from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers

body:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, steven l. rubenstein wrote:

> I do not want to go into details about FuelWagon's behavior, in part
> because the list-serve is not going to make any decisions about how to
> handle specific problems, and in part because trolls are tarbabies: good
> editors respond in arithmetically increasing increments, and trolls respond
> in geometrically increasing increments.

First, I want to correct Steven (if I may call you by your first name)
over the use of the word "troll". This term has become so misused that
some Wikipedians argue that one person's troll is another person's
advocate for an unpopular POV. I'd like to suggest that we use the far
simpler term "troublemaker", & use it to apply to everyone who makes
bad-faith edits.

That being said, I otherwise agree with what Steven has written, & would
like to suggest a possible solution to dealing with troublemakers that
he has described. I would call it the "bet your farm option", & for the
sake of this proposal I'd allow only admins to being able to exercise it.
In short, it allows one Wikipedian who believes another is a troublemaker
in simple fact & without redemption to bet their membership on whether
the ArbCom will review a specific case. The proposal must be short,
succinct, & to the point; say the submission is limited to 500 or 1000
words. And if the ArbCom declines to hear the case, then the Wikipedian
must leave Wikipedia.

Such drastic terms would prevent this option from being used lightly or
for harassment; & it would limit its application to only troublemakers who
pose a threat to our project.

This idea comes from my own experience with a troublemaker who posed a
similar threat about a year ago. (Many of you know whom I'm talking about.)
This wouldn't have helped at the time, seeing how the ArbCom had ground
to a halt at the time, & once it had gained new membership, that group
dealt with this troublemaker swiftly & effectively. But I worry that a
situation like this will arise again -- & I feel that winning a bet like
this might be just the tonic to help keep some long-time editors returning
to Wikipedia.

Geoff


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] New proposal for summary eletion of non-copyright
	infringing material, on suspicion

body:
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Were can I find the extension proposal you're talking about?

It's on the talk page of CSD now.

> And while it may be harsh, we really need something like that.

Why?  Why do we *need* to delete material before a proper check has
been made?  Even a forum website would normally have a discussion
between moderators before deleting material that wasn't an obvious
copyright violation.


from_name: Barry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Did 71.247.13.53 deserve being blocked?

body:
I checked my cache to see if I messed up somehow, and I think I did. After
finding HTML that would work in IE, I wanted to check it in Firefox, so I
opened Firefox and pasted the edited thread in the edit window to preview
it. Unfortunately, I clicked the "Edit this page" link on top instead of the
"edit" link next to the particular thread that I wanted to edit, so I ended
up replacing the entire discussion with just one thread, and unfortunately I
saved it in Firefox instead of going back to IE.

Oops.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <barry at polisource.com>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:47 AM
Subject: Did 71.247.13.53 deserve being blocked?

>I tried starting a discussion over whether my edit should have been
>removed,
> but I discovered I was blocked by Brian0918 for vandalism...

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 12/2/2005


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Brion,
	could you please undo your halfbaked 'improvement' on EasyTimeline

body:
epzachte at chello.nl wrote:
> Brion:
>
>> I applied someone else's patch by their request. If you've got an improved
>> version, please send it over.
>
> You did also choose to ignore my request (who I am to complain about that,
> after all you're the only Brion around here) and not deem it necessary to
> communicate about it (which is my main concern).

I do apologize if you feel slighted by my failure to respond to that particular
message; that was not my intention.

The problem with mixed plaintext & links is known and already in the bug
tracker. Since you say you've already had an update "ready for months" that
doesn't have this problem, it'd be great if we could see that; I'm not sure what
other response would be useful.

> I happen to still feel responsable for EasyTimeline even when I did not
> deliver on earlier promises for explained reasons.
>
> As I can't work on it in the near future, I will soon post the patch and
> explanation, so that someone else with perl knowledge or at least server
> access can do final tests.

Great! Looking forward to it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051204/43ce97e9/attachment.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia on PDAs (was J2ME Client for Wikipedia)

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>> I'm currently writing [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia on PDAs]], and will be
>> uploading photos demonstrating the above in a while. Others are  heartily
>> encouraged to add their own experiences and photos.

> This is something I have been meaning to spend some time on.
> I have mobile Opera on Sony Ericsson P900 and its ok but the clutter
> around the information detracts rather. Not sure what the UTF-8 like,
> will check.

The list of languages on http://www.wikipedia.org/ quickly shows up
UTF-8 rendering problems.

- d.


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please unblock me

body:
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> > Jeff McCready wrote:
> > What's your username?
> >
> And your IP. If you weren't registered at the moment you were blocked,
> it's your IP that's the problem.

Presumably this is either

05:30, 2 December 2005 Nandesuka blocked "User:71.108.159.41" with an
expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation (and then some) on September
11, 2001 attacks)

or

22:33, 2 December 2005 Nandesuka blocked "User:66.155.200.129" with an
expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation (with extra sockpuppet action)
on Chabad Lubavitch)

However, the block has almost certainly expired by now, so I don't
think it necessary to follow this up further.  I would note, however,
that, when replying to people you haven't heard of before, you CC your
replies to them, as they are unlikely to be subscribed to the mailing
list.

--
Sam


body:
On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not
> enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're
> material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and
> I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same.

Absolutely.  We should delete infringing material.  But before we do
so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material.  That
speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion*
and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.


body:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely.  We should delete infringing material.  But before we do
> so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material.  That
> speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion*
> and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.

"cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website" implies a slight bit of
research.  However, I am with Tony on this one.  I don't see what the
new policy would bring other than more confusion to HD and helpdesk-l.

--
Sam


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: remote loading

body:
?? ??? wrote:
> --- Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> ????????
> ?
>
>>Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>>
>>>This web site:
>>>
>>>http://www.pakaf.com/read/
>>>
>>>Seems to be a live mirror, loading articles from
>>
>>wikipedia in realtime
>>
>>>with no attribution. For example:
>>>
>>>http://www.pakaf.com/read/Bullington,_Hampshire
>>>
>>>an article that was created today.
>>
>>Added it to squid.conf , need to be deployed though.>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> this site:
>   http://www.tocatch.info/en/Bullington,_Hampshire.htm
> seems to be still active as a live mirror.
>
> (it has other languages besides en)

Added it too.

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>There's a lot of stuff that *IS* copyrighted. And even if the
>submitter owned that material they may not be knowing what they are
>giving up. Creating some polite template to use for such deletions may
>help pages get proper sources and educate people about copyright at
>the same time.
>
>I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not
>enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're
>material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and
>I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same. Keeping such
>material is blatant violation of copyright. We need to protect people
>from their copyright being violated not only by others, but also by
>themselves (without knowing what they are doing).
>
>Deleting the material would actually be a favor in some cases.
>
There are two sides to that story.  A lot of time a copyright notice is
posted without thinking when the author really doesn't give a damn.
IMDB is a good example.  I have added a few bits to it in the past, but
copyright was the furthest thing from my mind when I did so.  I'm sure
that if I looked at those pages I would find the routine copyright
notice whether I want it or not.  Is there anything in the IMDB terms of
use that says that you give up copyrights to anything you contribute to
them?

The thought that anyone would sue himself for copyright infringement
strikes me as a little offbeat.

Ec


from_name: sydney poore

subject: [WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist

body:
Hello folks,

I?m sure it?s my fault for not handling the situation well, but Matt
doesn?t seem to understand the issue. I appreciate Matt?s work on the
help desk, so I didn?t want to make an issue of it. But since he is
discussing the situation, I want to clarify.

First off, I have been a member of WikiEN-l for a number of weeks. Until
now, I didn?t write to the list because I didn?t have anything important
to say. I am well aware of the ongoing discussion about articles
containing misinformation, especially biographies. So last Friday, after
Hager was listed as an convicted rapist, I wrote a post to the list. The
post was delayed until today because it was my first post and a
moderator needed to clear it. This was unfortunate but necessary given
the potential abuse of this list by disgruntled editors and such.

One point worth noting. I didn?t ask the Help desk for assistance. Last
Friday, after I realized my WikiEN-l post was going to be held, I wrote
to Jimbo Wales. He promptly forwarded it to Help desk and Matt Brown
answered it. From his reply I knew that Matt misunderstand my concern.
His response therefore was unhelpful. Not wanting to be rude to a
Wikipedia volunteer, I just deleted it.

To my immediate and the most important concern, enlisting other people
to monitor Hager?s article, I still had no help. (I explicitly asked
people to watchlist it in both my posts.) So, I asked several editors
that I?ve worked with on medical articles to watchlist it. They
graciously accepted and were supportive. So far, so good on that front.

Finally, I need to make it very clear that NPOV is not the issue. I
wrote the article and included his ex-wife?s allegations and his denial,
so of course I don?t want it removed. I put a lot effort into balancing
the unseemly stuff with his long list of career achievements. My issue:
Unregistered editors can put misinformation in articles that damages the
encyclopedia, defames people, and disrupts the writing OUR encyclopedia.
The long-term solutions discussed on this list need to be pursued.

Once again, I appreciate Matt?s volunteer work and don?t want to be
hypercritical. But, I know My Concern better than he does, so I want to
correct his misconceptions.

Regards,
Sydney Poore AKA FloNight

Go Bengals!!!

Matt Brown wrote:

>On 12/4/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And that takes care of that.
>>
>>
>
>Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones
>where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced.  Since
>they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article
>meet NPOV?  I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to
>know for sure.
>
>It certainly is not an issue solved with a quick complaint to this
>list or the helpdesk or anywhere else.
>
>-Matt
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] A bold fix needed to the "omg backlog" problem

body:
OMG ABUSIVE DELETIONIST ADMIN!

LOL

Sorry, couldn't control myself.
I think we need some sort of quality control at check in.
This way we won't be stuck with articles that are in no way up to par.
Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to accomplish that without
messing up some basic wiki principles.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please unblock me

body:
On 12/4/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Jeff McCready wrote:
> > To Whom it May Concern:
> >
> >   I was unfairly blocked by nandesuka for allegedly violating the 3-revert rule.  I only reverted once.  In no way did I revert four times in a 24-hour period (or any other period for that matter).  I was unaware of the 3-revert rule prior to this incident.  I have since registered for an account with wikipedia and have become a subscriber to wikien.  I enjoy wikipedia and I like to correct errors which I have located with a high amount of frequency.
> >
> >   Yours truly,
> >
> >   neodanite
>
> What's your username?
>
And your IP. If you weren't registered at the moment you were blocked,
it's your IP that's the problem.

Mgm


body:
Back when I was working on the [[Mummy]] article, my changes were
included in Answers.com pretty fast, so I'm assuming removals are with
equal speed.

Mgm


body:
There's a lot of stuff that *IS* copyrighted. And even if the
submitter owned that material they may not be knowing what they are
giving up. Creating some polite template to use for such deletions may
help pages get proper sources and educate people about copyright at
the same time.

I think just speedying text from commericial content providers is not
enough. IMDB is not commericial, but they clearly state they're
material is copyrighted and they do not wish it to be duplicated and
I'm sure there's enough webmasters who think the same. Keeping such
material is blatant violation of copyright. We need to protect people
from their copyright being violated not only by others, but also by
themselves (without knowing what they are doing).

Deleting the material would actually be a favor in some cases.

Mgm

On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Were can I find the extension proposal you're talking about?
>
>It's on the talk page of CSD now.
>
> > And while it may be harsh, we really need something like that.
>
>
> Why?  Why do we *need* to delete material before a proper check has
> been made?  Even a forum website would normally have a discussion
> between moderators before deleting material that wasn't an obvious
> copyright violation.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Can you please share the username or IP address that was blocked and
the message drini put in the reason field?

Mgm

On 12/2/05, Diane Hutchinson <john.b.hutchinson at verizon.net> wrote:
> i have meen blocked by drini and i dont deserve it. i  was just getting use to the capabilites that wikipedia offers. Please give me another chance and i am sorry for any promblems
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
>
>I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk.  The issue is
>that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who
>got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places.
>  Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and
>thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
>
>However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has
>been convicted of a crime, because he has not.

I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic.  I've
been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have
been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary.  The other editor
insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have
actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough
yardstick.  I'd be interested in other thoughts here.

Regards,

Jay.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jonathan Leybovich

subject:
[Foundation-l] Jihad in Defense of Objectivity (Was: Enforcing
	WP:CITE)

body:
All-

The last several dozen messages on this list regarding
Wikipedia citation policy were prompted by Brian's
re-posting of a message I had sent earlier in the week
proposing a change to the page renderer whereby all
factual assertions within an article would
automatically be flagged (say, using red high-lights)
if they were un-sourced.  I am truly gratified by the
huge debate which this suggestion has already
generated, and especially grateful to Brian for seeing
enough value in my idea to bring it again to every
one's attention.

This exchange has been truly productive, and the
disagreements that have been aired are, I think, more
apparent than real.  One common misconception is that
those of us who are pushing for stronger citation
standards are doing so because we believe in citation
for its own sake, or because we want to blindly mimic
"real encyclopedias", or else because we are in some
way elitist or credentialist and always believe in
deferring to expert opinion.

What has gotten lost in the exchange, I think, is the
fact that those of us advocating a strong citation
policy are doing so only as a means to an end, with
that end being objectivity.  The point of an
encyclopedia is to contain objective knowledge,
knowledge which any reasonable person could
potentially confirm by visiting the evidence provided
for it.  Ideally such evidence should be as unmediated
and "direct" as possible, but in practice this often
means deferring to an expert authority, because we
either lack the means or skill to reproduce or
interpret this evidence ourselves.  This is a
necessary evil, but greatly ameliorated by the fact
that all reputable scholars meticulously document
their results, allowing anyone to reproduce their
evidence later on.  Anyone who's read scholarly
journals or monographs knows it is not uncommon for
the footnotes and bibliography (i.e. the evidence) to
take up more pages than the actual text (i.e. the
interpretation)!

Now, just because I think it's valuable to replicate
academic standards of evidence and objectivity does
not mean I think we should blindly reproduce academic
visual/typographic conventions.  Just because scholars
put bibliographical/reference sections at the end of
their articles, or make their text unreadable with
lots of footnotes does not mean I think Wikipedia
should also.  Let's collect the same data, but think
of better ways to present it.  Isn't it ironic that,
memex, the forerunner of hypertext, was thought up
because of the limitations of paper-based scholarship,
and yet we're still talking about how to reproduce
those same limitations within the web browser?

I'm sorry if a lot of this is obvious, but hopefully
the next point is less so- which is that objectivity,
which requires evidence, one means to which happens to
be citation- is not just a scholarly imperative, but
also a moral one.  Without objectivity, and the faith
that other people experience the world in roughly the
same ways we do, cooperation and this thing we call
community is impossible.  Everyone just does whatever
it is they want and never stop to consider how this
affects other people because without objectivity
knowledge of other people is by definition impossible.

To those who thus maintain that greater standards of
objectivity will damage community within Wikipedia, I
ask you to explain the [[Jihad]] article on the
English language site.  This is not an obscure
article; it has gone through 100's, if not 1000's, of
edits and is in the top-10 results list when Googling
on its keyword.  Yet this article is a perfect example
of community dysfunction; it is reverted constantly;
it is locked almost weekly; and yet despite all this
activity it is getting worse over time.  Because there
is no agreement on what this term even means, the
article is getting shorter and shorter as more and
more of its "controversial" material is shunted off to
sub-articles, where the process repeats itself (see
[[Rules of war in Islam]], under a neutrality alert as
I write).  The problem here (leaving aside anonymous
vandals), is not community, it is objectivity.  The
warring editors behave unconstructively not because
they mean badly, necessarily, but because they're
trapped in an epistemological hell.  It's not only
that there's not enough objective evidence provided
for each assertion, it's that people have no idea
where to find such evidence, or even have the basis
with which to recognize it as such.  Thus the
impossibility of consensus, and a continuing edit war
until the article is whittled down to a links page.
Yet isn't the damage done to community, here- in terms
of anger and frustration, in terms of factionalism, in
terms of loss of goodwill and trust- even greater than
that done to knowledge?

I've been working on a new project proposal which I've
deferred announcing on this list partly because I
wanted to do some more polishing to it, but mainly
because it relied upon an enhancement to the software
(i.e. [[m:Wikidata]]) whose completion date was still
a ways off.  However, now seems as good a time as any
to make an announcement, so let me provide an
overview.  Much of it is identical to SJ's proposal
here and in [[m:Wikicite]].

Phase 1: Toward a more reliable Wikipedia

Citation mark-up is introduced which holds a pointer
to an enclosed factual assertion's proof; proof is
provided via either reference to another work, or with
direct evidence (a photograph, eye-witness testimony,
etc.) when appropriate for the claim.  The article
renderer then highlights "evidence holes" with a
distinct, attention-grabbing style that alerts both
readers  and editors.  Such "footnotes" may be hidden
in the main article, but visible through a new tab
which renders them in a useful graph format.  Perhaps
as part of article rating, citations must be confirmed
by the checker; data regarding which assertions were
verified is stored with other article rating
attributes.

Phase 2: Creation of a citation database/authority
text map

Each citation within a Wikipedia article is now
automatically saved within a [[m:Wikidata]] text
relationship database.  A text relationship joins two
"[[w:texts]]", and among its other attributes has one
called TYPE.  In the case of a Wikpedia citation, TYPE
is by default a positive evidentiary citation- the
Wikipedia article uses the cited book, document,
photograph, etc. as proof of some fact.  Yet there are
many other sorts of text relationships, the most
obvious kind being negative citations- one work
attacks the authority of another.

As Wikipedia editors do their research and follow the
citations of those works which they themselves cite,
they are able to create "authority maps" for
literature within various scholarly fields.  What is
considered authoritative? What is considered outdated?
They record this information into the text
relationship database.  They are not merely copying
other's footnotes, though, since a text relationship
does not have to be "verbalized" within a text.  If
they know a particular work contradicts some evidence,
for example, let them record it and so rightly
diminish the work's authority.

Eventually the Wikidata text relationship database
becomes a hugely valuable scholarly tool in its own
right, and acts as the first resort for Wikipedia
editors doing  research.  Formulas are developed which
rate sources/evidence: incoming positive citations are
good; incoming negative ones are bad.  Lots of less
obvious factors like age are considered- a 50 year old
work that's still constantly invoked is probably
particularly sound.  Other formula factors are
identified, though anyone can potentially create their
own formulas to run against the data.

Phase 3: The honing of Wikipedia

Using the text relationship database, editors can now
see at a glance what is authoritative within a
particular literature.  The article renderer now takes
source quality (generated by the formulas discussed
above) into consideration when rendering each section
of an article.  Those parts of the article relying on
weak, discredited, or out-dated sources are flagged
with one style, while perhaps especially credible
sources are "commended" using another.  Hopefully  a
virtuous circle begins- a citation based upon a work
of popular history is exchanged for one relying upon a
more specialized work, which is later exchanged for a
scholarly monograph or journal article, which in turn
encourages reference to primary sources, etc.  By this
process Wikipedia becomes not just accurate, but
scholarly and state-of-the-knowledge.

Please see the following for more details about this
project:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite

Thank you for your time and sorry for the long e-mail.

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper
	blasts	Wikipedia

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2005, at 08:33, David Gerard wrote:

>> There's no drastic solution that won't fuck up the community  operations
>> of the site. Running a hack'n'slash cull on the live site will lead to
>> the current webcomics debacle times a thousand. We already have
>> specialists in all sorts of areas saying they don't even want to  bother
>> starting to write up something they know for Wikipedia because (quote
>> from Sunday's UK meet) "some idiot will delete it *because* they don't
>> understand it." Imagine that outside attitude for a thousand  specialist
>> subjects.

> Its a real pity that people think that stuff will be deleted. Generally
> I dont think it is the case.

It probably isn't, but the perception is that it is. How to fight that?
There's too many easily accessible examples of this happening.

> I have had to defend articles I wrote from
> AfD, but there has not been a problem

The problem is often even knowing it's been nominated for deletion. The
AFD regulars consider notifying the authors too much like work or something.

- d.


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 4 Dec 2005, at 16:34, David Gerard wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>
>>> I'm currently writing [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia on PDAs]], and will be
>>> uploading photos demonstrating the above in a while. Others are
>>> heartily
>>> encouraged to add their own experiences and photos.
>
>> This is something I have been meaning to spend some time on.
>> I have mobile Opera on Sony Ericsson P900 and its ok but the clutter
>> around the information detracts rather. Not sure what the UTF-8 like,
>> will check.
>
>
> The list of languages on http://www.wikipedia.org/ quickly shows up
> UTF-8 rendering problems.

Cyrillic and all of Europe are fine, but anything Japanese, Chinese,
arabic etc is not.

Justinc


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

body:
On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or
> anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work,
> displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes
> the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright
> holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our
> artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for
> ''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")

The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright
holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized
guides" to the content.

See the "Twin Peaks" case at
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

FF


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Sources and sourceability

body:
Hi,

I can just provide my personal history here. I appear in the credits of
several popular reference works as everything from contributor to assistant
editor-in-chief (a horrible title, I might add, but then again, so was the  book).
I have worked on these books for Simon and Shuster, Facts on File,  Macmillan
(before it was gobbled up by Simon and Shuster), Reader's Digest,  Henry Holt,
and Continuum. In each book, the facts were checked as Brian  describes. In
fact, I remember one senior editor at Simon and Shuster boasting  about how
they would pay grad students a certain amount of money for every  mistake they
found. They were eager to find errors. I now have a manuscript of a  book that I
wrote for Marshall Cavendish sitting on my desk. Every sentence was  numbered
and checked. I have been asked to help source the material. I will be  happy
to provide the email exchange.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that we go to these extremes. I do think it  is
important, however, that people understand the lengths that publishers  of
reference works go to in order to ensure the quality of their products. Of
course, some publishers are more meticulous than others. And despite all the
efforts, mistakes always managed to slip in anyway.

I am not about to say that because they do it, so should we. On the  other
hand, I will state my personal belief that with 850,000 articles already  in the
English Wikipedia, we should pay even more attention to quality than  usual.

Danny

In a message dated 12/4/2005 12:40:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lars at aronsson.se writes:

You are  right now arguing that it is necessary to source every
fact, and then you  are doing sweeping generalizations like this?!
I'm not trusting your  insight into the editorial principles of
Encyclopaedia Britannica or  indeed any other (printed)
encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide  some sources.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Brian wrote:

> > > On the contrary, any published books, such as.... Encyclopaedia
> > > Britannica, has every single one of the its facts checked against each
> > > individual source. This is a requirement of the publisher, and of the
> > > company.
> >
> > This is an interesting statement.  What sources do you have for your
> > description of how the editors of EB work?  Has this been documented in
> > public?
> >
>
> Danny originally brought this fact up because he is writing a
> reference book as part of a series of books to be published.
> Every single one of the statements he made in the book had to
> have a source. He said it took several months for every one of
> his facts to be checked against every single source. This is how
> it works in the world of publishing. We have simply side-stepped
> this out of laziness, in my opinion.

So is Danny working for Encyclopaedia Britannica?  And did they
require *him* to source every sentence because they didn't trust
*him* or do you know (from where?) that they require the same of
every author?

You are right now arguing that it is necessary to source every
fact, and then you are doing sweeping generalizations like this?!
I'm not trusting your insight into the editorial principles of
Encyclopaedia Britannica or indeed any other (printed)
encyclopedia and thus I'm asking you to provide some sources.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Arena Andrea

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wie gleichzeitig mehrere Wikis betreiben

body:
Hallo,

Unser Projekt soll ein Wiki, dass in den Sprachen Deutsch,
Italienisch, Franz?sich und English erh?ltlich werden. Dazu kommt ein
Wiki, dass nur f?r  Administratoren da ist, sprich kein bearbeiten
f?r den user.

Bis jetzt habe ich nur die Mediawiki Software auf einer Deutschen und
dieser gesch?tzes Wiki installieren k?nnen.
Ich habe zwei Ordner mit Mediawiki und zwei Datenbanken erstellt.

Der Skin sollte bei allen Sprachen gleich aussehen.

Wie ist es systematisch am besten, die weiteren wikis zu installieren?

M?chte nochmals mein Ziel erkl?ren:

Der User sieht auf der Hauptseite links im Menu die verschiedenen
Sprachen, wenn er z.b. auf Italienisch klickt, erscheint der Artikel
auf Italienisch(inklusiv der Navigation). Und das mit allen Sprachen.

Wie ist das im Hintergrund am besten zu installlieren? Die Skins,
Extensions und ganz wichtig die Bilder sollten f?r alle verf?gbar
sein (keine doppelten dateien). Wie mache ich dann dass mit der
Bilder Datenbank?

Vielen Dank im voraus

andy


body:
On 12/4/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Absolutely.  We should delete infringing material.  But before we do
> > so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material.  That
> > speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion*
> > and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.
>
> "cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website" implies a slight bit of
> research.  However, I am with Tony on this one.  I don't see what the
> new policy would bring other than more confusion to HD and helpdesk-l.
>

It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a  simple
google search.  The process is apparently this: single editor finds
material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy.
 Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single
editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the
article.

Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision,
and the decision to be made over a reasonable period?

I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this
extension is needed.  It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal
deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe
copyright.


body:
>From: Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com>
What about, say, a criminal was killed before conviction by a court - say
[[Michael Robert Ryan]]?

Regards,

Jay.

>
>Jay,
>
>Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is.
>However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable
>sources as part of NPOV.
>
>We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
>
>Regards
>
>
>*Keith Old*
>
>
>Keith Old
>
>
>On 12/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
> > >
> > >I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk.  The issue is
> > >that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who
> > >got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places.
> > >  Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and
> > >thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
> > >
> > >However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has
> > >been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
> >
> > I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this
> > topic.  I've
> > been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they
>have
> > been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary.  The other editor
> > insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have
> > actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough
> > yardstick.  I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jay.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] If in doubt, don't delete

body:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Snowspinner wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> > The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable
> > and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the
> > most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia.  All that
> > stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete
> > reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.
> >
> > There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent
> > support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to
> > sideline it as a historical curiosity.
> >
> > Please let us keep this.  We don't delete stuff unless we have a
> > bloody good reason to do so.  Otherwise what's the point?
>
> I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case
> right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win"
> debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that
> case.
>
I admit I'm too busy trying to actually work on Wikipedia materials to
know anything about this case, but I feel confident in saying that whatever
cause Tony has been hauled before the ArbCom over is irrelevant to his
point here -- which is to argue that when in doubt, don't delete.

I say this as someone who disagrees on many points with him: he's an
inclusionist, I'm an exclusionist. However, when I nominate an article
for deletion, I find myself writing the case as if I'm speaking to Tony,
as if to convince him alone; & so far, not one of my nominations for
deletion have failed.* And I noticed that he closed one of these debates
with the conclusion of _delete_.

Amazing what one can learn if one listens in good faith to another
Wikipedian.

Geoff

* Although I've since discovered I was wrong about one of them; I hope no
one minds if I eventually recreate the article -- this time with citations.


from_name: Steve Block

body:
Perhaps the way to square this is that for all images tagged with any
fair use tag but fairusein, we follow the links to the articles to which
it is linked and place a template on the linking articles talk page to
the effect that the image should be tagged with fairusein and that an
argument for such fairuse should be made on the image description page.
  Would there also be agreement on requiring a timelimit within which
this should happen, somewhere between a week and a month perhaps?

With fair use and related tagged images which are orphan, including
those not in the article space, perhaps we need to start tagging
uploader talk pages notifying them that the image will be deleted if not
tagged with fairusein and used within the body of an article.  I can
understand both sides of this argument, and it seems that this might be
the best way to solve the problems posted to this list recently.

Any thoughts?

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/05


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
On 12/4/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or
> > anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work,
> > displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes
> > the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright
> > holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our
> > artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for
> > ''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")
>
> The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright
> holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized
> guides" to the content.
>
> See the "Twin Peaks" case at
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
>
> FF

I think we have almost 600 fair use images in the pokeman category


body:
On 12/4/05, Puddl Duk <puddlduk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> > > The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or
> > > anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work,
> > > displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes
> > > the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright
> > > holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our
> > > artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for
> > > ''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")
> >
> > The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright
> > holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized
> > guides" to the content.
> >
> > See the "Twin Peaks" case at
> > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
> >
> > FF
>
> I think we have almost 600 fair use images in the pokeman category
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pok%C3%A9mon_images


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan,
	are written in cyrillic ?

body:
> You are right. This is tactless towards the people of Moldova. It should
> be changed as soon as possible.
>
> Arbeo
>
>
Yes, I agree. I raised this issue once but nothing was done about it.
"????????????<http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D3%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8D>"
should be changed to "Moldovene?te" and the link should be changed
to http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which is the biscriptal portal,
rather than the Cyrillic Alphabet portal.

One way to solve this problem is to move Cyrillic to a new subdomain.
The problem is, however, that it seems as if there will never be a Moldovan
Wikipedia, since Moldovan-Latin is identical to Romanian. Therefore,
what to do with the subdomain mo.wikipedia.org? (Why was it created
in the first place?)

One big problem, though, is that although I supported the current model
operating at mo.wiki, it turned out to be a big failure. There is a lot of
poor grammar
being used, a lot of the things there don't make sense. That is why, now,
after seeing the case unfold for a bit, I'd say the best thing to do with
that
Wikipedia is either freeze it or delete it. It's quite disappointing,
though,
that very few neutral observers are involved in this and no-one aside from
Node, some Moldovans and some Romanians really seem to care.

Thanks,

Ronline


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] If in doubt, don't delete

body:
I point out that the editor in question is subject to an arbcom case
right now regarding deletion and the railroading of "policy" to "win"
debates. I think this incident would prove valuable evidence in that
case.

-Phil

On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable
> and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the
> most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia.  All that
> stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete
> reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.
>
> There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent
> support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to
> sideline it as a historical curiosity.
>
> Please let us keep this.  We don't delete stuff unless we have a
> bloody good reason to do so.  Otherwise what's the point?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: J.F. de Wolff

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Wiki meritocracy

body:
Wikipedia is not wiki. Indeed it is not. It is not a wiki like usemod
and Ward's wiki etc. It has ceased being egalitarian. The reason is:
because it is an encyclopedia. It aims at being an encyclopedia, not
just a collection of information for everyone to wade through without
any moderation, guidelines, structure or policy.

A corrolary of this striving towards higher quality articles is the
meritocracy that comes with it. Admins are awarded their adminship
for various reasons, but people with a low edit count and no good
article namespace work need not apply. Some people feel that one can
only become an admin after coaching an article succesfully through
the process obtaining featured status.

The present system of conflict resolution is officially egalitarian.
If I protect an article I've been edit warring on, reverted four
times and then unblocked myself, blocked an abusive troll that had
been attacking me, I can expect an RFC and some nasty shouting at.
Good thing too. It avoids abuse of power.

However, whenever admins seem to be favoured (or supportive of each
other) in the conflict resolution process, there is tut-tutting,
screaming of "tag teaming". There are meat puppets. There is a
clique, a cabal, an underground right/left/chicken wing conspiracy to
rule Wikipedia, etcetera.

Still, it's very simple. Wikipedia has become a meritocracy. Those
with the patience to revert vandalism, explain NPOV to newbies, NOR
to partisans, CITE to creative souls, conflict resolution and 3RR to
edit warriors... they will be attacked but most of them seem to
survive. Editcountitis. Yes. Deep jealousy of Olivier, SimonP, Bryan
Derksen and the tangibly absent Derek Ramsey. Because in the end the
main aim of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. Neutral.
Verifiable. Referenced. Coming to a mirror near you.

Jfdwolff

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a  simple
> google search.  The process is apparently this: single editor finds
> material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy.
>  Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single
> editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the
> article.
>
> Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision,
> and the decision to be made over a reasonable period?
>
> I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this
> extension is needed.  It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal
> deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe
> copyright.

As I recall, I agreed with you...

--
Sam


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
>>
>> I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk.  The issue is
>> that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who
>> got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places.
>>  Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and
>> thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
>>
>> However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has
>> been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
>
>
> I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this
> topic.  I've been stating that we include people in "Criminals"
> categories if they have been convicted of a crime by an independent
> judiciary.  The other editor insists that we have to decide (by some
> means) whether or not they have actually committed a crime, conviction
> is not enough a good enough yardstick.  I'd be interested in other
> thoughts here.

I think that any list that requires charactterizations needs to be
approached with caution and sensitivity.  Unless we abide by a strict
definition of what we mean by the term the [[List of Criminals]] has too
much room to become POV, or at worst, libellous.  Other criteria than
conviction in a court of law are possible, but they too must be strictly
defined.  We are not in a position to provide the original research that
some of these situations may need.

Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of murder, and conspiracy theories
around JFK's assisination continue to this day.  In many minds there is
reasonable doubt.  Who knows what a jury would have done?

Hurricane Carter was convicted of murder, and it took him nearly 20
years to prove his innocence.

If we are going to keep this characterization at all, the benefit of the
doubt should go to the person whose name is being considered for the list.

Ec


from_name: 田中 万太郎

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: remote loading

body:
--- Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> ????????
?
> Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> > This web site:
> >
> > http://www.pakaf.com/read/
> >
> > Seems to be a live mirror, loading articles from
> wikipedia in realtime
> > with no attribution. For example:
> >
> > http://www.pakaf.com/read/Bullington,_Hampshire
> >
> > an article that was created today.
>
> Added it to squid.conf , need to be deployed though.>

Hello,

this site:
  http://www.tocatch.info/en/Bullington,_Hampshire.htm
seems to be still active as a live mirror.

(it has other languages besides en)

Thankyou

TANAKA

--------------------------------------
STOP HIV/AIDS.
Yahoo! JAPAN Redribbon Campaign 2005
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/redribbon/


from_name: Ben Garney

subject: [Wikitech-l] Messages

body:
Alfio Puglisi wrote:

>Tortoise CVS works very well, but for diffs and other cvs features on
>windows you need to install the windows port of binutils (for example
>from http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435 ).
>
>
Or just use the built-in Tortoise versions of those features
(potentially replacing TortoiseMerge with something like Beyond Compare
if you do a lot of it)...

Ben


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please unblock me

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> However, the block has almost certainly expired by now, so I don't
> think it necessary to follow this up further.  I would note, however,
> that, when replying to people you haven't heard of before, you CC your
> replies to them, as they are unlikely to be subscribed to the mailing
> list.

Well, he did say that he had subscribed to the mailing list. ;)

Chris


subject: [WikiEN-l] Please unblock me

body:
On 12/4/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > However, the block has almost certainly expired by now, so I don't
> > think it necessary to follow this up further.  I would note, however,
> > that, when replying to people you haven't heard of before, you CC your
> > replies to them, as they are unlikely to be subscribed to the mailing
> > list.

Touch?.

--
Sam


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>On 12/4/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>The bigger mess I see is large piles of artwork from within games or
>>anime - pictures of seemingly every object and character in a work,
>>displayed in lengthy list/gallery articles. Seems like it really pushes
>>the bounds of fair use, and yet it's hard to imagine the copyright
>>holders ever complaining much ("what's that you say? WP is using our
>>artwork to illustrate extended quasi-advertising articles for
>>''EverFinal Half-Life of Gundam Doom XXIII''? And for free? Excellent!")
>>
>
>The danger in this is that it could potentially prohibit the copyright
>holder to market the copyrights towards the creation of "authorized
>guides" to the content.
>
>See the "Twin Peaks" case at
>http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
>
Those examples put an interesting light on the "how much detail to
include" debate - there is potentially a point at which the text of
a collection of articles includes most of the content of a fictional
work (such as Pokemon), and is no longer fair use. In other words,
our articles are legally required to not include all possible
information about the work they're describing.

So who wants to be the Grinch that puts some Pokemon images up for
deletion, on the grounds that there are too many of them?

Stan


from_name: Arbeo M

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan, are written in cyrillic ?

body:
One user asked me if my previous comment on this issue was meant to be a sarcastic one.
 So maybe I should explain a little bit more in detail what I meant.

 My point was:

 1. I can understand why a number of people who speak that language and live there are not content with the current modus operandi and why we keep getting complaints about this.

 2. My personal opinion is that we ought to make some changes.

 What I (and obviously many who are actually concerned by it) find unacceptable about the current situation:

 - When an internet user from the Republic of Moldova visits Wikipedia's homepage, he finds
 among others links to Wikipedia editions in "Rom?nă" and in "Moldovenească".

 - There are people who think that Moldovan is a distinct language. There are people who think that Moldovan is simply different name for the Romanian. Everybody knows however that both
 Romanian and Moldovan are generally written in Latin script.

 - Nevertheless,  on Wikipedia's homepage "Moldovenească" in not written in Latin script, like the Moldovan society has determined but in Cyrillic script like it was decreed in the unfree days of the Soviet union when the people of Moldova was not allowed to decide for themselves.

 - This gives the Moldovan internet user a bad impression of Wikipedia and irritates him or her because they can think that Wikipedia ignores what the independent nation of Moldova decides and rather goes by the standard from the Soviet era.

 - Now, if that user clicks on that cyrillic "Moldovenească", he is taken to a page that tells him to make a decision if he prefers the Latin or the Cyrillic script.

 - What happens next is the following: If that user choses Latin (i. e. the standard script), he is told that his language is now considered Romanian by Wikipedia and taken to the Romanian Wikipedia. If, however the user should decide for some reason that he prefers Cyrillic (official script during the Soviet era),  Wikipedia  _now_  considers  his language Moldovan and he is taken to a Wikipedia named "Moldovenească".

 - And finally he realizes that this wiki that uses the Soviet standard which became suspended one and a half decades ago is given the subdomain "mo" (code reserved for Moldovan which is by default written in Latin script) by Wikipedia!

 Now I would like ask everybody who has had the patience to read this far:

 Is there anybody who does _not_ understand why a large number of users from the region are upset by this weird arrangement?

 When, a few weeks ago, a couple of Wikipedians from the former Yugoslavia were telling us that they were feeling insulted and offended by the mere existence of an edition in Serbo-Croatian I was not able to comprehend that.

 But I do understand the irritation here and think it is well-justified.

 In a nutshell, Wikipedia currently delivers this message to users from Moldova:
 "If you're using the Latin script (like your national constitution says and like the majority of your compatriots do) we'll call your language Romanian but in case you should use Cyrillic, then we'll consider your language Moldovan".

 Is there anybody who thinks that there is no need to correct this awkward situation?

 Thanks for your time and attention!

 Arbeo

---------------------------------
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher


from_name: Keith Old

body:
I would be interested in commenting on this article.

I have seen letters on the help desk asking why they were accused of a
copyvio when they owned the page in question. Usually, they submitted the
edit anonymously so there is no way of knowing.

However, we need a process to ensure that they are quickly gotten rid off or
edited mercilessly although speedy is taking it a bit far. I would think a
fortnight would be a more suitable period.

Unless they are specifically written as encyclopedia articles (in which case
they should be speedy deleted or on the public domain), most pieces on the
web are not written to be  used in a encyclopedia. As such, they make very
problematic articles for Wikipedia as they inevitably designed to push a
point of view.

Some examples of problematic articles:

(a) a piece on an elected representative copied from his or her web page
will talk about all the wonderful things he and his party have done - the
negatives will not get  a mention:

(b) a piece copied from a corporate website will mention all the wonderful
things a company or product has done leaving out the criticisms;

(c) a piece copied from an activists page about a corporation say Greenpeace
will only mention the negatives about that company or its products;

(d) an article copied from a musicians web page will discuss the singers
latest album in great detail while passing over a twenty year career in a
couple of paragraphs.

Irrespective of copyright laws, stuff copied from other websites generally
make very poor Wikipedia articles. Further, it usually takes a couple of
minutes to cut and paste so it isn't as if the creator has put a lot of
effort into it.

In conclusion, my suggestion is:

(a) articles that are copyright violations from sites that provide their
content commercially should be speedy deleted.

(b) other material that has been identified as a copyright violation should
sit in copyvio for a fortnight after which an admin should make a decision
as to whether they are encyclopedic in quality and should stay or should be
nominated for Afd (similar to pages needing translation). We should see if
we can send an e-mail to the copyright holder advising them that this page
has been uploaded and seeking their permission. If this permission is not
given, the page should be speedy deletions.

In short, copyright violations are not only a breach of copyright law but
usually advocate a point of view and are often original research so break
other guidelines as well. We need a process that will ensure that they do
not stick around.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster

On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Where is this proposal listed?
>
> The problem with this is we already frequently bite the newbies with
> respect to people uploading stuff they own that's already published on
> another website.  Being accused of copyright infringement and having
> the article blanked is bad enough for them; having them deleted will
> make people not come back.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brian

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Fwd: Citation method proposal (Was:
	Enforcing	WP:CITE)]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Foundation-l] Jihad in Defense of Objectivity (Was: Enforcing
WP:CITE)
Date: 	Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:49:36 -0800 (PST)
From: 	Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: 	Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
To: 	foundation-l at wikimedia.org

All-

The last several dozen messages on this list regarding
Wikipedia citation policy were prompted by Brian's
re-posting of a message I had sent earlier in the week
proposing a change to the page renderer whereby all
factual assertions within an article would
automatically be flagged (say, using red high-lights)
if they were un-sourced.  I am truly gratified by the
huge debate which this suggestion has already
generated, and especially grateful to Brian for seeing
enough value in my idea to bring it again to every
one's attention.

This exchange has been truly productive, and the
disagreements that have been aired are, I think, more
apparent than real.  One common misconception is that
those of us who are pushing for stronger citation
standards are doing so because we believe in citation
for its own sake, or because we want to blindly mimic
"real encyclopedias", or else because we are in some
way elitist or credentialist and always believe in
deferring to expert opinion.

What has gotten lost in the exchange, I think, is the
fact that those of us advocating a strong citation
policy are doing so only as a means to an end, with
that end being objectivity.  The point of an
encyclopedia is to contain objective knowledge,
knowledge which any reasonable person could
potentially confirm by visiting the evidence provided
for it.  Ideally such evidence should be as unmediated
and "direct" as possible, but in practice this often
means deferring to an expert authority, because we
either lack the means or skill to reproduce or
interpret this evidence ourselves.  This is a
necessary evil, but greatly ameliorated by the fact
that all reputable scholars meticulously document
their results, allowing anyone to reproduce their
evidence later on.  Anyone who's read scholarly
journals or monographs knows it is not uncommon for
the footnotes and bibliography (i.e. the evidence) to
take up more pages than the actual text (i.e. the
interpretation)!

Now, just because I think it's valuable to replicate
academic standards of evidence and objectivity does
not mean I think we should blindly reproduce academic
visual/typographic conventions.  Just because scholars
put bibliographical/reference sections at the end of
their articles, or make their text unreadable with
lots of footnotes does not mean I think Wikipedia
should also.  Let's collect the same data, but think
of better ways to present it.  Isn't it ironic that,
memex, the forerunner of hypertext, was thought up
because of the limitations of paper-based scholarship,
and yet we're still talking about how to reproduce
those same limitations within the web browser?

I'm sorry if a lot of this is obvious, but hopefully
the next point is less so- which is that objectivity,
which requires evidence, one means to which happens to
be citation- is not just a scholarly imperative, but
also a moral one.  Without objectivity, and the faith
that other people experience the world in roughly the
same ways we do, cooperation and this thing we call
community is impossible.  Everyone just does whatever
it is they want and never stop to consider how this
affects other people because without objectivity
knowledge of other people is by definition impossible.

To those who thus maintain that greater standards of
objectivity will damage community within Wikipedia, I
ask you to explain the [[Jihad]] article on the
English language site.  This is not an obscure
article; it has gone through 100's, if not 1000's, of
edits and is in the top-10 results list when Googling
on its keyword.  Yet this article is a perfect example
of community dysfunction; it is reverted constantly;
it is locked almost weekly; and yet despite all this
activity it is getting worse over time.  Because there
is no agreement on what this term even means, the
article is getting shorter and shorter as more and
more of its "controversial" material is shunted off to
sub-articles, where the process repeats itself (see
[[Rules of war in Islam]], under a neutrality alert as
I write).  The problem here (leaving aside anonymous
vandals), is not community, it is objectivity.  The
warring editors behave unconstructively not because
they mean badly, necessarily, but because they're
trapped in an epistemological hell.  It's not only
that there's not enough objective evidence provided
for each assertion, it's that people have no idea
where to find such evidence, or even have the basis
with which to recognize it as such.  Thus the
impossibility of consensus, and a continuing edit war
until the article is whittled down to a links page.
Yet isn't the damage done to community, here- in terms
of anger and frustration, in terms of factionalism, in
terms of loss of goodwill and trust- even greater than
that done to knowledge?

I've been working on a new project proposal which I've
deferred announcing on this list partly because I
wanted to do some more polishing to it, but mainly
because it relied upon an enhancement to the software
(i.e. [[m:Wikidata]]) whose completion date was still
a ways off.  However, now seems as good a time as any
to make an announcement, so let me provide an
overview.  Much of it is identical to SJ's proposal
here and in [[m:Wikicite]].

Phase 1: Toward a more reliable Wikipedia

Citation mark-up is introduced which holds a pointer
to an enclosed factual assertion's proof; proof is
provided via either reference to another work, or with
direct evidence (a photograph, eye-witness testimony,
etc.) when appropriate for the claim.  The article
renderer then highlights "evidence holes" with a
distinct, attention-grabbing style that alerts both
readers  and editors.  Such "footnotes" may be hidden
in the main article, but visible through a new tab
which renders them in a useful graph format.  Perhaps
as part of article rating, citations must be confirmed
by the checker; data regarding which assertions were
verified is stored with other article rating
attributes.

Phase 2: Creation of a citation database/authority
text map

Each citation within a Wikipedia article is now
automatically saved within a [[m:Wikidata]] text
relationship database.  A text relationship joins two
"[[w:texts]]", and among its other attributes has one
called TYPE.  In the case of a Wikpedia citation, TYPE
is by default a positive evidentiary citation- the
Wikipedia article uses the cited book, document,
photograph, etc. as proof of some fact.  Yet there are
many other sorts of text relationships, the most
obvious kind being negative citations- one work
attacks the authority of another.

As Wikipedia editors do their research and follow the
citations of those works which they themselves cite,
they are able to create "authority maps" for
literature within various scholarly fields.  What is
considered authoritative? What is considered outdated?
They record this information into the text
relationship database.  They are not merely copying
other's footnotes, though, since a text relationship
does not have to be "verbalized" within a text.  If
they know a particular work contradicts some evidence,
for example, let them record it and so rightly
diminish the work's authority.

Eventually the Wikidata text relationship database
becomes a hugely valuable scholarly tool in its own
right, and acts as the first resort for Wikipedia
editors doing  research.  Formulas are developed which
rate sources/evidence: incoming positive citations are
good; incoming negative ones are bad.  Lots of less
obvious factors like age are considered- a 50 year old
work that's still constantly invoked is probably
particularly sound.  Other formula factors are
identified, though anyone can potentially create their
own formulas to run against the data.

Phase 3: The honing of Wikipedia

Using the text relationship database, editors can now
see at a glance what is authoritative within a
particular literature.  The article renderer now takes
source quality (generated by the formulas discussed
above) into consideration when rendering each section
of an article.  Those parts of the article relying on
weak, discredited, or out-dated sources are flagged
with one style, while perhaps especially credible
sources are "commended" using another.  Hopefully  a
virtuous circle begins- a citation based upon a work
of popular history is exchanged for one relying upon a
more specialized work, which is later exchanged for a
scholarly monograph or journal article, which in turn
encourages reference to primary sources, etc.  By this
process Wikipedia becomes not just accurate, but
scholarly and state-of-the-knowledge.

Please see the following for more details about this
project:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTextrose
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite

Thank you for your time and sorry for the long e-mail.

__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

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


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] Messages

body:
Hi,

I'm having a go at coding a feature request, and I have a question
about messages. The feature is a new special page, so all of the code
is within one file, the only thing that is outside that file is a
require_once and some messages.

I was wondering where is the place to put new messages? I figured in
Language.php, but how then do I update the database with them and
create the relevant MediaWiki: pages?

Also, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_MediaWiki_hacker
recommends creating a patch and posting it at bugzilla, but I'm on
Windows - how do I create a cvs diff in this environment?

Thanks,

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Graph extension updated

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

I am proud to announce a new release of the graph extension. There have
been many bugfixes, new features, and it is more stable, robust and even
faster. The code handles more complicated graphs much better now. And the
manual got updated, too :-D

To not bore you with the details, I will just summarize the key changes
since v0.30 below.

All the info you need, including setup and download:

	http://bloodgate.com/perl/graph/
	http://bloodgate.com/perl/graph/manual/

If you have any questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to email.

Best wishes,

Tels

So whats new?
=========

* Boxart:

Thanx to Folke Behrens, I finally got my act together to inplement Unicode
output. The new mode is called "boxart" and is ASCII art on steroids - it
draws the output with Unicode box drawing characters. And it looks good!

 ????????     ??????????
 ? Bonn ? ??> ? Berlin ?
 ????????     ??????????

* SVG in Mediawiki:

The Mediawiki integration can now do SVG. If you have an SVG enabled
browser (FF 1.5, opera 9.0, Konqueror 3.5), you can enjoy truly scalable
output.

* New attributes:

  + font-size (set relative fontsize)
  + text-style (underline, overline, bold, italic, strike-through)
  + start/end (edge port restriction, experimental)
  + basename (for autosplit nodes)
  + arrow-style: none; for edges

* New styles:

  + broad, wide, bold-dash for node borders and edges
  + anon nodes can have a style+attributes, too:

	  [ ] { border: bold; } --> [ Bonn ]

* Groups

These now work now much better, especially in HTML and ASCII/boxart.

The nitty-gritty details can be found in the full changelogs, if your are
brave and bored :)

	http://search.cpan.org/~tels/Graph-Easy/CHANGES
	http://search.cpan.org/~tels/Graph-Easy-As_svg/CHANGES
	http://search.cpan.org/~tels/wikimedia-graph/CHANGES

Have fun! Tels

- --
 Signed on Sun Dec  4 23:35:48 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat animals who are" -- Groucho Marx

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ5Nz/3cLPEOTuEwVAQGYPgf/RJniERKJxhCjD41lFqN3ls4gnWoJsF+t
qvzzE3Hg0tZxxGGOBHV+1VDXEPDSecVF5/+CU71VhGQ0nn7UQ+spvMpVGXzIr3YL
gOF1O3ru3SJvp6fuAqXIHe4wbxJBvtaCtCvXBAUTejNz0g/L3IOgXYCUctSDi0Wu
WiSuhJcUOMNWJtll2SkJKNSPZwh7MOBCW9Jn9TMKcKd2X/siscKdM22xTfIEBeVO
L52oXwJrekTTcIdV8N4yPbcRO6ISVKG7nZsDvDTy91OxwAPavgPOQqYEnwDc03Uq
RV0FpCD8NYkpgpxhek3zgk63Qou2eIAVfBkvOhwwsF/N4K5gJKq15A==
=TXm9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] If in doubt, don't delete

body:
The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable
and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the
most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia.  All that
stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete
reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.

There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent
support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to
sideline it as a historical curiosity.

Please let us keep this.  We don't delete stuff unless we have a
bloody good reason to do so.  Otherwise what's the point?


body:
Jtkiefer wrote:

> I'm not worried about IMDB either, IMD like Amazon and a bunch of
> other places claims copyrights that they can't actually claim since it
> isn't their stuff to begin with.  A good example of this is
> actor/actress listings in movies which aren't theirs to copyright same
> with book cover images since the publisher not amazon holds the right
> to the image on the book cover and amazon cannot take that away from
> them just from being a resaler of the book.  It should be noted though
> that I am not an expert on copyright law so I could be entirely wrong
> on this but even though common sense and copyright law almost never go
> together it's just common sense that this would be the way it is.

The big problem with copyright notices is that they don't mean
anything.  For the US since 1989 copyright subsists whether or not there
is a notice.  IMDB pages are copyright only to the extent that they are
copyrightable.  They have a clear copyright in the general presentation
of a page, the information itself is not coyrightable, and the copyright
on the commentary or reviews is owned by whoever wrote it.  If you want
permission to use a commentary you need to ask that individual.

Ec


from_name: epzachte at chello.nl

body:
Brion, since you quoted it to someone else, you read my previous post about
what is wrong with your quick and dirty patch.

You chose not to ask or inform me beforehand, so that I could explain once again
(you were at the Frankfurt presentation) what makes unicode upgrade more than a one line patch.
You chose not to reply to my wikitech post (unoffensive I would say) which was cc'ed to you.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-November/032649.html

Too bad you seem to have time only for a halfbaked solution and then forget about it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Timeline_History_of_Chess&oldid=30159662
for an example of the mess you caused.

And yes, I am pissed off. I don't know what I did to deserve this inconsiderate behaviour.

Erik Zachte


body:
Brion:

> I applied someone else's patch by their request. If you've got an improved version, please send it over.

You did also choose to ignore my request (who I am to complain about that, after all you're the only Brion around here) and not deem it necessary to communicate about it (which is my main concern).

I happen to still feel responsable for EasyTimeline even when I did not deliver on earlier promises for explained reasons.

As I can't work on it in the near future, I will soon post the patch and explanation, so that someone else with perl knowledge or at least server access can do final tests.

Erik Zachte


from_name: Guettarda

body:
What bothers me is interpretation.  I have seen things listed as copyvios in
which the sources were clearly Wikipedia mirrors, even acknowledged
Wikipedia as the soiurce.  If we make it easier people are more likely to
speedy things that are legit.

Ian (Guettarda)


from_name: Jtkiefer

body:
I'm not worried about IMDB either, IMD like Amazon and a bunch of other
places claims copyrights that they can't actually claim since it isn't
their stuff to begin with.  A good example of this is actor/actress
listings in movies which aren't theirs to copyright same with book cover
images since the publisher not amazon holds the right to the image on
the book cover and amazon cannot take that away from them just from
being a resaler of the book.  It should be noted though that I am not an
expert on copyright law so I could be entirely wrong on this but even
though common sense and copyright law almost never go together it's just
common sense that this would be the way it is.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] EnotifWiki for MediaWiki 1.5.3 -- soon

body:
To whom it may concern (lovers of EnotifWiki)

Pre-announcement:
I successfully updated EnotifWiki to the latest version of MediaWiki
1.5.3 . The new Enotif version will be published soon, most probably on
06.12.2005 UTC.
It will then be the first release since EnotifWiki 3.55 for
MediaWiki1.5rc4 on 31.08.2005.

Please watch [1] or [2]  for further news.

[1] http://www.enotifwiki.org MediaWiki incl. e-mail notification and
WYSIWYG editor (FCKeditor)
[2] http://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4473


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Congratulations Milos

Good luck and a lot of wisdom.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
On 12/4/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this topic.  I've
> been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have
> been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary.  The other editor
> insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have
> actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough
> yardstick.  I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
>
Jay, it would be original research to claim that someone is a
"criminal" even though they haven't been convicted. Committing a crime
is not just the apparent performance of a prohibited act, but is also
(usually) connected to the actor's state of mind at the time,
something a court rules on based on the available evidence. Wikipedia
editors are not in a position to judge what a court would have ruled,
no matter how obvious the case might seem (e.g. a public figure
admitting they once stole something from a store).

Sarah


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
On 05/12/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason, Slavic people seem to think that "Romania is really just a
> Slavic language that has only recently tried to affirm itself as
> Latin/Romance". Not only you, but others as well. Romanian, while influenced

Did he say that? No, he commented only on Cyrillic vs. Latin. Cyrillic
is NOT the same as Slavic; there are many languages using Cyrillic
which are not Slavic, and many languages which are Slavic but don't
use Cyrillic.

> by Slavic languages to a degree, is still overwhelmingly Romance and the
> Latin alphabet is the best alphabet to represent it. Additionally, it

Why is the Latin alphabet the best to represent it? As far as I can
tell, the modern Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet better represents the
language than the Latin alphabet-- Cyrillic represents the sounds
directly with oneletter for each phone, while Latin represents them in
a way trying to make the language look more like French or Latin,
often with situational rules for writing different phones, for
example:

-- c, ch, and k can all represent the "k" sound in different
situations, but then in some situations "c" makes a "ch" sound
instead.
-- g and gh can both represent the hard "g" sound in different
situations, but then in some situations "g" makes a "dj" sound
instead.
-- the letter "i" can be used to represent 5 separate phones, and
sometimes even used where there is no corresponding phone at all.
-- the letter "e" can represent 3 phones, and sometimes even used
where there is no corresponding phone at all.
-- the letters ? and ? can both represent the same sound in different
situations.

None of this is true for Cyrillic, except for the fact that "e" can
represent 2 phones.

> Additionally, Latin script is the *only* script used to write Romanian in
> Romania. It's just like French is always written in Latin script, Romanian

No, in Romania, Cyrillic is still found in certain ecclesiastical uses.

> is also always written in Latin script. Therefore, it's not OK to justify
> the writing of Moldovan in Cyrillic just because Romanian was once written
> in Cyrillic. It's true, Romanian national revival only came about in the
> second half of the 19th century, and until then Romanians mostly used
> Cyrillic, albeit a different form. But today, the Latin alphabet is the only
> alphabet used in Romania.

No, in Romania, Cyrillic is still found in certain ecclesiastical uses.

> Another point is the use of Cyrillic in Moldova. From what I gather - from
> the media, from Moldovans - Moldova today is overwhelmingly Latin-script.

Overwhelmingly, sure. But not 100%. Aside from Transnistria, there are
at least a few thousand people who strongly prefer Cyrillic, some of
them don't know any Latin at all.

> Aside from the disputed territory of Transnistria, very few people use
> Cyrillic often.

Not entirely true. In the villages, people over 30 often are more
fluent in Cyrillic, and take notes or write diaries in it, but will
mostly use Latin for public life.

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

body:
The results are one sided. There is a mountain of evidence. Nobs is
being railroaded, and Cberlet appears about to be given authority to
cite himself whenever and wherever he might find an opinion, based on
his "expert" status. I don't contest that he merits an article (altho
it is a bit of a resume), but I do contest his neutrality and range of
expertise. That, combined w the mountains of evidence against him and
the conflict he has fostered (5 people he rounded up and shoved
together just in this one case!) should provide all the proof you need
of the difficulty he presents.

Sam Spade

On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> >From what I can see, the arbitrators are doing quite well with a difficult case.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I'm not bothered about imdb--obviously we should delete copyright
infringing material, and stuff copied from such a source should
probably be deleted for that reason.

I'm just concerned that here articles will be deleted on quite
complete criteria without any requirement for proper research, and
absolutely no discussion.  There is absolutely no guarantee that the
criterion as listed will result in solely, or even mostly, copyright
infringing material, there is no requirement for timeliness here
because we're not being deluged with such material.  It just seems to
be yet another example of people going out of their way to find a
reason to delete newly contributed material without discussion.


from_name: SJ

body:
Objectivity Is The Greatest...

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Jonathan Leybovich wrote:

> evidence later on.  Anyone who's read scholarly
> journals or monographs knows it is not uncommon for
> the footnotes and bibliography (i.e. the evidence) to
> take up more pages than the actual text (i.e. the
> interpretation)!

Yes.  At some point, it should be possible to construct an "n-depth"
talmud-style view of an article, showing footnotes, annotations on those
footnotes, and annotations on those in turn; each within its own
scrollable window (well, hopefully by then we'll have progressed beyond
'scrollable windows' as a temporary-focus-expanding interface component).
Right now we don't store any of the data needed to have more than one
hard-to-use level of annotation.

> of better ways to present it.  Isn't it ironic that,
> memex, the forerunner of hypertext, was thought up
> because of the limitations of paper-based scholarship,
> and yet we're still talking about how to reproduce
> those same limitations within the web browser?

Definitely.

> the next point is less so- which is that objectivity,
> which requires evidence, one means to which happens to
> be citation- is not just a scholarly imperative, but
> also a moral one.  Without objectivity, and the faith

This statement deserves a well-argued online presentation. I certainly
happen to agree, but not everyone will, at least not at first.

Thanks for the Jihad example.  Ward once said that the real strength in
wikis lies in enabling subtle discussion; in letting two people who don't
know eachother clarify their disagreement down to a very specific, subtle
point -- two variations on a particular sentence or paragraph -- before
they have to break into a meta-discussion.

Providing a mechanism to explicitly cite and anti-cite statements (it is
excellent that you mention both positive and negative links through
citation), and to provide background information about the sources for
cites, allows for another magnitude of subtlety and clarity.

> etc.) when appropriate for the claim.  The article
> renderer then highlights "evidence holes" with a
> distinct, attention-grabbing style that alerts both
> readers  and editors.  Such "footnotes" may be hidden
> in the main article, but visible through a new tab

Yes.  Making new features available only through new tabs avoids confusing
those used to the old system.

> Phase 2: Creation of a citation database/authority
> text map
>
> called TYPE.  In the case of a Wikpedia citation, TYPE
> is by default a positive evidentiary citation- the
> Wikipedia article uses the cited book, document,
> photograph, etc. as proof of some fact.  Yet there are
> many other sorts of text relationships, the most
> obvious kind being negative citations- one work
> attacks the authority of another.

or null citations- a work claiming that there are no supporting /
contradictory claims about a subject.

> Using the text relationship database, editors can now
> see at a glance what is authoritative within a
> particular literature.  The article renderer now takes

It is less cut-and-dried than this; one useful comparative view would be
the authority-ranking of major essays/articles in a field assuming
School-of-thought A is correct in its assumptions, and the authority-tree
assuming some rival School B is correct in its assumptions.

Or more simply, just tracking dependencies... for instance getting a quick
look at mathematical proofs which rely on the Axiom of Choice.

> virtuous circle begins- a citation based upon a work
> of popular history is exchanged for one relying upon a
> more specialized work, which is later exchanged for a
> scholarly monograph or journal article, which in turn
> encourages reference to primary sources, etc.  By this
> process Wikipedia becomes not just accurate, but
> scholarly and state-of-the-knowledge.

By this process, the claims of the popular works are also being verified
or disproven by Wikipedia authors over time; hopefully that information
can be passed on to the book editors/publishers -- as they too enter the
digital age.

SJ


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

body:
You need to look no further then Talk;Chip Berlet and User:Nobs01 to
see that Nobs01 is not being railroaded but being sanctioned for
personal attacks. Talk:Chip Berlet has been spammed with a large
volume of material regarding other people and other activities based
on Chip's membership in the National Lawyer's Guild. It is like
blaming any one who is a member of the Democratic Party for Clinton's
sex adventures. User:Nobs01 starts off: "The Extremist Personality"
then proceeds to link the "twenty-two common traits of extremists" to
edits of Cerlet. The policy of the arbitration committee is not to
carefully investigate the truth of personal attacks but to sanction
the attacker. The reason a lengthy ban is proposed in the case of
Nobs01 is that when it seemed he would be sanctioned with a one month
ban for one attack he responded with another lengthy attack.

No one is giving authority to Cberlet to make thing ups and then cite
them. He would probably be wise not to cite himself extensively, but
anyone else is free to, as in a limited area, right wing and
totalitarian movements in the United States, he is a generally
recognized expert.

As to the article, Chip Berlet: he has been criticized, for example
by David Horowitz, and under our NPOV policy, reports of those
criticism may be legitimately included in the article on him.
Deciding what criticisms and how extensive they ought to be is up to
the normal editing process.

Chip Berlet is no more neutral than Sam Spade and he need not be. As
a Wikipedia editor the requirement is that he respect our policies
and abide by them which he more or less does.

He did initiate the arbitration case, but that is trouble which we
welcome as opposed to endless edit warring and personal attacks. When
his claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy but a lot of
piling on by various POV editors with a right wing perspective.
Looked at individually, they were engaged in a number of combative
activities which are mentioned in the proposed decision. Sam Spade,
for example, seems to not have access to adequate sources but is
inclined to argue about the sufficiency of sources put forward by
others. This is a dead end because you can't legitimately argue about
something you can't or won't look at.

Fred

On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Sam Spade wrote:

> The results are one sided. There is a mountain of evidence. Nobs is
> being railroaded, and Cberlet appears about to be given authority to
> cite himself whenever and wherever he might find an opinion, based on
> his "expert" status. I don't contest that he merits an article (altho
> it is a bit of a resume), but I do contest his neutrality and range of
> expertise. That, combined w the mountains of evidence against him and
> the conflict he has fostered (5 people he rounded up and shoved
> together just in this one case!) should provide all the proof you need
> of the difficulty he presents.
>
> Sam Spade
>
> On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> From what I can see, the arbitrators are doing quite well with a
>>> difficult case.
>>>
>>
>> -Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:
> Before we make some official announcement in English, I would like to
> say a few words about new local chapter:
>
> We held two sessions of our assembly. The first one was formal when we
> accepted our bylaws and chose presidium. (We decided that to avoid
> explanation to our authorities that we would hold our sessions over
> Internet.)
>
> The second session was less formal and during this session some of our
> decisions were:
>
> - We accepted statute of our assembly (where we explained that we can
> hold our sessions over Internet).
>
> - We constituted other bodies of our organization: executive board and
> supervision board.
>
> - We constituted two regional boards: for Vojvodina and for Belgrade
> (in this moment we have relevant number of members only from these two
> regions).
>
> - We constituted three expert boards: for informatics, linguistics and
> natural sciences (in this moment we have relevant number of members
> only in these fields).
>
> - We elected Jimmy Wales, Angela Beesley, Florence Nibart-Devouar
> (Anthere) and Delphine M?nard (Notafish) as honorary members of
> Wikimedia SCG for a life.
>
> - We elected Jimmy Wales as honorary president of Wikimedia SCG
> regional board for USA :) for a life.
>
> Also, it should be noted that our members are two important public
> persons: The first one is Vladimir Ajdacic, nuclear physicist and a
> member of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (who became the
> president of our Expert board for natural sciences); the second one is
> Dragan Ambrozic, the most important organizer of pop culture events in
> Belgrade (who became our vice-president).

hello,

Well, I am glad you could make it :-)

I am very impressed by the "two important public people" and could not
help focus on the "organiser of pop culture events"... mymymy, we have
"two" professional organisers of event in our project ? This is good news.

Thanks a lot from the honorary members for life (and all others
probably) ;-)

ant

Ant


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
> On 12/4/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My personal answer is that we should make it harder to create new
>>articles in the first place. Probably by restricting the creating of
>>orphans. Don't ask me how to do that though.
>>
>>
>>--
>>geni
>
>
> We could have a group of people dedicated to going through every
> single new article which is created and then they could either destroy
> that information or nominate it for destruction.  We could call these
> people "firemen", and we could call the process "new page patrol".
>
> Anthony

Award yourselves a bonus point if you get the /Fahrenheit 451/ reference....

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Johnny's in the basement
 sean at epoptic.org | Mixin' up the medicine.
                  | I'm on the pavement
                  | Thinking 'bout the government.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDlE9gMAt1wyd9d+URAuDPAJ4sxal3tGrjYVYa2nq7lSJSF8NnYQCfbLbC
5DMytyTdamOoa+OvLu3ywNE=
=jFEh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] If in doubt, don't delete

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent
> support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to
> sideline it as a historical curiosity.

That being Aaron Brenneman, who has tried a number of times to quietly
remove it, and also happens to be up before the AC at present for his
deletions-related activities.

- d.


from_name: sydney poore

body:
Hello folks,

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks has a long list of sites that do database
dumps. Does anyone know which ones are active?

My concern was higher because of the bad timing of the Hager page
edit,overnight of the last day/first day of the month. This would be a
logical time to do an update. When I checked the Answers.com site last
Friday (Dec. 1), they hadn't updated this article since before I
expanded it on Nov. 17th.

Thanks for your comments.

Sydney Poore

Fl Celloguy wrote:

>> 1. Was this information spread to other web sites like Answers.com?
>> Who do I ask
>> to find out?
>
>
> Answers.com and other forks and mirrors don't update that often, if I
> am correct. It is highly unlikely that information that stayed there
> for only a few hours would be copied. To find out, you could check out
> Answers.com - I highly doubt that the information has been copied
> given its relatively short amount of time on Wikipedia.
>
>> 2. Do we all agree that this is a BIG problem. Can you imagine what
>> would happen
>> if another major media source published Hager???s name on a list of
>> convicted
>> rapists?
>
>
> I agre with you that this is a problem that we need to address sooner
> or later. The use of Wikipedia for slander, libel, or political
> reasons is huge, as evidenced both by the John Seigenthaler Sr. case
> and the German Wikipedia's polticial articles.
>
>> 2. How do I (hopefully, we) stop this unregistered user (or any
>> other) from
>> doing this again? Being very, very generous, I will assume this was
>> an isolated
>> incidence of poor judgment. This doesn't change the fact that this
>> libelous
>> misinformation appeared in OUR encyclopedia.
>
>
> Shouldn't this be question number three, by the way? :-) There's
> really no way to stop it except to keep a watch on the article and on
> the user's contributions. If s/he has a pattern of adding misleading
> information, you may wish to warn him about citing sources and
> verifiability. If he persists, a block may be needed.
>
>> 3. I can???t unring this bell. The Wikipedia article is listed 6 in
>> an Yahoo
>> search of the words David Hager. Being a registered user, I will be
>> associated
>> with this article forever. While, an unregistered user can damage
>> Wikipedia,
>> Hager, and me.
>
>
> True; this should only make us more vigilant and aware of the people
> who strive to manipulate Wikipedia.
>
>> Immediate solution? Ask everyone here to put his name on your watch
>> list. Long term solution???????.
>
>
> Sorry, can't read your proposed long-term solution. Short-term
> solution, as you state - be more vigilant and aware.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Flcelloguy
>
>> From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>