fork is
> >a much better solution than making the approved version the sole public one.
> >Speaking from personal experience as a webmaster, simply making users take
> >one more step to edit an article (i.e. clicking on "view draft article",
> >instead of being able to go direct to editing) can drastically reduce (I'd
> >say halve wouldn't be unreasonable) the number of users who take the desired
> >action.
> >
> Probably so.  While I still support the idea of an approved version that
> counterracts the most egregious silliness, I would prefer something far
> more sophisticated that takes into account a number of factors in
> evaluating an article.  The result could be a single number (or block of
> numbers that measure different criteria).  It would be a statistical
> accumulation of individual ratings applied by many people, and would
> need to take into account subsequent unreviewed edits.  It would need to
> be sufficiently robust to not be derailed by the eccentric opinions of a
> single user.
>
> Since I do not have the programming skills to implement this I can only
> dream. :-(

Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way around. We should aim
to approve versions of the article in the history as factually
accurate, not change our current processes for the approval of live
articles. To ensure our continued growth we need to keep editing as
simple as possible.

By allowing particular users to approve versions of articles in their
article history (maybe even rating them on a number of scales: factual
accuracy, presentation, breadth of coverage), we generate a trustable
Wikipedia (users could change their preferences to always seeing the
newest approved version of any article they search for, rather than
seeing the live version) while retaining our dynamism.

This could mean that any article could have several approved versions
at once: some of the approved versions would make claim to factual
accuracy (if the approver went through the effort of verifying
everything), some would make the claim to simply being vandalism-free.
Users could alter their viewing preferences according to how trustable
they need the information to be.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi Cormac,
I totally agree. Please read what I reply to; my answer indicates that we
are to blame ourselves when we "call it a bunch of lies" when we do not
discuss methodology when we have a chance. I hope that you will find that I
have questioned why the interviews are to be limited to US American
residents only. I also hope you will find that I have indicated why cost is
not the factor that was suggested.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/22/07, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > When this study hits the Washington Post and we look at it and consider
> it a
> > bunch of lies, we are to blame when we did not speak up when we had the
> > chance to do so.
> >
> > When you consider peer review, it is always done after the fact. It is
> much
> > better to have input before a study is started. Those issues that are
> > obvious can be addressed before time and money is wasted. It also leads
> to
> > better science.
> >
> > If there is one study I would like to see done, is a wikipedia with a
> large
> > ex-pat community and see how that affects the NPOV of the project.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Gerard
>
>
> Calling a study "a bunch of lies" before it's even been carried out is
> very bad faith. It's absolutely fine to question methodology - but we
> need to be friendly as well as critical - and I hope Benjamin has been
> inspired rather than turned off by the many comments and questions on
> these lists. I've been meaning to comment myself, but Phoebe's just
> said pretty much everything I was going to say. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Cormac
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
I was very disappointed with the story for several reasons:

1. I understand that they only have a few minutes to cover this story, but
the story was one-sided for the most part. What was the "erroneous"
information?  Was it a date? A whole paragraph? Some vandalism? Also, did the professor
even  bother fixing it? Otherwise, he has no right to complain about an
encyclopedia  that anyone can edit.

2. The reporter demonstrated how vandalism works without even mentioning  the
thousands of people who spend hours and hours each day reverting nonsense
and issuing blocks. I always thought the press was supposed to be somewhat
balanced.

3. I am glad they mentioned the fact that people should not be using this  in
a paper in most situations. They got that right, but they singled out
Wikipedia without mentioning that encyclopedias AS A WHOLE are not good sources  for
papers.

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
In a message dated 3/22/2007 6:15:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
wikidenny at gmail.com writes:

On  3/22/07, SonOfYoungwood at aol.com <SonOfYoungwood at aol.com>  wrote:
>
> 2. The reporter demonstrated how vandalism works  without even
> mentioning  the
> thousands of people who  spend hours and hours each day reverting nonsense
> and issuing blocks.  I always thought the press was supposed to be somewhat
>  balanced.
>

What article did they vandalize to show  that?

--
- Denny

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LisaDaniels_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LisaDaniels)  (Lisa  Daniels - when
she was creating the report, she vandalized the page here. I left  her a test
warning on her talkpage. Also, she failed to report in her story that  her edit
was reverted in less than a minute).

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You say "The Board can't defend themselves..." , well fi the Board
> > needs the reasons, they can ask (and probably have) Danny in privte.
> > No need to vent such information in public.
>
> You can't defend yourself in private when you are accused in public.
>
> Whether he meant it to sound like he was blaming them or not, that's
> the way it came across to me, and I expect plenty of other people.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The Foundation can defend itself if it chooses to and if the situation arises.
Just because you and other think the Foundation is attacked, it
doesn't become true.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You and I aren't entitled to demand an explanation and to know every
> > small detail. It's between Danny and the Foundation.
>
> It is, however, unreasonable not to expect there to be curiosity and
> no small degree of consternation when two longtime key employees
> announce their departures over a couple of days.
>
> It's one thing to say (correctly) that Danny, Brad, and the Board have
> a right to keep the respective personel matter details private.
>
> However, if there are substantiative policy disagreements at stake, I
> for one remain rather confused as to what they are and their nature,
> and we are all entitled to an explanation of those types of matters.
>
> I don't know if there is any substantiative policy disagreement, or if
> it's just personalities, or individual choice.  If it is a
> substantiative policy issue, we don't need to find out RIGHT NOW, but
> it would be fair to ask if there is such a thing, and over what
> timeframe the parties will feel comfortable talking about it.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Yes, it's reasonable to have curiosity. It's not reasonable to demand
and believe we're entitled to know every single detail. They did
acknowledge such curiosity would arise on their letters, they both
said they'd not comment further upon it.

So,
1. They know there's curiosity.
2. They've explicitly stated their wish to keep their reasons private
for a while
3. Therefore, we demand they explain us, we deny that right to them,
we will force them to explain right now.

Is that how it is?


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
There seems to have developed a rather stock story about Wikipedia.
You'd think these journalists would want to present something at least
a little bit interesting, maybe unique, but they all seem to go back
to the, "And then I put in false information! Look, even I could do
it! Ha!" and end it there. I'm not sure if they are really all
imbeciles, or if they just assume their audience is made up of
imbeciles, but it is sad to say the least. When I wrote for the high
school newspaper we had higher standards than that.

FF

On 3/22/07, SonOfYoungwood at aol.com <SonOfYoungwood at aol.com> wrote:
> I was very disappointed with the story for several reasons:
>
> 1. I understand that they only have a few minutes to cover this story, but
> the story was one-sided for the most part. What was the "erroneous"
> information?  Was it a date? A whole paragraph? Some vandalism? Also, did the professor
> even  bother fixing it? Otherwise, he has no right to complain about an
> encyclopedia  that anyone can edit.
>
> 2. The reporter demonstrated how vandalism works without even mentioning  the
> thousands of people who spend hours and hours each day reverting nonsense
> and issuing blocks. I always thought the press was supposed to be somewhat
> balanced.
>
> 3. I am glad they mentioned the fact that people should not be using this  in
> a paper in most situations. They got that right, but they singled out
> Wikipedia without mentioning that encyclopedias AS A WHOLE are not good sources  for
> papers.
>
>
>
> ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
>  Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikibooks NL is changing License

body:
Lodewijk, this is lovely news.  Thank you for sharing.  --SJ

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, effe iets anders wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The Wikibooks NL community has decided to change the default license
> of the textbooks for the future. That will mean that from a certain
> point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
> be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.
> The texts that are currently in Wikibooks NL will be marked as "GFDL
> only". This is so the project will be better able to spread it's
> content (as the reuser has a choise to use only a page of the
> wikibooks project without printing all the license etc)
>
> If every contributor of a certain page has agreed to relicense all
> his/her contributions on Wikibooks NL, also those in the past, under
> both licenses, the template stating the excemption of the default will
> be removed.
>
> It will still be possible to import pages from Wikipedia NL to
> Wikibooks NL. This will mean that a small part of the newly created
> pages will also be marked as "GFDL only". The community has taken some
> more precautions, such as creating templates to relicense all you
> contributions (HINT: {{Dubbel}}) and a page with explanation, but it
> would be too much in detail to explain that on this list. See this
> please as announcement, and contact the Wikibooks NL community through
> our Tutors' Chamber ([[b:nl:Wikibooks:Lerarenkamer]])
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Lodewijk Gelauff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: DJ Bauch

subject:
[Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.10 pretty much all working with MS Sql
	Server

body:
After another week or so of work and a little helpful advice from Brion
Vibber, I have MediaWiki 1.10 (modules pulled from the SVN trunk and added
to the 1.93 baseliine) pretty much all working on Microsoft SQL Server 2000.
I won't try to get my stuff merged in until after the 1.10 release passes,
since I suspect the core developers will have their hands full until then.

The problems identified in my 15 March post have been fixed.

In particular, the "pagers" are working. To get this to work, I had to add
three or four lines to the PHP database driver I'm using (ADOdb). By
default, the ADOdb driver does not allow moving backward through a record
set, even though it uses a static, client-side cursor (at least when
connected to SQL Server) perfectly capable of doing do. I also had to wrap
the database query from the IndexPager class (Pager.php) with calls to set
the fetch mode to associative and then back to the default numeric. Unlike
the MySQL driver, ADOdb does not do both at the same time. Almost all of the
MediaWiki PHP code works fine with numeric fetches, but the pagers need
associative fetches.

Interlanguage links are handled by making a change to LocalSettings.php as
suggested by Brion, as is template documentation that's referenced as
{{/doc}}

I discovered that the template processing problems I was trying to debug are
known, and I didn't introduce them. HTML generated by templates is not
always valid, and therefore MediaWiki doesn't correctly produce WikiPedia
articles without HTML tidy. Getting HTML tidy to work on my server was more
frustrating than it had to be, since the external tidy won't work in
conjunction with the MediaWiki as it's currently set up on Windows (tidy and
MediaWiki engage in a deadly embrace) and the API to use the internal tidy
has changed from the time that section of the MediaWiki code was written.
Help pages from PHP.net weren't as helpful as they could be, since they
mostly document the 4.3 version instead of the 5.1+ version -- and I'm using
a pretty recent PHP release. Fortunately, the 5.1 syntax is reasonably close
to 4.3, albeit now using bona fide classes. It's working.

The tables seem to be mostly behaving themselves now. In particular,
redirects are now being populated, recentchanges being recorded and (as of
today) logging seems to work as it should. This last one took a little
longer, because my logging table lacked a column (log_id) that was missing
from the tables.sql that I used as a baseline -- but that gets referenced in
queries later on. I threw in an IDENTITY column named log_id and all is
well.

Very few changes had to be made outside of the DatabaseADOB (extends
Database) class. Here and there, things were getting over-quoted (i.e.
putting quotes around the result of calling DatabaseADODB::addQuotes) and
the stuff right after the comment:

  # This is a hack to work around PHP's flawed invocation of cmd.exe
  # http://news.php.net/php.internals/21796

in the function wfShellExec in GlobalFunctions.php well, that was just wrong
-- must be a PHP 4 thing. I couldn't get Batik or ImageMagick working until
after I fixed that stuff.


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? - "nofollow"
	decision

body:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Hmm which still leaves open the question of why we are giving an
> >> external project an interwiki link.

> > Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common
> > practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.

> So why aren't they nofollowed?  I mean, theoretically speaking, couldn't I
> simply make an interwiki link to my site that makes me a little dough on
> the side for the same result?  If not, does that mean that certain sites
> get exempted?

No, they're determined by a list on meta which can only be edited by a
meta admin:

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map

Suggestions are made on the talk page.

> Interwiki links are handy, sure, but what a way to get around the
> nofollows.  I assume that *wasn't* by design?

One would hope the meta admins are on-the-ball enough to add only
decent interwiki links :-)

- d.


body:
On 22/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Are those as normal hyperlinks (which should have a nofollow on) or as
> > > interwiki links? The latter may well not. Because spammers are very
> > > unlikely to be spamming for sites in the interwiki site list.

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sww
> > Doesn't appear to generate nofollow tags when used in an article.

> Read The Blessed Wikitext:
> [[Wookieepedia:{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]
> on [[Wookieepedia|Wookieepedia: The ''Star Wars''
> Wiki]]<noinclude>[[Category:Star Wars templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
> [[Category:External link templates|Sww]]
> [[it:Template:Sww]]
> </noinclude>

Per an email query from Greg Kohs, I should clarify: the important bit
there is the [[Wookiepedia: at the beginning - that is, this template
sets up a proper interwiki link, not a normal external link.

- d.


subject:
[Foundation-l] [Announcement] Brad Patrick Resigns as General
	Counsel

body:
On 22/03/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am stepping down as General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
> effective March 31, 2007.  I tendered my resignation to the Board some
> weeks ago, which was accepted.

Thanks for your fantastic work for Wikimedia and the general infusion
of clue you have given the organisation :-)

- d.


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny

body:
On 3/22/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Within areas where we need more help are considerations around
> intellectual property rights, internet law, press law, and international
> labour law. If you know some wikipedians willing to help on such
> matters, or lawyers willing to help us pro-bono, please contact me.

Before the Foundation goes ahead and starts its own law firm, maybe WP
needs an editor-in-chief first. Jimbo of course would be the natural
choice.

-Stevertigo


body:
On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

> Okay, that makes some sense.
> Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?

Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.

(And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to
abuse that ...)

Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external
links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to
spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the
en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added
to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That
means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!

- d.


from_name: Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny

body:
I can't see any comments elsewhere here, so I thought I'd point you to
these:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BN#User:Dannyisme

Unrelated, I understand.

Guy (JzG)


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny

body:
>From: Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:15:04 +0000
>
>
>I can't see any comments elsewhere here, so I thought I'd point you to
>these:
>
>
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BN#User:Dannyisme
>
>
>Unrelated, I understand.
>
>
>Guy (JzG)
>
>
>

Yeah, seen both of those. That sucks. Slightly more importantly, who steps
in as replacements? Does this not leave Jimbo alone at WP:OFFICE? And will
we need a new lawyer? Presumably.

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.co.uk


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, that makes some sense.
> > Now, why the hell aren't they nofollowed along with everything else?
>
>
> Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
> engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
>
> (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to
> abuse that ...)

trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been
abuseing that for some time:

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG=Search+Blogs

Google Groups probaly have simular issues

>
> Personally I think it's in fact good to give Google rank to external
> links if doing so doesn't constitute an attractive nuisance to
> spammers. That links on Wikipedia are editor-selected is a reason the
> en:wp community objected to default nofollow when it was first added
> to Mediawiki. What we need is some way to make it less binary. That
> means coding. Which I can't do either. Pfeh!

Wikipedia is not DOMZ. I don't think we should be in the game of
helping google and other search engins decide what counts as a good
link. By all means make sure they pic up links  to other wikimedia
projects but I see little value is messing around with methods to rate
other types of links.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Brad and Danny

body:
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Yeah, seen both of those. That sucks. Slightly more importantly, who steps
> in as replacements? Does this not leave Jimbo alone at WP:OFFICE? And will
> we need a new lawyer? Presumably.

Yeah. Brad's finishing things up in an orderly manner, which will one
presumes include steps toward a successor.

- d.


body:
On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
> > engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
> > (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to
> > abuse that ...)

> trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been
> abuseing that for some time:
> http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG=Search+Blogs

o rly? argh. You may want to note that on the talk page and ping a
suitable meta admin and dev.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow on external links, and interwiki links

body:
There's some discussion on wikien-l at present about nofollow on
external links, and how that doesn't apply to interwiki links.

1. I understand when the nofollow was switched on for all external
links, Brion suggested people code something finer-grained if they
didn't like the all-or-nothing nature of denying pagerank to good
external links. Has anyone been working on this?

2. Interwiki links (as defined on [[m:interwiki map]]) don't attract a
nofollow. Are any of those likely to be attractive nuisances to search
engine spammers? Geni flagged del.icio.us as one that link spammers
are already abusing elsewhere.

- d.


body:
On 22/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Presumably because they're very unlikely to be spam links that search
> > > engine spammers would insert to try to get Google rank.
> > > (And now let's see if search engine spammers start looking for ways to
> > > abuse that ...)

> > trivial it doesn't nofollow links to del.icio.us. Spammers have been
> > abuseing that for some time:
> > http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=del.icio.us+seo&btnG=Search+Blogs

> o rly? argh. You may want to note that on the talk page and ping a
> suitable meta admin and dev.

I've just asked on wikitech-l (1) if anyone's working on a
finer-grained tool for determining what gets a nofollow and what
doesn't (2) if anything else on the interwiki map may become an
attractive nuisance to linkspammers.

- d.


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users,
	and users who engage banned users

body:
Ok, stupid question. I assume that a banned user would be blocked
along with any socks he has so just how would he post or edit anything
in the first place? Post anonymously and say "HEY, IT'S ME, BANNED
USER ON WHEELS!!! The only other way is for him create a new sock,
perform some kind of dickery and someone does a checkuser. Even then,
would somebody necessarily know he's banned until he's blocked again?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ref tag usage

body:
On 22/03/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> On 21/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:

> > There is an assumption that HTML size formatting is a useful way to
> > differentiate certain text. It is not, as some of us cant stand the
> > common use of small text, and set our browsers to show an actual
> > readable size.  I know that a lot of times people use size formatting
> > in templates, but these are negligible. Whatever convention for the
> > display of reading basic text, including reference links, has to be
> > functional for the rest of us.

> It would be a natural for user preference setting - that way both of
> us could be happy without affecting the other.

Too many preferences are an intrinsically bad thing. I suspect in this
case setting a minimum font size in one's browser is actually the
right answer. (Mozilla browsers allow this, but I don't know if any
others do. Safari doesn't seem to.)

- d.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> 	Can I use this thread to ask a question as a "worked example"?
> *Procedurally*, what was the way in which "nofollow" was added to
> external links? My impression was that Wales just said to do it, and
> it was done, even though there was no "community consensus". Now, I'm
> not saying it was the wrong thing to do. But from an outsider's
> perspective, it was pretty much an instance of "He's the decider".

Outsiders often imagine that we have a much greater degree of procedure
than we actually do.  We have a group of friends working under "rough
consensus and running code" and decision-making is highly distributed
and what may appear to be lines of authority are often merely lines of
respect and thoughtfulness.

In the case of "nofollow"... to the best of my knowledge, the history is
that it was implemented without my knowledge or approval (which is
normal and fine) in various (some? all? depending on local opinion?)
languages except en.wikipedia.org.  There were discussions about it,
both public and private, and I expressed my own concerns about it.  Out
of respect for me, the implementation was delayed for a long time on
English Wikipedia while I talked to Matt Cutts at google about it.

(BTW, Brion would know when and why nofollow was implemented elsewhere.)

Matt recommended that we use it, and I reconsidered various arguments
that people had made about it, and I dropped my objections to it.
Sometime later, Brion Vibber, acting on his own authority as CTO and the
leader of his own part of the whole Wikipedia beast, went ahead and
implemented it.  (Did I ask him to do it, or did he notice my dropping
my objections and just do it?  I don't remember but the question really
misses the point.)

Now, you can imagine this as an instance of me being the decider, but I
think the truth is a lot more complex... and a lot more wonderful...
than that image would suggest.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] How many editors are there?

body:
On 3/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't mean usernames - that count is meaningless because of spambots
> and vandalbots.

Don't forget people who register just so they can change skins and
other preferences but have no intention of editing anything. You can
probably weed them out by subtracting the accounts with empty talk
pages because welcome messages go on them the first time they edit.


from_name: Raimond Spekking

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:  [20616] trunk/phase3

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> raymond at svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
>> +'nolinkshere-ns'        => "No pages link to '''[[:$1]]''' at namespace {{ns:$2}}.",
>
> This looks kind of ugly... for main namespace it just shows a space, and
> for talk namespaces it's got the underscore.

Yes, thanks. I have removed $2 with r20627. The parameter was not really
important, the choosen namespace is still visible in the input form.

Raymond.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070322/d3c06f22/attachment.pgp>


list: commons-l

from_name: bawolff

subject:
[Commons-l] [[n:wikinews:Broadcast]] resurrection - looking for
	people who know about video

body:
Previously in wikinews, there was a project -
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Broadcast . Its goal was to
create a vdeo eddition of wikinews, similar to the audio edition.
(Currently wikinews has the main website+daily print edition+weekly
New Zealand print edition+audio) Unfortunately the main contributor to
the video project (DV) left. The project then died. In total it made
three videos - the trailer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Wikinews11Apr2005_Demo.avi.ogg
(in browser http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/commonsJOrbisPlayer.php?path=Wikinews11Apr2005+Demo.avi.ogg
), The chili finger incidence part 1 -
http://www.tiredbrain.com/wikinews/video/WikinewsSpecialReportCCDC.wmv
, and the chili finger incidence part 2
http://www.tiredbrain.com/wikinews/video/WikinewsSpecialReportAyala.wmv
(There was another attempt at bringing back video later, unfortunately
it was accidentally deleted by commons
for no reason, before file restore was implemented. All it really was
though was words on a screen.)

Anyways we want to try and bring it back. Unfortunately we know very
little about what we're doing, and don't have needed equipment. We
were hoping that someone on this mailing list would be able to help
us. Anyways if you're intreasted please say so on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#wikinews_Video
. For more information see
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Broadcast

Thanks
--
bawolff


from_name: Platonides

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Feature request: Random article in specified
	category

body:
Simetrical wrote:
> Or /Category:Whatever, if we assume that
> namespaces can't contain colons (I don't think they can, that would be
> fairly degenerate).  Or, perhaps most likely, both.  It hardly
> matters.

This raised before. Brion declared that namespaces won't contain colons,
so we can happily assume that :-)


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] U.S. Intelligence uses Wikipedia

body:
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess
it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is
in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).


body:
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess
> it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is
> in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).

We will know they are doing that when US intelligence reports that Iran is gay.

--
geni


body:
> That will mean that from a certain
> point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
> be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.

How does releasing new changes to existing pages under an extra
license work? I would imagine that causes a lot of problems...


body:
> We will know they are doing that when US intelligence reports that Iran is gay.

I more concerned about where the guided missiles will go once the
vandals start changing geography... " '''Iran''' is a region of
[[London]], [[UK]]." says Wikipedia. "Bomb Iran", says GW Bush...


body:
> Have no fear.  They have whole departments whose job it is to ensure
> that data's source and credibility are properly noted.

Too easy... *far* too easy...


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
On 3/22/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> [top-posting/fullquoting snipped]
>
> Wikipedia is hardly the first thing that has spawned a "stock story"
> that journalists use repeatedly.  For decades now, coverage of
> anything pertaining to comic books has gone into predictable molds
> like "Bam! Pow! Zap! Comics aren't just for kids any more!" or "Biff!
> Sock! Boom! Old comics are worth big bucks!"

Or how any story on video games must include their imminent and
ever-increasing danger to society?

--Ryan

--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]


body:
> I believe that this only applies to new contributions. The GFDL is a
> non exclusive license; licensing it under its terms does not prevent
> you as the copyright holder from releasing under one other.

The issue is with new contributions to existing articles. The new
article created by editing the old would be a derivative work - can
you release your modifications to a derivative work under an
additional license to that of the original work? Also, who owns the
copyright on an article after someone else goes through and corrects
the spelling? I'm pretty sure the original author does, yet the
corrections can be used under a license that author hasn't agreed to.
It's not at all simple.


body:
> Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
> license schemes.

That's only talking about releasing existing works under an additional
license. I think the relevant bit of the license is whatever it says
about derivative works.


subject: [Wikitech-l] internal links tool

body:
Nice. Something similar was suggested some time ago.
What's the first button on the reight supposed to do? It moves me the
textbox position but i can harder find it useful. Source points
checkSpelling but it's not checking spelling at all!


body:
> It is not that complicated. You simply cannot sublicense your derivate
> work under the cc-by-sa. In case you edit a GFDL only document, your
> contributions are solely under the GFDL.

That's not what effe's email says. It says:

"That will mean that from a certain point in the near future all new
submitted changes and new texts will be default double licenced under
GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later."

I interpret that as meaning edits to GFDL-only articles will be dual licensed.


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> 2. Interwiki links (as defined on [[m:interwiki map]]) don't attract a
> nofollow. Are any of those likely to be attractive nuisances to search
> engine spammers? Geni flagged del.icio.us as one that link spammers
> are already abusing elsewhere.

If they are being abused, they should be removed from there. But also
note it's harder to find its trick ;)


from_name: Andrew Cates

body:
In principle nofollow should be a decision for each wikimedia
implementation whereas the interwiki list is managed on meta. There are
plenty of interwiki sites which are at best dubious for links. The only
way I can see to manage something more fine-grained is via some sort of
"greenlist" on each implementation i.e. a sysop-only-edited list of
domains for clean links, managed a bit like the current whitelist (which
bypasses the meta blacklist). I put a short greenlist here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BozMo/greenlist which
covers about 300,000 legit (IMHO) links out of the 8 m or whatever on
en. There was a discussion to do a patch for this on this list in Jan
but both progress on the greenlist and offers to do the patch are a bit
quiet.

Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 3/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's some discussion on wikien-l at present about nofollow on
>> external links, and how that doesn't apply to interwiki links.
>>
>> 1. I understand when the nofollow was switched on for all external
>> links, Brion suggested people code something finer-grained if they
>> didn't like the all-or-nothing nature of denying pagerank to good
>> external links. Has anyone been working on this?
>>
>
> It seems that unless there's something more fine-grained, there won't
> be an option for nofollow on interwiki links:
>
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8753
>
>


body:
On 22/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
> > license schemes.
>
> That's only talking about releasing existing works under an additional
> license. I think the relevant bit of the license is whatever it says
> about derivative works.

Which is:

"4. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution
and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy
of it."

That reads to me as if the part about no additional licenses applies
to modified versions in their entirety, not just the parts taken from
the original. In which case, the dual licensing suggested would be a
violation.


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? -
	"nofollow"	decision

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> We were inundated with spam.  We still are.  G11 is a necessary tool,
> and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism
> anyway.  The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations,
> unlike G11.  Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.

With all due respect, that's certainly the company line.  I spend plenty
of time w/CAT:CSD - we're not inundated in a way that required such a
breathless, panicky, rushed situation like we ended up with.

Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit
someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that
surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction.  I just chalk it up
to another one of those bizarre deals.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] NBC's story on Wikipedia

body:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Fastfission wrote:

> There seems to have developed a rather stock story about Wikipedia.
> You'd think these journalists would want to present something at least
> a little bit interesting, maybe unique, but they all seem to go back
> to the, "And then I put in false information! Look, even I could do
> it! Ha!" and end it there. I'm not sure if they are really all
> imbeciles, or if they just assume their audience is made up of
> imbeciles, but it is sad to say the least. When I wrote for the high
> school newspaper we had higher standards than that.

This is proof of the poor state of affairs in journalism these days.
Maybe we should demote the notion that newspaper and broadcast media
are reliable sources, due to lack of basic fact-checking... :)

-- Jossi


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Dear all,

The Wikibooks NL community has decided to change the default license
of the textbooks for the future. That will mean that from a certain
point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.
The texts that are currently in Wikibooks NL will be marked as "GFDL
only". This is so the project will be better able to spread it's
content (as the reuser has a choise to use only a page of the
wikibooks project without printing all the license etc)

If every contributor of a certain page has agreed to relicense all
his/her contributions on Wikibooks NL, also those in the past, under
both licenses, the template stating the excemption of the default will
be removed.

It will still be possible to import pages from Wikipedia NL to
Wikibooks NL. This will mean that a small part of the newly created
pages will also be marked as "GFDL only". The community has taken some
more precautions, such as creating templates to relicense all you
contributions (HINT: {{Dubbel}}) and a page with explanation, but it
would be too much in detail to explain that on this list. See this
please as announcement, and contact the Wikibooks NL community through
our Tutors' Chamber ([[b:nl:Wikibooks:Lerarenkamer]])

With kind regards,

Lodewijk Gelauff


from_name: Denny Colt

body:
On 3/22/07, Bartning at aol.com <Bartning at aol.com> wrote:
>
>   It seems to me that blocked users can't even appeal to WP:RFAR when they
> can't even use their own user pages at an admin's discretion (or abuse of
> authority).  I've found a new thing after almost a year and a half of
> editing: admins can do what they want and seem to take the place of an ARB
> COM or any complaints regarding Wikipedia, at least in the last month.
>
> Vincent
>

if their user talk page is blocked for abuse there... there is OTRS, this
email list, unblock-en, mailing arbcom directly, etc., the only way isn't
via on-wiki.

--
- Denny


body:
> I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> the problem or something else?

Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
under the GDFL and only the GDFL.


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
On 3/22/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

> That said, at present, I am unwilling to discuss the  reasons for my
> resignation from the WMF office team
[snip]
> At that time, I will make known my position on how the Wikimedia  Foundation
> should operate, and what mistakes I perceive are being made at  present.

The way I read this the reasons for your resignations from the WMF
office team are related to mistakes you perceive as being made at
present. If not, please clearify. If yes, please elaborate now, not
during your election-campaign.

Greetings and have fun
Mathias


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


body:
> OK time to clarify:
>
> The multilicensing will only apply to new books, not for new contributions
> to existing books (as they can be GFDL only, according to this license).

I think that's a change (or correction), rather than a clarification,
but thank you anyway. It should be fine (although rather confusing)
like that. Just be careful that the contributors that are agreeing to
multi-license their edits are the copyright holders - if they copied
the text from another page, or a wikimedia sister project (including
translations, I believe), then they can't give permission (it should
say in the edit summary whenever such a thing has happened, you just
need to make sure you read the edit summaries, not just the
usernames).


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

body:
I believe that this only applies to new contributions. The GFDL is a
non exclusive license; licensing it under its terms does not prevent
you as the copyright holder from releasing under one other.

Bryan

On 3/22/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >The Wikibooks NL community has decided to change the default license
> >of the textbooks for the future. That will mean that from a certain
> >point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
> >be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.
> >The texts that are currently in Wikibooks NL will be marked as "GFDL
> >only". This is so the project will be better able to spread it's
> >content (as the reuser has a choise to use only a page of the
> >wikibooks project without printing all the license etc)
> >
> >If every contributor of a certain page has agreed to relicense all
> >his/her contributions on Wikibooks NL, also those in the past, under
> >both licenses, the template stating the excemption of the default will
> >be removed.
> >
> >It will still be possible to import pages from Wikipedia NL to
> >Wikibooks NL. This will mean that a small part of the newly created
> >pages will also be marked as "GFDL only". The community has taken some
> >more precautions, such as creating templates to relicense all you
> >contributions (HINT: {{Dubbel}}) and a page with explanation, but it
> >would be too much in detail to explain that on this list. See this
> >please as announcement, and contact the Wikibooks NL community through
> >our Tutors' Chamber ([[b:nl:Wikibooks:Lerarenkamer]])
> >
> >With kind regards,
> >
> >Lodewijk Gelauff
> >
> >
> >
> Unless I am mistaken, GNU based licenses become null and void if you
> modify the license terms in any way. This includes
> publishing under multiple licenses (which is modifying the terms). I do
> agree that making the more open is a good thing, but I
> think you may void the GFDL terms if you release under dual licenses.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>That is, if there was *really* an immediate spammer problem to be had.  I
>recall Brad Patrick's breathless essay about how inundated we're getting
>with spam, and then the G11 abomination occurred, but the actual necessity
>of such a reaction was never really introduced - we seem to be extremely
>trusting of those in the home office, don't we?

We were inundated with spam.  We still are.  G11 is a necessary tool,
and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism
anyway.  The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations,
unlike G11.  Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.

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


from_name: Kim Bruning

in_reply_to:
<4602F81D.6040305@wolfmountaingroup.com>;
	from jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com on Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at
	03:41:49PM -0600

body:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:41:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
<excerpt of GFDL licence>

> Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
> license schemes.

The content of the GFDL is irrelevant here.

As a license, the GFDL applies to a licensee. The copyright holder is
not a licensee.

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users,
 and users who engage banned users

body:
Skyring wrote:

>On 3/23/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are
>>
>>determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc
>>Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt
>>at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts
>>on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
>>
>>Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
>>
>>
>I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some
>editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations,
>even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they
>were by a banned editor they didn't like.
>
>This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's
>fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and
>confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are
>encouraged.
>
I fundamentally agree with this.  Wikipedia is ultimately about the
articles, and not about the editors.  If the edit is good it doesn't
matter who did it.  To be sure the edits by banned users should be
viewed suspiciously, but when they are checked individually and found to
be good there is no valid reason to remove them.  Hopefully, when we are
finally able to have stable versions those can be marked as such.

This should not be about Brandt & Schwartz either.  Using serious
problem editors as straw men to justify a broader policy is not a
logical valid way of arguing.  If these guys are going to be continuing
problems deal with them on their own merits (or lack thereof), but don't
let them be excuses for dealing with situations that don't involve them.

Ec


body:
> I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:
>
> Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
> (read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
> B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
> *not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
> into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)
>
> Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
> all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
> later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
> "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
> xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
> this will happen almost never.

By my interpretation of the license, that would be a violation of the
GDFL. I strongly suggest you seek legal advice before proceeding.


body:
Multilicensing does not means that all licenses apply, rather that you
may choose under which license you use the work.

Bryan

On 3/22/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
>
> >I believe that this only applies to new contributions. The GFDL is a
> >non exclusive license; licensing it under its terms does not prevent
> >you as the copyright holder from releasing under one other.
> >
> >Bryan
> >
> >
> Section 2
> "...
>
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
> to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you ADD NO OTHER
> CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER to those of this License.  You may not use
> technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
> copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you may accept
> compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a large enough
> number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.
>
> ..."
>
> 9. TERMINATION
>
> "...
>
> You may not copy, modify, SUBLICENSE, or distribute the Document except
> as expressly provided for under THIS LICENSE.  Any other attempt to
> copy, modify, SUBLICENESE or distribute the Document is void, and will
> automatically TERMINATE YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE.  However,
> parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
> License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> parties remain in full compliance.
>
> ..."
>
> Hmmm. I think it may void the GFDL license. Appears exclusive of other
> license schemes.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
It is not that complicated. You simply cannot sublicense your derivate
work under the cc-by-sa. In case you edit a GFDL only document, your
contributions are solely under the GFDL.

Bryan

On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe that this only applies to new contributions. The GFDL is a
> > non exclusive license; licensing it under its terms does not prevent
> > you as the copyright holder from releasing under one other.
>
> The issue is with new contributions to existing articles. The new
> article created by editing the old would be a derivative work - can
> you release your modifications to a derivative work under an
> additional license to that of the original work? Also, who owns the
> copyright on an article after someone else goes through and corrects
> the spelling? I'm pretty sure the original author does, yet the
> corrections can be used under a license that author hasn't agreed to.
> It's not at all simple.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Ian Tresman

subject: [Wikitech-l] index.php how does it work?

body:
http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name

My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
followed by the article name.

I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?

Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?

Regards,
Ian Tresman


body:
I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
the problem or something else?

Bryan

On 3/22/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
>
> >It is not that complicated. You simply cannot sublicense your derivate
> >work under the cc-by-sa. In case you edit a GFDL only document, your
> >contributions are solely under the GFDL.
> >
> >Bryan
> >
> >
> >
> As I said, I think this scheme voids the GFDL -- at least based upon the
> plain language
> of the GFDL license. It says clearly that sublicensing is prohibiting.
> Copyright holder or not, the
> GFDL is a binding contract if you choose to accept it. At least that's
> my read of the plain
> language of the license. Other folks may have another interpretation though.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
> http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name
>
> My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
> followed by the article name.
>
> I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
> subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
> whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?
>
> Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?

Does it need a clever bit of code? index.php isn't a directory, so
there is no reason to think article_name is a subdirectory of it.


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Ian Tresman wrote:
> http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name
>
> My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
> followed by the article name.
>
> I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
> subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
> whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?
>
> Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?

Most webservers will recognise when you try to use a script like a
directory. They call the script with the PATH_INFO environment variable
set to the remainder of the path. This behaviour is part of the CGI standard.

-- Tim Starling


body:
At 22:56 22/03/2007, you wrote:
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name
> >
> > My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
> > followed by the article name.
> >
> > I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
> > subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
> > whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?
> >
> > Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?
>
>Does it need a clever bit of code? index.php isn't a directory, so
>there is no reason to think article_name is a subdirectory of it.

You learn something new every day. I assumed that index.php/name
would only consider /name to be a subdirectory. It doesn't.

I'm familiar with # and ? following filename, but not /
Does this usage have a name? Is this a feature of Apache or PHP?

Regards,
Ian


body:
> You learn something new every day. I assumed that index.php/name
> would only consider /name to be a subdirectory. It doesn't.
>
> I'm familiar with # and ? following filename, but not /
> Does this usage have a name? Is this a feature of Apache or PHP?

I have absolutely no idea. I never really thought about it... Anyone?


body:
At 23:05 22/03/2007, you wrote:
>Ian Tresman wrote:
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/index.php/article_name
> >
> > My Mediawiki is set-up so that index.php is displayed in the URL,
> > followed by the article name.
> >
> > I can see no .htaccess files, so how does index.php process the
> > subsequent article name, rather than Apache looking for a directory
> > whose name is /article_name... and then why is there no 404 error?
> >
> > Where's the clever bit of code that handles this?
>
>Most webservers will recognise when you try to use a script like a
>directory. They call the script with the PATH_INFO environment variable
>set to the remainder of the path. This behaviour is part of the CGI standard.

Thanks for everyone's help. Easy when you know how.

Regards,
Ian


body:
> It's a setting in the Apache server.
>
> /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
>
> <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80>
> ServerAdmin webmaster at wikigadugi.org
> ServerAlias wikigadugi.com
> ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.com
> ServerAlias wikigadugi.org
> ServerAlias www.wikigadugi.org
> DocumentRoot /wikidump/main
> ServerName www.wikigadugi.org
> ErrorLog /wikidump/main/logs/error_log
> CustomLog /wikidump/main/logs/access_log combined
> Alias /wiki /wikidump/main/index.php
> Alias /index.php /wikidump/main/index.html
> </VirtualHost>
>
> and in your LocalSettings.php file:
>
> $wgSitename = "WikiGadugi";
> $wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1";

Isn't that only when you wish to hide the index.php bit from the url?
It will work without setting up aliases.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
> Huh? He's free to resign. He's not forced to give an explanation to
> anyone who asks.

It sounds like he's blaming the board for his resignation but isn't
saying why. Doesn't seem fair on the board to me... while they
probably know the reasons, they can't defend themselves if he doesn't
make the reasons public.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Florence Devouard

body:
Brad Patrick wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> To the Wikimedia Community:
>
> I am stepping down as General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
> effective March 31, 2007.  I tendered my resignation to the Board some
> weeks ago, which was accepted.  In the context of Danny Wool's
> announcement earlier today that he has resigned, some will speculate the
> two are related.  They are not.  The timing is just unfortunate.
>
> Many people who decide to leave the projects do so by invoking the right
> to disappear.  That isn't me.  I am very proud of my association with
> WMF and will carry the distinction of having been a part of its growth
> with me for the rest of my life.  I care deeply about the future of the
> Foundation, and am more dedicated in my beliefs about the free culture
> movement than ever before.  With respect to my relationship with the
> Foundation and those of you whom I have come to know, I hope we are on
> good terms.
>
> This community understands implicitly that people of goodwill can (and
> do) have strong differences of opinion about important matters.  Should
> I choose to comment about these sorts of things at some point in the
> future, it will be as a person who cares about the vitality and success
> of the Foundation.  I intend any such criticism to be constructive and
> based on a well-founded, good faith belief in making the Foundation
> stronger.  I certainly wish for nothing but success for the
> organization.  To the extent I, (like any person who has had anything to
> do with the workings of the Foundation), have opinions about what I
> think is good, bad, ugly, etc. about how the Foundation does things,
> they are my own.
>
> One of the last things I did before stepping aside as interim ED was
> retain the firm of Phillips Oppenheim to conduct the ED search process
> for WMF.  I hold them in the highest regard as professionals who are
> exclusively in the business of non-profit executive search, and I have a
> high degree of confidence that they are the right people to aid the
> Foundation in its next steps.  They can make a difference.
>
> It is my earnest hope that everyone who cares about the Foundation, but
> has concerns about what is happening at the Foundation now, will say so.
> This community is strongest when it is vocal, not silent.  If you have
> questions you want answered, be bold, speak up, and ask them.  The Board
> members -- the ones who are accountable, since it is they who are
> running the Foundation -- deserve the support of the community when they
> earn it.  But, since this is real life, {{SOFIXIT}} isn't as simple as
> clicking on an article.  It's really hard work that takes a great deal
> of time and energy.
>
> So, I'm leaving as of March 31, 2007.  I am not going away or deleting
> myself out of wikiexistence.  I'm just not going to be WMF's General
> Counsel.
>
> Brad
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick

Thank you for this email Brad.
Let me thank you for the past 12 months and the insights you provided.
I am happy to learn you will not go away and I wish you to stay in the
future an important member of our community (who knows, you might even
consider running for the board as Danny plans to do ;-)).

Wish you my best.

anthere


from_name: Peter van Londen

body:
OK time to clarify:

The multilicensing will only apply to new books, not for new contributions
to existing books (as they can be GFDL only, according to this license).
There will be one difference to this situation, that is if _all_ the
contributors (including anonymous) to an existing book will proclaim that
they agree to multi-license also past contributions.

Probably that will mean that not much of the content we have today at
wikibooks-nl will be double-licensed. Old books will be GFDL and new books
will be GFDL+CC-BY-SA 2.5. The reuser of the information/books can then
choose which license they will give the reworked content, or even choose to
double-license it.

Reusing content from Wikipedia-nl or Wikibooks-en for example will
automatically put that book in the GFDL-corner.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
>
> > I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> > misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> > the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> > the problem or something else?
>
> Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
> GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
> my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
> under the GDFL and only the GDFL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
OK time to clarify:

The multilicensing will only apply to new books, not for new contributions
to existing books (as they can be GFDL only, according to this license).
There will be one difference to this situation, that is if _all_ the
contributors (including anonymous) to an existing book will proclaim that
they agree to multi-license also past contributions.

Probably that will mean that not much of the content we have today at
wikibooks-nl will be double-licensed. Old books will be GFDL and new books
will be GFDL+CC-BY-SA 2.5. The reuser of the information/books can then
choose which license they will give the reworked content, or even choose to
double-license it.

Reusing content from Wikipedia-nl or Wikibooks-en for example will
automatically put that book in the GFDL-corner.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>
> > I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> > misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> > the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> > the problem or something else?
>
> Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
> GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
> my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
> under the GDFL and only the GDFL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in
> building and  defining the solid structure within which a dynamic,
> free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no
> amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process
> - can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there.
> Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a
> solid canvass.

Yep. A constitution.

- d.


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 20/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I was just about to sugges a similar system myself. An ongoing fork is
>>>a much better solution than making the approved version the sole public one.
>>>Speaking from personal experience as a webmaster, simply making users take
>>>one more step to edit an article (i.e. clicking on "view draft article",
>>>instead of being able to go direct to editing) can drastically reduce (I'd
>>>say halve wouldn't be unreasonable) the number of users who take the desired
>>>action.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Probably so.  While I still support the idea of an approved version that
>>counterracts the most egregious silliness, I would prefer something far
>>more sophisticated that takes into account a number of factors in
>>evaluating an article.  The result could be a single number (or block of
>>numbers that measure different criteria).  It would be a statistical
>>accumulation of individual ratings applied by many people, and would
>>need to take into account subsequent unreviewed edits.  It would need to
>>be sufficiently robust to not be derailed by the eccentric opinions of a
>>single user.
>>
>>Since I do not have the programming skills to implement this I can only
>>dream. :-(
>>
>>
>Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way around. We should aim
>to approve versions of the article in the history as factually
>accurate, not change our current processes for the approval of live
>articles. To ensure our continued growth we need to keep editing as
>simple as possible.
>
I absolutely agree that approval should be as simple as possible for the
user.  He would simply put a number from 1 to 10 in each category where
he wishes to evaluate.  Maintaining a historical record of the
valuations on the history page sounds interesting if it is technically
feasible.

>By allowing particular users to approve versions of articles in their
>article history (maybe even rating them on a number of scales: factual
>accuracy, presentation, breadth of coverage), we generate a trustable
>Wikipedia (users could change their preferences to always seeing the
>newest approved version of any article they search for, rather than
>seeing the live version) while retaining our dynamism.
>
All registered editors should be allowed to rate. Any greater
restrictions will just complicate the process.  Don't worry about the
trolls and vandals.  When you depend on the Wisdom of Crowds their
opinions rapidly become marginalized into expected statistical
deviations.  Most people will tend to give honest opinions.

>This could mean that any article could have several approved versions
>at once: some of the approved versions would make claim to factual
>accuracy (if the approver went through the effort of verifying
>everything), some would make the claim to simply being vandalism-free.
>Users could alter their viewing preferences according to how trustable
>they need the information to be.
>
My first impression from your response is that you would end up with
something even more complicated than what I would imagine. :-(    While
I see the value of having this ones preferences set to have a certain
version as preferred, the drive-by viewer just looking for information
is not likely to know about this.  He can, however, be guided by whether
an article has (in big numbers) a reliability rating of 2.6 or 7.9.

Ec


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in
> > building and  defining the solid structure within which a dynamic,
> > free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no
> > amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process
> > - can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there.
> > Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a
> > solid canvass.
>
>
> Yep. A constitution.

I tend to feel that would be overkill. A Magna Carta might be a better aproach.

--
geni


body:
I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:

Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
(read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
*not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)

Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
this will happen almost never.

Further it is possible that both A and B have proclaimed that they
release all their former edits under Dual License, and that would mean
that, if they are the only authors, the page would be totally dual
licensed. Note that this will only happen rarely either.

Further: You can not mix a text of only GFDL and one of only CC-BY-SA.
(they are conflicting on that). B?t you c?n mix a text that is only
GFDL and one that is dual licensed. Because as community you choose
then to use in that particular case only the GFDL-side of the dual
license, however the text added taken out of it's context can be used
as CC-BY-SA as well. You can mix them because you can *choose* as
re-user which of the two (or even both theoreticly) you want to use.
In the case the person is editing a GFDL-old article, only the
GFDL-part will apply, as would be noted in a template on that very
page.

However, imagine that person C wrote an article, the policy changes,
and D and E edit the article after that. The article as a whole can
then only be used as GFDL. But now person C is proclaiming that all
his edits, also before the Change, are dual licensed. Then all
contributors have on some moment agreed that the edits made on that
page are dual licensed, so the article *is* dual licensed.

By the way, some people are assuming that this is about WikiPPPPPedia.
Please do not confuse Wikipedia with Wikibooks. They are quite
different.

Lodewijk

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
> > I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> > misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> > the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> > the problem or something else?
>
> Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
> GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
> my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
> under the GDFL and only the GDFL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:

Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
(read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
*not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)

Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
this will happen almost never.

Further it is possible that both A and B have proclaimed that they
release all their former edits under Dual License, and that would mean
that, if they are the only authors, the page would be totally dual
licensed. Note that this will only happen rarely either.

Further: You can not mix a text of only GFDL and one of only CC-BY-SA.
(they are conflicting on that). B?t you c?n mix a text that is only
GFDL and one that is dual licensed. Because as community you choose
then to use in that particular case only the GFDL-side of the dual
license, however the text added taken out of it's context can be used
as CC-BY-SA as well. You can mix them because you can *choose* as
re-user which of the two (or even both theoreticly) you want to use.
In the case the person is editing a GFDL-old article, only the
GFDL-part will apply, as would be noted in a template on that very
page.

However, imagine that person C wrote an article, the policy changes,
and D and E edit the article after that. The article as a whole can
then only be used as GFDL. But now person C is proclaiming that all
his edits, also before the Change, are dual licensed. Then all
contributors have on some moment agreed that the edits made on that
page are dual licensed, so the article *is* dual licensed.

By the way, some people are assuming that this is about WikiPPPPPedia.
Please do not confuse Wikipedia with Wikibooks. They are quite
different.

Lodewijk

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> > I think you are misunderstanding the license, or we are
> > misunderstanding each other. The GFDL applies to the licensee, not to
> > the copyright holder. I don;t know whether you see multi licensing as
> > the problem or something else?
>
> Multi-licensing is not a problem. It's licensing a modification of a
> GDFL work under something other than the GDFL which is a problem. By
> my interpretation of the license, derivative works must be licensed
> under the GDFL and only the GDFL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 3/22/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> We were inundated with spam.  We still are.  G11 is a necessary tool,
> and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism
> anyway.

Copyvios was more classic although  OTRS people tend to object to
people doing that.

--
geni


body:
On 3/22/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The Wikibooks NL community has decided to change the default license
> of the textbooks for the future. That will mean that from a certain
> point in the near future all new submitted changes and new texts will
> be default double licenced under GNU FDL *and* CC-BY-SA-2.5 or later.
> The texts that are currently in Wikibooks NL will be marked as "GFDL
> only". This is so the project will be better able to spread it's
> content (as the reuser has a choise to use only a page of the
> wikibooks project without printing all the license etc)
>

The problem with this is that people could potentialy use the content
and modify it but we would be unable to benifit from those changes
(since we can't use stuff only lisenced under  CC-BY-SA)
--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 22/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > We were inundated with spam.  We still are.  G11 is a necessary tool,
> > and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism
> > anyway.
>
> Copyvios was more classic although  OTRS people tend to object to
> people doing that.

Quite. "But we're willing to release copyright to the material, so you
have to reinstate it!" "Er."

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


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation

body:
> You say "The Board can't defend themselves..." , well fi the Board
> needs the reasons, they can ask (and probably have) Danny in privte.
> No need to vent such information in public.

You can't defend yourself in private when you are accused in public.

Whether he meant it to sound like he was blaming them or not, that's
the way it came across to me, and I expect plenty of other people.


subject: [Foundation-l] My resignation


from_name: Kat Walsh

references:
<20070321181450.GA4759@sethf.com>
	<71cd4dd90703220804n7bc52f2bwa41b5a7e93e90ce5@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140703220812w6e97e75brec5fc3b7c89f3d93@mail.gmail.com>
	<1679.69.21.252.114.1174578629.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<fbad4e140703220854n483e5dcfv8bf991554b9ff86@mail.gmail.com>
	<1897.69.21.252.114.1174579296.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<h31603tkpr930q6tv8t73detcj5fc4s8ma@4ax.com>
	<4603348D.2010806@internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
On 3/22/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that might actually benefit
> someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that
> surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction.  I just chalk it up
> to another one of those bizarre deals.

(Score: -1, Flamebait.)

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess
>it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is
>in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
>
Given the way that previous intelligence has influenced American foreign
policy  ... I doubt it. ;-)

Ec


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>We will know they are doing that when US intelligence reports that Iran is gay.
>>
>>
>I more concerned about where the guided missiles will go once the
>vandals start changing geography... " '''Iran''' is a region of
>[[London]], [[UK]]." says Wikipedia. "Bomb Iran", says GW Bush...
>
A few years ago we did have someone from a USAF base in Texas looking to
Wikipedia for information about the missiles on his base. O:-)

Ec


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 22 Mar 2007 at 16:58, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because lots of external projects have them and it's been common
> practice from before there was a wikipedia.com.

Or a wikipedia.org, for that matter.

--
== 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/


body:
I tend to agree with Thomas Dalton here.

Once GFDL, always GFDL, or all people agree to have all past and future
contributions to a article/book double-licensed.

I rather do it on the safe side: it is GFDL or it is totally clear that it
can be double licensed (which would be with new books).

Kind regards
Londenp

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
>
> > I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:
> >
> > Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> > Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
> > (read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
> > B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
> > *not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
> > into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)
> >
> > Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
> > all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
> > later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
> > "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
> > xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
> > this will happen almost never.
>
> By my interpretation of the license, that would be a violation of the
> GDFL. I strongly suggest you seek legal advice before proceeding.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I tend to agree with Thomas Dalton here.

Once GFDL, always GFDL, or all people agree to have all past and future
contributions to a article/book double-licensed.

I rather do it on the safe side: it is GFDL or it is totally clear that it
can be double licensed (which would be with new books).

Kind regards
Londenp

2007/3/22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>
> > I think there is some confusion indeed. Let's face an easy example:
> >
> > Contributor A types:  "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> > Contributor B changes that into: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
> > (read: A types the intro, B explains the subject further). Contributor
> > B can now dual license the yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-part, however he can
> > *not* dual license the part xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Even if he changes it
> > into xxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxx. (i.e. spelling correction)
> >
> > Now imagine that now is the time that we change licensing policy, and
> > all new edits would be dual licensed. Now image that we are one year
> > later. And the ugly text has gradually been changed by editors into
> > "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". That is not at all the same anymore as the
> > xxx-text. So that zzzz-text can be considered as dual licensed. Note
> > this will happen almost never.
>
> By my interpretation of the license, that would be a violation of the
> GDFL. I strongly suggest you seek legal advice before proceeding.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Looking to interview Wikipedians

body:
Obviously including under 18s could lead to privacy and legal concerns.
Including non-US people has no such problems.

Mgm

On 3/22/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not only not representative, but missing some of the best editors by
> > ignoring the under 18s, much to my surprise.
> >
> > KP
>
>
> True, but how can people under 18 given informed consent for the
> study?  Try
> getting your local "research on human subjects" office to sign off on
> collecting information from minors.
>
> On 3/22/07, gjzilla at gmail.com <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You probably know already, but if you require respondents to be US
> > > > residents
> > > > you won't get a representative cross-section of the userbase of the
> > > > English
> > > > language Wikipedia...
> > > >
> > > > Mgm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Not to mention over 18...
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>