subject:
[WikiEN-l] Learning from Experience Rather than Being Bound by
	Precedent

body:
As disputes arise, and are decided, we, as participants, can learn the
consequences. Likewise we can observe the consequences of Jimbo's decisons
as well as what happens when various actions are taken by the community at
large. We can consider those consequences and refine our response and make
an appropriate response to the situation before us. It is not like a court
making decisions which affect property rights or business investments where
citizens need to have a reliable guide to action.

If we try to follow precedent we will make bad decisions in order to avoid
seting a precedent and then make bad decisions because we have to follow
precedent.

Fred

> From: "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin at myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
>
> * Precedent based on our own decisions
> * Precedent based on Jimbo's decisions
> * Precedent based on community group actions (VfD, et al)


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Following Wikipedia Custom

body:
Very good idea because custom expresses in a concrete way the practical
needs and desires of our users.

Fred

> From: "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin at myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>

> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce
> - on what basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):

> * Common practice on Wikipedia


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rule of Law

body:
We need to especially follow our own "laws", Wikipedia terms of use, our own
bylaw. Definitely copyright law which all members need to learn and respect
for the welfare of the project. Since we are not copyright experts we need
to make conservative interpretations.

With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For
example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead.
Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard. Likewise we cannot so
completely avoid covering the activities of Nazis and Communist mass
murderers that we can satisfy France, Germany, or Red China.

Fred

> From: "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin at myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):

> * The real world law
> * The [[Wikipedia:terms of use]]
> * The copyright license
> * Wikimedia bylaws

>
> There are no doubt many more. There's also the option of going with a similar
> approach to the way we handled Jurisdiction and starting off with a minimal
> set that
> we can interpret flexibly and nail down (if necessary) later.
>
> So, opinions?
>
> -Martin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Common Sense, Concensus and Ethics

body:
Common sense is always good as is paying attention to peoples expectations
as they try to figure out (pretty complicated these days) what is expected
by the the community. We should always consider how situations feel to our
users and never simply mechanically apply rules.

Fred

> Reply-To: martin at myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration at nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):

> * Our common sense and judgement.
> * Some or all of the [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines]]
> * The [[Wikipedia:Submission Standards]]
> * Community consensus
> * Jimbo's opinion
> * Morality/ethics
> * ...
>
> There are no doubt many more. There's also the option of going with a similar
> approach to the way we handled Jurisdiction and starting off with a minimal
> set that
> we can interpret flexibly and nail down (if necessary) later.
>
> So, opinions?
>
> -Martin


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ivo Köthnig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] foundation of a German registered association

body:
> The consultation can be completely informal and not official advise,
> of course.  Surely German lawyers aren't forbidden from chatting with
> me about such things.
>
> Was my message posted on the website so that lots of people will have
> the opportunity to respond?

Yes, its in the red frame now...

--Ivo K?thnig


body:
Re: [Wikipedia-l] foundation of a German registered association

Von:
Ivo K?thnig <koethnig at web.de> (by way of Ivo K?thnig <koethnig at web.de>)

An:
wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org

Datum:
Heute 02:21:03

> > The actual plan is to call it
> >
> >    "Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur F?rderung Freien Wissens",
> >
> > that nearly means
> >
> >    "Wikimedia Germany - society for promotion of free knowledge".
> >
> > "Friends of wikipedia e.V." and several other variants was discussed but
> > for some reasons not wished by the majority.
>
> I request two things --
>
> 1.  Ask the majority to reconsider, and give them good reasons for it.
>
> 2.  Wait on actually forming anything at least until we get a German
> lawyer to talk to me about all the ramifications.  If you simply MUST
> form something now, please make it very clear that it can only be a
> "friends of Wikipedia" unless it is blessed by the board of the
> existing foundation.
>
> I am very opposed to the existence of an organization of the name that
> you are favoring, done against my wishes, without my approval, and
> without any time for discussion of what it means and how it will be
> controlled.

I understand, that you are opposed, and since founding that "e.V." dont give
it any rights on the project it can not start as more than a "friends of
Wikipedia". For this reason I also would prefer a name which makes that
clear. Thus the above planed name is no option anymore for me (and I think
for most of us) if we found that e.V. now (or very soon).

There even is a chance to rename the "e.V." later if you change your opinion,
but this would need money and time again. And IMO that also would make sense
only if the "e.V." gets some rights on the project by implementing it later
as chapter in some way...

--Ivo K?thnig


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Minor changes by anonymous user

body:
Am Dienstag, 27. Januar 2004 04:52 schrieb Optim:
> I don't like software automation, because I don't
> really trust software (and I do write software).

I don't trust software too, but thats just because I don't trust the people
that have written it. So there is no reason to trust the people more than the
software. If you really have this attitude, you should write your
encyclopadia with pen on paper...

> Automated minor-change flagging would be
> disastrous. As Engels pointed, many vandals just
> change one or two characters.

It would not be more disastrous than the actual situation...

--Ivo K?thnig


body:
Am Dienstag, 27. Januar 2004 07:38 schrieb Ivo K?thnig:
> Re: [Wikipedia-l] foundation of a German registered association
>
> Von:
> Ivo K?thnig <koethnig at web.de> (by way of Ivo K?thnig <koethnig at web.de>)
>
>
> An:
> wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>
>
> Datum:
> Heute 02:21:03

Sorry for that, just ignore it... :-)

--Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Rob W.W. Hooft

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiNL-l] Sysop SQL queries disabled

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Somebody on nl.wikipedia.org ran this query:
>
> SELECT user_name, COUNT(*) FROM user, cur, old WHERE
> user_name=old_user_text OR user_name=cur_user_text GROUP BY user_id
> ORDER BY user_id DESC LIMIT 20

Mea culpa.

--
Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up Wikimedia ProjectCommittees

body:
I am suddenly having doubts.
What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project)
I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people
express their sentiments on those ?
No one made any comments ?
Does that mean everyone agree, or no one read ? :-)

I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried
to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a mistake
? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for it in a
while ?

Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ?

Mav, was there not a beginning of a draft of a charter somewhere ? Did
not we have a discussion about that ?

I found http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_charter, with a very
wise comment from Little Dan at the top

We need this. That is the charter that will set the ciment between the
various languages.

We need a charter.

Don't you think ?

Anthere a ?crit:
>
>
> Elisabeth Bauer a ?crit:
>
>> The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running,
>> collecting funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but
>> not for enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all
>> projects.
>>
>> greetings,
>> elian
>
>
> Hummm....plus perhaps, what Jimbo has been defining from the very
> beginning of the project : a certain number of *core* issues which make
> all of us part of ONE big project, not a collection of loose ones.
>
> To my opinion, as respect wikipedia itself (it might be slightly
> different for other projects)
> * it is a generalist encyclopedia, meant to gather free knowledge (-> gfdl)
> * it will make that information freely available to anyone (readers do
> not pay to read wikipedia)
> * in as many languages as possible
> * with free participation (everyone is welcome, regardless of his
> nationality, sex, color, age, education, and no one has to pay to
> participate)
> * with participants bound to be respectful of copyright issues, of
> neutrality requirement, and of other participants (three types of
> violation which are likely to grant banning)
>
> And...I think that is just about it.
>
> That is what Jimbo (and other core contributors) has been repeating over
>  and over in the past three years. And I think that should be what the
> board job should also be about (on top on promotion, representation, and
> technical issues).
>
> A guarantee that these core issues are always respected, no matter what.
>  That no wikipedia will ever change the copyright, will ever ban people
> for their political opinion, will ever refuse participations from people
> with less than a phD...whatever
>
> For this reason, articles such as Section 4.4., which states that
>
>     the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to order suspension of
> membership or the suspension of particular or specific user privileges
> at its sole discretion of any member upon receipt of a verified
> complaint of misconduct;
>
> is not clear enough.
>
> I think again at what I have been expecting (and what I still expect)
> from Jimbo as help.
>
> I will only give one example : it is up to each local wikipedia to
> ensure that no disruptive individual mess things up. So, it is to each
> local wikipedia to decide who should be banned; Not to any board, whose
> members will not know the specificities of the local wikipedia, nor the
> bottom line of the issues at stack.
> However, if anyone does believe the banning was wrong, not in line with
> wikipedia core principles (such as banning someone for holding an
> undesirable political opinion), the issue should be brought in front of
> the board, and the board study the case, and eventually have the person
> unbanned.
>
> Or declare that a wikipedia is not part of the wikipedia project if it
> is no more following the gfdl requirement.
>
> That means in effect, that only few, but major decisions, should be
> taken by the board itself, as regards policies. Minor policies are not
> part of those. Perhaps, that should be explained more clearly in the
> current document.


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 6, Issue 119

body:
> From: "Martin Harper"
> <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] "admin abuse"
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:41:21 -0000
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> If the name alone was the problem, we do have an
> established
> procedure for involuntary name changes: it's a
> developer judgement
> call based on community consensus. Anyone remember
> Drolsi
> Susej or TMC or SH?
>
> Naturally, the arbitration committee will be
> usurping the power to
> judge the appropriateness of Wikipedia usernames and
> using it to
> take over ze world! Or not.
>
> -Martin

IIRC, those were all voluntary, albeit after a good
deal of peer pressure.

Daniel Ehrenberg

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Pedro Fortuny

subject: [WikiEN-l] Catholic Encyclopedia

body:
* Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> [2004-01-26]:
> ... What were we talking about
> again? Oh yeah, Catholic Encyclopedia articles are a bad starting point for
> "real" encyclopedia articles. ;-)
>

After reading all this thread (and agreeing more or less on its spirit), I
have to say that all these "CE is pathetic" is the same as as saying "I
found a bug in
Apache and several security issues, instead of fixing it I simply shall
tell other web managers not to use Apache as a starting point to serve web
pages". Is it reasonable? How many non-dogmatic non-doctrinal articles are
there in the CE which contain real facts?

By the way, I have only read the CE twice -repeat twice- in my life, I am
just trying to explain that your "concern" about its seriousness is quite
quite unfair.

Cheers,

		Pedro.

--
Pedro Fortuny Ayuso: http://pfortuny.sdf-eu.org
Colegio Mayor Pe?afiel, Universidad de Valladolid
C/ Estudios 6, 47005 Valladolid, Spain -->        www.cmpenafiel.org
pfortuny at sdf-eu.org                         Tfn. Nr. 34  983  298277


from_name: KNOTT, T

body:
Hi, Olivier I am happy to help you although a better place to ask the question is either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk on Wikipedia
 or http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Study_help_desk on Wikibooks.

But just this once - The ocean current is called the North Atlantic Drift. It is a continuation of the Gulf stream which is a huge current of warm water that flows from the gulf of Mexico up to Europe. It warms the whole of Europe by several degrees, which is why here in the UK we have a temperate climate rather than an arctic one. (get hold of an atlas and follow the lines of latitude round, note which other countries are on the same latitude as us and check out their climate).

The current sinks in several places north of Iceland because it is very salty (and therefore dense). It then returns back to Mexico in a deep water current called the North Atlantic deep water. The whole system forms a huge convection current, which pumps heat from the equator to northern Europe.

There is evidence that in the past this system has shut down. There is some speculation that global warming melting the ice caps may dilute the saltyness of the current and so prevent it from sinking. If this happens there will be a massive cooling of the UK and the whole of Northern Europe.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivia [mailto:OLIVIABUTTON12 at hotmail.com]
Sent: 25 January 2004 19:40
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] question about the atlantic ocean

hi, i need help on my geography homework, i was wondering if you could help?
?
''what is the name of the ocean current in the atlantic to the west of the uk? and how does it affect our climate?
?
thank-you!
?
olivia
?
p.s please email me back on: oliviabutton12 at hotmail.com


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Minor changes by anonymous user

body:
Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:

> On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
> > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to
> > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES
by
> > anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals
> > can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby
> > unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
>
> If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous
users,
> how about this?
>
> 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor
>    changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
>
> This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in
> software effort.
>
> (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;

> it helps me remember to log in!)

Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!

Ed Poor
Developer


subject: [Wikitech-l] Minor changes by anonymous user


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthere wrote:

> What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project)
> I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people
> express their sentiments on those ?
>
> I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried
> to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a
> mistake ? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for
> it in a while ?
>
> Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ?
>
> We need a charter.
>
> Anthere a rit:
>
>> Hummm....plus perhaps, what Jimbo has been defining from the very
>> beginning of the project : a certain number of *core* issues which
>> make all of us part of ONE big project, not a collection of loose ones.
>>
>> To my opinion, as respect wikipedia itself (it might be slightly
>> different for other projects)
>> * it is a generalist encyclopedia, meant to gather free knowledge (->
>> gfdl)
>> * it will make that information freely available to anyone (readers
>> do not pay to read wikipedia)
>> * in as many languages as possible
>> * with free participation (everyone is welcome, regardless of his
>> nationality, sex, color, age, education, and no one has to pay to
>> participate)
>> * with participants bound to be respectful of copyright issues, of
>> neutrality requirement, and of other participants (three types of
>> violation which are likely to grant banning)
>>
>> And...I think that is just about it.
>
The points that you make are certainly very good in principle.  I may
question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture.
 To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial.
 The problem is that most people would agree as I do.

The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the
by-laws.  Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would
empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle.
 Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that
nothing gets done.  The most effective dictators are the ones who do not
appear dictatorial.  It's been a long time since I read it, but I think
that Macchiavelli said something to that effect..  A parent cannot
forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby
hurt himself.

What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by
virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for
criticism.  It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even
be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks.  Ownership in a
project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods.
 For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of
ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and
balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find
alternative solutions.

In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it
should never emphasize that.  Rather it should emphasize a hands off
approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling
beyond that.  That commitment should also be seen as a separate
commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the
way in which they participate in plain view across the project.

The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles.  The
principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to
GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have
indicated that we may be stuck with it.  The NPOV principle would remain
as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of
just what that means.  Respect for copyright would remain a principle
without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all
circumstances..

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?

body:
There is no official definition of what a "minor change" is. My
working definition is "anything that my fellow contributors would
agree is minor".

And the operative question is "Would they want to see this on
Recent Changes (with 'hide minor changes' in effect?"

I mark these as minor:
* Nearly all my grammar and spelling fixes
* Copy-edits that DO NOT CHANGE the meaning

I usually don't mark these as minor:
* Copy-edits that subtly correct a nuance of POV
* Re-writes and re-phrasing which PROBABLY DON'T CHANGE the
  meaning, but which some other user might think is a sly attempt
  to inject my own POV (in a controversial article).

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] What is a minor change?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rule of Law

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>We need to especially follow our own "laws", Wikipedia terms of use, our own
>bylaw. Definitely copyright law which all members need to learn and respect
>for the welfare of the project. Since we are not copyright experts we need
>to make conservative interpretations.
>
>With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For
>example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead.
>Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard.
>
The common sense approach should apply in all cases.  Following a law
just because it is on the books is silly, as the Colorado example
plainly shows.  The spirit of the laws is far more important than the
letter of the law.

Respect for copyright law does not mean taking it to the point of
putting ourselves at extreme disadvantage.  If in a given situation two
interpretations are reasonably available there is nothing wrong with
opting for the more favorable one.  An ISP does have the duty to remove
clear copyright violations when he finds them without being notified.
 If there are reasonable doubts about the violation it should stay until
there is a direct complaint by an authorized person; at that point there
will be plenty of time for review.

I also follow the principle that there is no copyright unless someone
exists to own it.

Ec


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Learning from Experience

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>As disputes arise, and are decided, we, as participants, can learn the
>consequences. Likewise we can observe the consequences of Jimbo's decisons
>as well as what happens when various actions are taken by the community at
>large. We can consider those consequences and refine our response and make
>an appropriate response to the situation before us. It is not like a court
>making decisions which affect property rights or business investments where
>citizens need to have a reliable guide to action.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to try setting up a separate wiki
specifically for the purpose of discussing and recording policy
decisions, actions and precedents. We could call it a "Wikislature."

--Sheldon Rampton


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 6, Issue 120

body:
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
> > > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off
> the Minor Changes to
> > > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular
> users and ALL CHANGES
> by
> > > anonymous users, among which unluckily are some
> vandals. If vandals
> > > can in some way click this nonexisting box, they
> can do their hobby
> > > unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who
> work in this way.
> >
> > If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box
> for anonymous
> users,
> > how about this?
> >
> > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all
> edits, hide minor
> >    changes, hide minor changes from logged-in
> users
> >
> > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a
> fairly small cost in
> > software effort.
> >
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box
> as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)

I just use a different skin

>
> Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on
> this one!
>
> Ed Poor
> Developer

Me too

LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Proposal: foundation-l

body:
Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at ...> writes:

[cut]
> This would have to be set up by Brion or Jason. Alternatively, I can set
> up a new forum at http://boards.wikimedia.org.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

This is the first I read about the forums at http://boards.wikimedia.org

The seem to be used by the English Wikipedia for Mediation en Arbitration. That
is fine (= I do not care about it).

But please do not use forums like that for global, important stuff. Use a
mailing list.

It may look an good idea to create an new special list for this. But the
reality proves that topic specific lists are not very successful.

Not much used
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

absolute failure
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-l

But we can always try of course.

---
[[nl:gebruiker:walter]]


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Learning from Experience Rather than Being Bound
	byPrecedent

body:
Fred Bauder wrote

> If we try to follow precedent we will make bad decisions in order to avoid
> setting a precedent and then make bad decisions because we have to follow
> precedent.

Good - makes me glad I added the final section to [[Precedent]].

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Catholic Encyclopedia

body:
> Uh, if this is the same CE that can be found online,
> it may be helpful to note that that edition is from
> 1911.
>
> Why use something from 1911?
>
> John

The 1911 Britannica is used extensively throughout
Wikipedia.

LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Jason Richey

subject: [Wikitech-l] Apache logs

body:
I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of them are on the drive
that I removed from pliny (the one that was apparently causing Pliny's
SCSI errors).  Brion would have to confirm that.  I suppose I could
try to gather the data from the disk, though the disk was REALLY
complaining when I upgraded things.

Jason

Thomas R. Koll wrote:

> Hi,
> It seems that the first two weeks of January's apache logs are missing.
> Maybe they are on a different server?
>
> ciao, tom
> --
> http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
>    -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
>    /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
>    / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Walter-
> It may look an good idea to create an new special list for this. But the
> reality proves that topic specific lists are not very successful.

> Not much used
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

That's because the word "legal" scares people.

> absolute failure
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-l

That's because we have no rules for making announcements, nor a staff of
volunteers who has pledged to do so.

The foundation-l list is necessary because wikipedia-l is clearly the
wrong place to discuss 1) Wikimedia organization issues, 2) possible new
projects and other tasks for the foundation.

On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of merging intlwiki-l into
wikipedia-l.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Apache logs

body:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:34, Jason Richey wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of them are on the drive
> that I removed from pliny (the one that was apparently causing Pliny's
> SCSI errors).  Brion would have to confirm that.  I suppose I could
> try to gather the data from the disk, though the disk was REALLY
> complaining when I upgraded things.

They ought to be somewhere on the copied disk now in ursula, possibly
minus a couple hours.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040127/bcd4020c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] the mailing list...

body:
I cleaned up the rest of the Pending Admin Requests, Anthere, and if no
one else volunteers for next month I'll
keep doing it.

Ed Poor
Unsung Hero of Administration

P.S. The pity party will be held in the Hall Closet,
accompanied by the World's Smallest Violin ;-)


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
Frankly, I can't see the point of having a minor
changes setting. Far too often significant changes are
listed as minor, and minor changes as significant.
Often this occurs by accident. Other times, it's
someone hiding their actions. There also seems to be
no universal agreement on what kind of change is
"minor".

So, I ignore the "minor change" indication on recent
changes and elsewhere (though I do try to mark my
edits appropriately). The feature could disappear
entirely, and I'd only be pleased.

Rich Holton (a.k.a. Anthropos)

--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
>
> > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
> > > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off
> the Minor Changes to
> > > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular
> users and ALL CHANGES
> by
> > > anonymous users, among which unluckily are some
> vandals. If vandals
> > > can in some way click this nonexisting box, they
> can do their hobby
> > > unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who
> work in this way.
> >
> > If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box
> for anonymous
> users,
> > how about this?
> >
> > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all
> edits, hide minor
> >    changes, hide minor changes from logged-in
> users
> >
> > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a
> fairly small cost in
> > software effort.
> >
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box
> as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)
>
> Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on
> this one!
>
> Ed Poor
> Developer
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open
> community.
> This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so
> long
> as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right
> Thing.
> Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is
> the
> preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of
> thoughtful diplomatic honesty.

Yea

>
> 2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal,
> there
> must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which
> gets in
> the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be
> implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and
> there are
> real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be
> implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
>
> "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security
> must
> address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly
> tailored
> to achieve that objective and no other.

Yea

> 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on
> everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Sacred, no. But a guiding principle.

> 4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We
> need
> to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the
> community, as
> ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the
> community
> consensus.

Software gets developed poorly by commitees. I'd be careful on that
one.

> 5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
> fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants
> to use
> our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We
> must
> adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.

Yea

> 6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
> Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the
> Wikipedia
> should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Yea

> The
> topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward
> at the
> Wikipedia itself.

Huh?

> 7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and
>
> dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their
> problems
> in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone
> who
> just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I
> am
> afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership
> between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I
> must
> not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.

In Principle, Yea. In reality: live and let live.

> 8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are
>
> objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't
> be
> mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political
> ends. And
> I'll treat you the same way.

Yea

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?

body:
I've noticed a number of editors (especially newbies) mark small
additions of content as minor. I've also seen people make two or three
edits in a row as minor when, had they added all that info in one go
they would probably not mark it minor. I agree with your definition of
minor changes. I work on the principle of better to not mark it minor
when it is than mark it minor when it isn't.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W [mailto:Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com]
Sent: 27 January 2004 15:04
To: Wikimedia developers
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?

There is no official definition of what a "minor change" is. My
working definition is "anything that my fellow contributors would
agree is minor".

And the operative question is "Would they want to see this on
Recent Changes (with 'hide minor changes' in effect?"

I mark these as minor:
* Nearly all my grammar and spelling fixes
* Copy-edits that DO NOT CHANGE the meaning

I usually don't mark these as minor:
* Copy-edits that subtly correct a nuance of POV
* Re-writes and re-phrasing which PROBABLY DON'T CHANGE the
  meaning, but which some other user might think is a sly attempt
  to inject my own POV (in a controversial article).

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Web based posting to the Wikimedia lists is now
	available!

body:
Great news! You can now reply or post a new message to your favorite
Wikimedia mailing list.

This is by use of the gmane.org web interface.

How does is work;

Go to the gmane.org website. http://gmane.org
Go to "reading" and do a search for "wikipedia" (or "wikimedia" for the
newest lists)

http://news.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia
http://news.gmane.org/search.php?match=wikimedia

Select a list.

Now you can read the postings. (for options; choose "help" in drop-down menu)

In the drop-down menu you can pick "followup" or "post".

Use the emailadres that you have used to subscribe to that list.

If it is the first time you use gmane to post to that list you will recive
A authorization email that will be sent to you after posting. You have to
reply to that message to confirm that you exist. After you've confirmed
your existence, the message will then be forwarded to the mailing list.

If you are not a list member it will not reach the list.

The posting system is enforcing very strict email netiquette! You will
notice.

This message is send to Wikipedia-l and to most of the list admins the
Wikimedia lists.  List admins; please inform you readers about this. You
can include this in the welcome email send to new listmembers. (for
Wikitech-l, Intlwiki-l and WikiNL-l it is ok now)

Greetings,
Walter


from_name: Kelly Anderson

body:
At 07:52 AM 1/27/2004, you wrote:
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)
>
>Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!

me too. Although I think having a different background color or something
when you are not logged in would be even better... I hate checking some
large piece of work in only to find out that it then doesn't even show up
on my contributions list since I wasn't logged in at the time...

Another approach would be to ask one if they wished to log in at the time
of submitting work...

-Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>And the operative question is "Would they want to see this on
Recent Changes (with 'hide minor changes' in effect?"

I have not edited many really contentious pages; but I'd have to say that
this doesn't match my take on the issue.

I don't assume that Recent Changes is the main way to see changes to pages
in which I have a particular interest.  I would myself use my watch list to
monitor those.  Minor edits do show up there, but there is the phenomenon,
for anyone really wanting to pull a fast one, of minor edits masking
earlier, larger changes.

Anyway, it probably is good practice to make all changes to a page 'major',
if there is substantial interest.

Charles


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Mariusz

body:
This user is turning into a royal pain, and multiple sysops have been watching recent changes and blocking his IPs almost continiously for about twenty minutes.

I'd like to request that, if things don't let up, a "PHP ban" be imposed on 80.54.196/18 for at least a day or two.

Thanks,
Pakaran


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] What is a minor change?

body:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:03:56AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I usually don't mark these as minor:
> * Copy-edits that subtly correct a nuance of POV
> * Re-writes and re-phrasing which PROBABLY DON'T CHANGE the
>   meaning, but which some other user might think is a sly attempt
>   to inject my own POV (in a controversial article).

* Any edits to article on controversial subject. But that's just me.


from_name: sannse

body:
Dan wrote

> > If the name alone was the problem, we do have an
> > established
> > procedure for involuntary name changes: it's a
> > developer judgement
> > call based on community consensus. Anyone remember
> > Drolsi
> > Susej or TMC or SH?
> >
> > Naturally, the arbitration committee will be
> > usurping the power to
> > judge the appropriateness of Wikipedia usernames and
> > using it to
> > take over ze world! Or not.
> >
> > -Martin
>
> IIRC, those were all voluntary, albeit after a good
> deal of peer pressure.
>
> Daniel Ehrenberg

The change to TMC's name certainly wasn't voluntary.  In fact as I
understand it he left Wikipedia in consequence of the enforced name change.

I don't remember whether Drolsi Susej was voluntary (although the change
/to/ that name was) but I think SH was also decided by developer action (I
didn't follow that one).

Regards,

sannse


body:
Ed wrote:

> Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
>
> > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman wrote:
> > > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch off the Minor Changes to
> > > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by regular users and ALL CHANGES
> by
> > > anonymous users, among which unluckily are some vandals. If vandals
> > > can in some way click this nonexisting box, they can do their hobby
> > > unnoticed, at least by me, and other sysops who work in this way.
> >
> > If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous
> users,
> > how about this?
> >
> > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor
> >    changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
> >
> > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in
> > software effort.
> >
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)
>
> Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!

Me too!

Or more informatively .... I think this would work really well and seems a
very clever solution to the differing views.

Regards

sannse


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sysop SQL queries disabled

body:
At 01:44 PM 1/26/2004 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
>Sysop SQL queries on the database are now disabled. If people have an
>urgent need to perform queries and know what they're doing, we may be able
>to open up access on an individual basis, but please be aware that SQL
>offers many ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

The only times I've ever used SQL queries have been as a way to do
specialized searches of article text, for example a searching for strings
or for specific wiki or HTML markup. Also to do searches with boolean
terms. Would it be possible to create some sort of "power search" function
that allows only "safe" SQL queries like that?


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] the mailing list...

body:
We are on the 27th of january.
The end of the month is in 4 days.
Today, the mailing list received over 25 messages to clean up.
Tonight, my mail box is full of virus and other crap.

In 4 days, the list will be without anyone to let go through cute
messages from students wondering "what the name of the ocean current in
the atlantic to the west of the uk is".

It is high time that someone steps in...:-)


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rule of Law

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> With respect to real world law in general, we need to use common sense. For
> example, in Colorado, it is slander to speak ill of the dead.
> Unconstitutional but on the books last I heard. Likewise we cannot so
> completely avoid covering the activities of Nazis and Communist mass
> murderers that we can satisfy France, Germany, or Red China.

German law doesn't forbid covering the activities of Nazis (on the
contrary). The only thing which is forbidden is stating as a fact that
the holocaust never happened and making Nazi propaganda. Two things
which I hope Wikipedia will never do anyway.

greetings,
elian


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] What is a minor change?

body:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 10:03 AM, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> I mark these as minor:
> * Nearly all my grammar and spelling fixes
> * Copy-edits that DO NOT CHANGE the meaning
>
> I usually don't mark these as minor:
> * Copy-edits that subtly correct a nuance of POV
> * Re-writes and re-phrasing which PROBABLY DON'T CHANGE the
>   meaning, but which some other user might think is a sly attempt
>   to inject my own POV (in a controversial article).

I tend to make a distinction between substantive (major) and
non-substantive (minor) edits.  Anything that changes the meaning in
*any way*, anything that someone could disagree with after but not
before, is major, anything else is minor.  That way no one is surprised
by my changes, and watchers can safely ignore anything marked minor by
me.  But since that's just *my* rule, and no one's keeping track of
what who considers minor, it's only so useful...

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


body:
Is it just my imagination, or has Wikipedia been
running faster and smoother since Sysop SQL queries
were disabled?

In any event, someone somewhere did something right.
Thanks for all the efforts.

-Rich Holton (a.k.a. Anthropos)

--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote in part:
> Sysop SQL queries on the database are now disabled.
> If people have an
> urgent need to perform queries and know what they're
> doing, we may be
> able to open up access on an individual basis, but
> please be aware that
> SQL offers many ways to shoot yourself in the foot.
> Allowing this
> access at all is a foolish thing that we do in the
> spirit of openness
> (like letting anyone edit our website ;) but we
> can't afford to have
> the site go down whenever somebody makes a typo.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Dan Drake

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Minor changes by anonymous user

body:
All right: Me too.
(AND there's too much quoted text in this posting. But at least it's clear
what I'm agreeing with.)

It's one more little set of compilcations and bells and whistles and
config options, but I vote to overlook that.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:33 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
>...
> >
> > If people don't like removing the "minor edit" box for anonymous
> users,
> > how about this?
> >
> > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show all edits, hide minor
> >    changes, hide minor changes from logged-in users
> >
> > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume) a fairly small cost in
> > software effort.
> >
> > (I actually like not having the "minor edit" box as an anonymous user;
>
> > it helps me remember to log in!)
>
> Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way" posts on this one!
>
> Ed Poor
> Developer


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] Apache logs

body:
Hi,
It seems that the first two weeks of January's apache logs are missing.
Maybe they are on a different server?

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Unobtrusive Ways of Citing Authority

body:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:26:08 UTC, Peter Jaros
<rjaros at shaysnet.com> wrote:

>...
> >
> > Or my personal favourite:
> >
> > <sup>[[Articlename#References|<nowiki>[</nowiki>1<nowiki>]</
> > nowiki>]]</sup>
>
> Which will hopefully become a feature before too long.
>

It looks nice, but how is it really going to work? Does it really just
take you to the References section? I often want to cite a specific work
for a specific piece of text I've written, and I don't see how this does
it. In fact, one may want to cite a work twice, with different page
numbers each time, and I don't see how that will work. I think this
discussion will require a lot of worked-out examples before it's done.


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Statement of principles

body:
Just making sure there's no confusion. The statement of principles in
Anthere's response to Ec is taken from the page of User:Jimbo Wales.
Presumably Anthere was using it to save Jimbo the work of responding to
Ec personally, since Ec's post can be seen as a bit of a challenge to
Jimbo's ideas about the project.

To clarify the point that apparently caused Chris some confusion--"The
topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the
Wikipedia itself."--I would interpret this as saying that Wikipedia
content should be independent of, and normally not discuss, internal
Wikipedia/Wikimedia politics and management issues. The primary forum
for that discussion should be the mailing lists.

Anyway, I suppose now is as good a time as any to haul those principles
out once again and debate them. On that particular point, I believe that
Wikimedia will eventually become "a large and famous organization" as
Jimbo recently put it (and perhaps more quickly than he suggests). And
as the depth and breadth of our content increases, some of the things
that seem internal now will warrant treatment in the encyclopedia that
Wikipedia aspires to be. After all, what happens when some journalist or
historian writes a book about the story of Wikipedia, whether the book
be a hatchet job or hagiography? You can't just ignore it (nor do we,
judging by how carefully we follow our press coverage).

Fortunately, the mailing lists and page histories are all, or almost
all, archived, for the benefit of whoever wants to tackle that task.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Optim

body:
>
> It would not be more disastrous than the actual
> situation...
>
> --Ivo K?thnig

In any case we should have absolute control over
the automated software functions and the ability
to enable or disable the minor-change routine.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


subject: [WikiEN-l] news

body:
NAVY removes submarine commander
Norwich Bulletin
... According to Wikipedia, an online
encyclopedia, the Jimmy Carter is
100 feet longer than its sister ships and has
been modified for "highly
classified missions ...

from
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/stories/20040127/localnews/298767.html

found from Google News Alerts.

I receive some news stories from time to time
which talk about wikipedia or use wikipedia as a
reliable source. It seems that our work is good
and what we do is useful to humanity!

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: the mailing list...

body:
Mes remerciements les plus sinc?res Ed.

I think there should be a system, recognising a minimum of this spam,
and rejecting it automatically (with receipt in case the mail was a
honest one).
I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to put on with (yeah, I got more
today finally) 30 or so shitty mails per day, with unfortunately, from
time to time, a relevant one hidden in the middle.

My deep honest thoughts : we are not machines, and we should not do
machine work if a machine can do it.

Poor, Edmund W a ?crit:
> I cleaned up the rest of the Pending Admin Requests, Anthere, and if no
> one else volunteers for next month I'll
> keep doing it.
>
> Ed Poor
> Unsung Hero of Administration
>
> P.S. The pity party will be held in the Hall Closet,
> accompanied by the World's Smallest Violin ;-)


body:
As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem
to disable this feature (minor changes)
completely. I also never pay attention to that
thing.

But, To some users the minor changes seem useful.
I would say to keep this feature and improve it.

So, I agree with Carl Witty.

For the future, we can also do this:
A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the
edit summary textbox which will include:
X Spelling/Grammar Fix
X Copyedit, same meaning
X New content
X Factual correction
X NPOV editing
X Removal of unnecessary info
X Link correction
X Addition of new wikilinks or external links
X Major rewrite

how do you think?

Of course this requires more development effort.
So that's why I said "for the future".

--Optim

--- Rich Holton <rich_holton at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I can't see the point of having a
> minor
> changes setting. Far too often significant
> changes are
> listed as minor, and minor changes as
> significant.
> Often this occurs by accident. Other times,
> it's
> someone hiding their actions. There also seems
> to be
> no universal agreement on what kind of change
> is
> "minor".
>
> So, I ignore the "minor change" indication on
> recent
> changes and elsewhere (though I do try to mark
> my
> edits appropriately). The feature could
> disappear
> entirely, and I'd only be pleased.
>
> Rich Holton (a.k.a. Anthropos)
>
> --- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> wrote:
> > Carl Witty proposes a feature enhancement:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:26, Elly Waterman
> wrote:
> > > > Indeed, and in addition, I like to switch
> off
> > the Minor Changes to
> > > > watch only for the Bigger Changes, by
> regular
> > users and ALL CHANGES
> > by
> > > > anonymous users, among which unluckily
> are some
> > vandals. If vandals
> > > > can in some way click this nonexisting
> box, they
> > can do their hobby
> > > > unnoticed, at least by me, and other
> sysops who
> > work in this way.
> > >
> > > If people don't like removing the "minor
> edit" box
> > for anonymous
> > users,
> > > how about this?
> > >
> > > 1) Put the "minor edit" box back
> > > 2) Have 3 states for "Recent Changes": show
> all
> > edits, hide minor
> > >    changes, hide minor changes from
> logged-in
> > users
> > >
> > > This should satisfy everybody at (I assume)
> a
> > fairly small cost in
> > > software effort.
> > >
> > > (I actually like not having the "minor
> edit" box
> > as an anonymous user;
> >
> > > it helps me remember to log in!)
> >
> > Let's hear some "me too" and/or "no way"
> posts on
> > this one!
> >
> > Ed Poor
> > Developer
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building
> tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


body:
I never use Wikipedia without logging in first.

Even if I want just to read something, I log in.
One of the reasons is aesthetical: The default
skin doesn't seem beautiful to me (sorry), so I
log in in order to see Wikipedia with my
favourite skin.

I have even placed a "login" link on my userpage.

--Optim

--- Kelly Anderson <kelly at acoin.com> wrote:
> me too. Although I think having a different
> background color or something
> when you are not logged in would be even
> better... I hate checking some
> large piece of work in only to find out that it
> then doesn't even show up
> on my contributions list since I wasn't logged
> in at the time...
>
> Another approach would be to ask one if they
> wished to log in at the time
> of submitting work...
>
> -Kelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


body:
Walter Vermeir a ?crit:
> Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at ...> writes:
>
> [cut]
>
>>This would have to be set up by Brion or Jason. Alternatively, I can set
>>up a new forum at http://boards.wikimedia.org.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Erik
>
>
> This is the first I read about the forums at http://boards.wikimedia.org

They are very recent. And they were announced :-) (on wikien at least,
but since they are only for en: right now...)

> The seem to be used by the English Wikipedia for Mediation en Arbitration. That
> is fine (= I do not care about it).
>
> But please do not use forums like that for global, important stuff. Use a
> mailing list.

We tried to discuss mediation by mailing lists, that is not very
practical either.

> It may look an good idea to create an new special list for this. But the
> reality proves that topic specific lists are not very successful.

Please, let's not multiply the mailing lists.

> Not much used
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

I do not use it because it is not on gname.

> absolute failure
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-l

We can't always succeed :-)

> But we can always try of course.
>
> ---
> [[nl:gebruiker:walter]]


body:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 20:56, Rich Holton wrote:
> Is it just my imagination, or has Wikipedia been
> running faster and smoother since Sysop SQL queries
> were disabled?

A number of optimizations have gone into place lately.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040127/95c674f0/attachment.pgp


body:
Before any type of answer Ec...allow me...

  As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is
imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and
the license. This page, like all wikipedia pages, is a living dynamic
document which I will update and clarify as legitimate questions arise.

I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the
final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you,
but it does mean that at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how
wikipedia will be run, period. (But have no fear, as you will see, below.)

1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community.
This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long
as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing.
Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the
preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of
thoughtful diplomatic honesty.

2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there
must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in
the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be
implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are
real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be
implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must
address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored
to achieve that objective and no other.

For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars",
we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people
are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the
community for a very short period of time. The process should be
virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do
anything to start contributing to the community.

3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on
everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need
to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as
ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community
consensus.

5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use
our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must
adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.

6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia
should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The
topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the
Wikipedia itself.

7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and
dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems
in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who
just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am
afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership
between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must
not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.

8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are
objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be
mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And
I'll treat you the same way.


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Selection of Arbitrators

body:
Jimbo wrote:
> If no consensus by committee members develops soon enough as
> to what it will do, I can step in and say "O.k., let's have a vote of
> the committee on the options that have been proposed" and then
> we'll go with that.

If, as chair, I judge that we are unable to reach a consensus on one or more issues,
then I will take appropriate action, which will probably entail us requesting that Jimbo
step in. However, I would view an *uninvited* intervention by Jimbo as unwelcome
interference, and I do not believe it would prove productive.

I have no idea what "soon enough" might mean. We will be ready when we are
ready. We have eight agenda items to get through, and as we work through you'll all
be able to see how fast we are progressing, and can form your own estimates as to
when we'll be finished. By the way, we're all human. A little support and
encouragement from time to time goes a long way.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

body:
Thank you, Anthere, for stating so clearly everything :)
Just making a few comments here & there, please take'em as my own views on things.

> For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars",
> we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people
> are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the
> community for a very short period of time. The process should be
> virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do
> anything to start contributing to the community.

The only issue i can see is that, if the algorithm is opened, you may be sure
some people will try to abuse it. So better make sure it's really working :)

> 4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need
> to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as
> ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community
> consensus.

Gradual yes. Reversible, really depends. A database format change, for instance,
can be pretty hard to reverse. Ultimately, yes, as long it contributes to the
community as a whole, it's a Good Thing to improve the software.

> 5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
> fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use
> our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must
> adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.

Spirit rather than letter, i would say. Because how for instance do you identify
the 5 main contributors of an article? Pretty hard question, isn't it? <grin>
I think we need to discuss on a case basis, when a potential violation is spotted.

> 6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
> Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia
> should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The
> topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the
> Wikipedia itself.

Hum. If the topic is a concern for only one language, i think the best place to
discuss it is on the language's wikipedia itself. Because you can be sure all
contributors have access to it. On mailing lists means some people will just not
subscribe.
International matters, some main channel must be decided, whether it is
Metawiki, mailing lists, smoke signals, whatever :)

Nicolas 'Ryo'


from_name: Alex R.

body:
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> Anthere wrote:
>
> >> And...I think that is just about it.

> The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the
> by-laws.  Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would
> empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle.

Bylaws are just a requirement for applying for a tax exemption. There
is no reason that a some kind of "Charter" document be adapted and
the bylaws could be changed if there is something inconsistent.

Look at Canada, they had a constitution (Act of 1867) for more than
100 years before they adopted a Charter.

> What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by
> virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for
> criticism.  It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even
> be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks.  Ownership in a
> project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods.

I think there is a confusion about what the Wikipedia community is
versas the means of production, i.e. Wikimedia provides the means,
we provide the community, not the other way around. I see no reason
to have a few trustees who are making sure the money is spent
for the not-for-profit purpose to which Wikimedia was founded. All
this talk about "dictators" is a bit overblown IMO, but then again,
who am I?

>  For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of
> ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and
> balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find
> alternative solutions.
>
> In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it
> should never emphasize that.  Rather it should emphasize a hands off
> approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling
> beyond that.  That commitment should also be seen as a separate
> commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the
> way in which they participate in plain view across the project.

As far as I know none of those Trustees participate in any of the Wikipedia
projects and even if they did, would it matter, would they have any more
rights than anyone else to edit a page? NO.

They are just trustees to make sure that we can continue having an
organization
and the funding need to buy new hardware. The minimal amount of oversight
they have is just needed to create some boundaries so that Wikipedia does
not turn into a bunch of vanity sites. I think anyone would say that
Wikipedia
has gotten so big that noone can really stop it. A lot of what it is comes
from
collaboration and the more people that get involved the more that seems to
be
true.

Alex756


body:
> If you enable the checkbox when logging in you
> will
> be logged in automatically thereafter.
>
> Arvind

Thank you for the recommendation. I know this
feature and I have thought many times about
enabling it, since it is a bit difficult and slow
to log in so many times each day. However, for
now, I don't want to enable the automatic login
for security reasons (this will mean anybody who
has physical access to one of my computers will
be able to login in Wikipedia with my username).
Also, I have very strict cookie policies (each
time a cookie wants to be installed, I have to
answer with a yes or a no, even if the cookie is
session-only). But I may enable it in the
future...

Really, why not place a login textbox on each
page on the top, together with the search?

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Selection of Arbitrators

body:
Martin Harper a ?crit:
> Jimbo wrote:
> By the way, we're all human. A little support and
> encouragement from time to time goes a long way.
>
> -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

The loneliness of those having to make decisions or make things move
...yeah. Well, imho, take your time, hasty decisions are rarely good,
and I am sure there are enough good people in your group to avoid that
trap. :-)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up charter

body:
Nicolas Weeger a ?crit:
> Thank you, Anthere, for stating so clearly everything :)
> Just making a few comments here & there, please take'em as my own views
> on things.

Nicolas...you must be joking :-)
I did not write that. I never state things clearly like this :-))

It is something that was written in the first year of Wikipedia. I do
not know exactly when, for it is anterior to the software phase II.
Problably the first months.
I love historical texts.
I am glad to see that Christopher agreed with it.

No one else made any comment though
There is the problem.
Three years ago, we had a statement of principles, while only one person
was supporting the whole project

Now, we are trying to set association, and we have none.

Here is a sentence I would have loved to see in a global charter we
would all have adopted together

We agree to
* respect the autonomy of member associations, but require of all
adherence to WikiMedia mission, and commitment to quality, openness and
respect of members

...or anything similar
...with above description of WikiMedia mission

--------------------

>
>> For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify
>> "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so
>> that people are automatically given full privileges once they have
>> been around the community for a very short period of time. The process
>> should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have
>> to do anything to start contributing to the community.
>
>
> The only issue i can see is that, if the algorithm is opened, you may be
> sure some people will try to abuse it. So better make sure it's really
> working :)
>
>> 4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need
>> to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community,
>> as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the
>> community consensus.
>
>
> Gradual yes. Reversible, really depends. A database format change, for
> instance, can be pretty hard to reverse. Ultimately, yes, as long it
> contributes to the community as a whole, it's a Good Thing to improve
> the software.
>
>> 5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
>> fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to
>> use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We
>> must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
>
>
> Spirit rather than letter, i would say. Because how for instance do you
> identify the 5 main contributors of an article? Pretty hard question,
> isn't it? <grin>
> I think we need to discuss on a case basis, when a potential violation
> is spotted.
>
>> 6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
>> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
>> Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia
>> should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The
>> topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at
>> the Wikipedia itself.
>
>
> Hum. If the topic is a concern for only one language, i think the best
> place to discuss it is on the language's wikipedia itself. Because you
> can be sure all contributors have access to it. On mailing lists means
> some people will just not subscribe.
> International matters, some main channel must be decided, whether it is
> Metawiki, mailing lists, smoke signals, whatever :)
>
>
> Nicolas 'Ryo'


body:
Christopher Mahan a ?crit:
> --- Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yea

Thanks Christopher for all the yea ! :-)
But I did not write all that of course :-)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Question about Special:ipblocklist

body:
On Special:ipblocklist, I see three basic types of entries.  I
only understand two of them.

First, there's the ip block, for example:
'Joe Sysop blocked 123.123.123.123'

Second, there's the username block:
'Jane Sysop blocked ReallyOffensiveName'

Third, there's these:
'Joe Sysob blocked #1521'

What are those?  There's no link to the contribs, so it's impossible
to see what they are.  The number appears to be the number of the block,
not an identifier of what was blocked.


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 09:59 PM 1/27/04 -0800, Optim wrote:
>As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem
>to disable this feature (minor changes)
>completely. I also never pay attention to that
>thing.
>
>But, To some users the minor changes seem useful.
>I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
>
>So, I agree with Carl Witty.
>
>For the future, we can also do this:
>A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the
>edit summary textbox which will include:
>X Spelling/Grammar Fix
>X Copyedit, same meaning

Copyediting is more than spelling/grammar fixing. It generally
means editing for clarity, and for correct choice of words, not
just for whether those words are spelled correctly. If we're going
to have a checkbox for that, let's not label it incorrectly.

>X New content
>X Factual correction
>X NPOV editing
>X Removal of unnecessary info
>X Link correction
>X Addition of new wikilinks or external links
>X Major rewrite
>
>how do you think?

I suspect that the sum of this is overly complicated, however,
and that people won't use them consistently, and most people
won't use them at all. I'd rather just keep typing "Copyed" or
"attempting to NPOV" when those are appropriate to what I've done.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Server down

body:
FYI: The server for en, although pingable, is
completely unusable at January 28, 2004, arround
16:50 PM UTC.

After trying for more than 30 minutes, the only
thing I was able to access were the HTMl header
of my talk page, a history page and the login
page :(

Somebody on IRC talked about the disk being full.
Is this the case?

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Optim wrote:

> As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem
> to disable this feature (minor changes)
> completely. I also never pay attention to that
> thing.
>
> But, To some users the minor changes seem useful.
> I would say to keep this feature and improve it.

Due to abuse of this feature in the past by other contributors,
I tend to use this feature only when I could justify the change
as a minor change (e.g., typos, spelling). Even a format change
might be considered by some as a significant change.
>
> So, I agree with Carl Witty.
>
> For the future, we can also do this:
> A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the
> edit summary textbox which will include:
> X Spelling/Grammar Fix
> X Copyedit, same meaning
> X New content
> X Factual correction
> X NPOV editing
> X Removal of unnecessary info
> X Link correction
> X Addition of new wikilinks or external links
> X Major rewrite
>
> how do you think?
>
> Of course this requires more development effort.
> So that's why I said "for the future".
>
About the only options you omitted from your list
(exmpting specific reasons for an edit, such as the
humorous example, "Genghis Khan never conquered
St. Louis") that I've used were "typo", "fixing my
mistake", & "formatting".

I've seen a number of variations on "disambiguating link"
from other contributors, some abbreviated to the point I
didn't know what they were talking about.

Geoff


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Arvind Narayanan <arvindn at ...> writes:

> If you enable the checkbox when logging in you will
> be logged in automatically thereafter.
>
> Arvind

I use Mozilla and Firebird and the auto-login does not work. I must login
several times a day. When not active for a while i am log out. Because my
username and password are already automatically insert by the browser this goes
fast and easy.

Walter


from_name: Arvind Narayanan

body:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:03:09PM -0800, Optim wrote:
> I never use Wikipedia without logging in first.
>
> Even if I want just to read something, I log in.
> One of the reasons is aesthetical: The default
> skin doesn't seem beautiful to me (sorry), so I
> log in in order to see Wikipedia with my
> favourite skin.
>
> I have even placed a "login" link on my userpage.
>
If you enable the checkbox when logging in you will
be logged in automatically thereafter.

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: "admin abuse"

body:
I looked at UB1's user contributions and I couldn't find anything
damaging that that user had done. Except for contributing to an edit
war over whether there should be six stars on hir user page or not and
blanking hir talk page. I don't understand why "UnbannableOne" is an
unaccepted username, it's not like hir called itself "Administrator",
"Root" or "JimmyWales" - any name that would actually make you THINK
the user was unbannable!

I also think the ability to ban logged in users should be removed. It
is way to powerful and all uses of that ability so far, has resulted
in controversies.

BL


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Using religious encyclopedias.

body:
Sascha brought up the fact that we can't always rely on the
Catholic Encyclopedia as an unbiased, or even semi-biased
source. It has an uncritical view of supernatural beliefs.
Good point. The same, of course, would be true of
information from any religious encyclopedia, whether
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatnot.

Yet Ed Poor cautions us that "Both Catholics and
Unificationists believe in the devil and other evil
spirits as Real Beings...Of course, this is in the context
of a whole bunch of other non-atheistic beliefs; it's not
as nutty as it sounds." This too is a good point.

I think we can use such encyclopedias; they contain large
amounts of objective historical statements. They also
contain religious claims which represent a point of view;
we just need to make sure that we distinguish between
objective and verifiable facts ("Saint Robert was a German
man canonized by the Austrian Church in 2003, under Pope
John Paul Ringo George") and religious claims, which by
their nature are unverifiable ("Saint Robert was known to
have healed several blind men through divine miracles; by
praying to Cthulhu their sight was miraculously restored.
Praise Shub-Niggurath and her thousand dark young.")

We can use both kinds of facts. The first we can simply
state as factual; but the second we have to carefully
preface as a belief. (e.g. "According to Cthuhulian
Catholics, Saint Robert is believed to have healed several
blind men...").  Also, it usually is a good idea to leave
out all honorific phrases (e.g. Praise be unto Muhammed;
Baruch Hashem (Praise God); Praise Shub-Niggurath and her
thousand dark young, etc.)

Some religious encyclopedias are more skeptical and NPOV
than others; the "Jewish Encyclopedia" (1906, public
domain) has some traditionally religious points of view,
yet has some other articles that are skeptical and written
in a style that today weight call NPOV (those articles, of
course, are out of date in regards to modern scholarship.)
The same is true of its successor, the 1970 (and more
recent updates) "Encycloepdia Judaica", which is written by
a number of authors, many of whom do not uncritically
present all traditional beliefs as historical facts. I
imagine that their are similar semi-critical/NPOV or
totally critical NPOV Christian and Muslim religious
encyclopedias out there as well.

(I use the word "critical" in the technical sense; as a
form of analysis, not as a synonym for disagreement.)

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] German Wikipedia slow?

body:
On Jan 28, 2004, at 13:03, Thomas Luft wrote:
> right now (21:03 UTC) the German Wikipedia is rather slow. Does one of
> the servers have a problem?

Yup. We're working on it.

-- brion vibber
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040128/4a5b52c2/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] A danger of massive homework and research requests

body:
Someone writes:
> hi, i need help on my geography homework, i was
> wondering if you could help?
> ''what is the name of the ocean current in the atlantic
> to the west of the uk? and how does it affect our
climate?

We all want to be nice and helpful when someone asks us a
question; it is only natural. But there is a great danger
to directly answering questions like these: In a short
amount of time Wikipedia might become known as a place
where people can mail in requests for info, and then we
will be flooded with thousands of requests each month for
help on homework and research. We'd get questions from
people in junior high, high school, and college.

I think if we get such requests, we should tell them to
read the relevant articles on Wikipedia (as well as suggest
to them that they need to use multiple sources). The only
times we need to answer such questions is when the
questions reveal a gap in Wikipedia articles. (i.e. if
someone asks a good question that interests us, and
Wikipedia has nothing on that topic, then maybe its a good
idea to begin doing a little work on that topic.)

I don't like saying "No" to specific requests for
information, but if the OED and the Encyclopedia Brittanica
usually answered such requests, then they might never have
completed the first edition of their works.

Your mileage may vary,

Robert (RK)

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


from_name: Angela

body:
It is the IP of a user whose user name is blocked. For
example, if you block "User:Angela", my IP is also
blocked, but for privacy reasons, that is shown as
#number, rather than displaying my actual IP.

This IP block happens automatically as soon as a user
blocked by name tries to access the site. If I dialled
up with a different IP and tried to log in as Angela,
that IP would be auto-blocked as well, showing up in
the block log as #1234 and I would see a message
telling me I was autoblocked because I share an IP
with Angela.

It is possible to unblock one but not the other.

Angela.

 --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote: > On
Special:ipblocklist, I see three basic types of
> entries.  I
> only understand two of them.
>
> First, there's the ip block, for example:
> 'Joe Sysop blocked 123.123.123.123'
>
> Second, there's the username block:
> 'Jane Sysop blocked ReallyOffensiveName'
>
> Third, there's these:
> 'Joe Sysob blocked #1521'
>
> What are those?  There's no link to the contribs, so
> it's impossible
> to see what they are.  The number appears to be the
> number of the block,
> not an identifier of what was blocked.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save ?80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Server shuffle

in_reply_to:
<bv09pi$n1d$1@sea.gmane.org> (Marco Krohn's message of "Sun, 25
	Jan 2004 12:36:34 +0100")

references:
<841B8EBE-4EDD-11D8-A361-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<shn08cv4av.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<34B4BA0C-4F0F-11D8-A361-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<opr2bo1wt7thl5ts@localhost> <bv09pi$n1d$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Marco Krohn <marco.krohn at gmx.de> writes:

> I would love to see something like this. There is some discussion about this
> on
>
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiImages.org
>
> Hopefully someone starts with coding soon :-)

+1 and please go for the simple solution - english (or "original")
+filenames are perfectly fine.  Descriptions could and should be
+translated - just add a subsection for every new translation:

== Italian desc. / descrizione italiana ==
...
== French desc. / description fran?oise ==
...
== German desc. / deutsche Beschreibung ==
...

In case there are too many just create a subpage.

Don't worry to about outdated descriptions - most of the time
descriptions are very sparse, though.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Minor changes by anonymous user

in_reply_to:
<91XyqkrSpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "25 Jan
	2004 22:00:00 +0100")

body:
>>>>> "EM" == Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

    EM> More like 30-40% for anonymous users. Check RC on En:
    EM> occasionally. The simple fact is that most vandals, crackpots
    EM> and abusers are anons, and that "minor edit" is a tool that is
    EM> easily abused. It seems fairly obvious then that it's a good
    EM> idea to limit that tool to signed in users.

I've made it optional on a per-installation basis to allow minor edits
by anonymous editors. The option is off by default.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Servers update

body:
Pliny, which has been serving up en.wikipedia.org for the last few
days, has been exhibiting disk problems again. This tends to point to
problems in the controller or motherboard rather or in addition to the
drive, since we just replaced the previous aching drive with a shiny
new one.

en.wikipedia.org and boards.wikimedia.org have been moved for now back
to ursula along with the other languages. Since en makes up a lot of
the traffic by itself this is less than ideal; sometimes a surge on en
will briefly block out most access to other wikis, for instance.
Hopefully we can work something out on this soon with another machine
standing in.

Uploaded images from en are current on ursula up through January 24,
but newer updates are still on pliny and can't be copied off due to the
disk errors. If we can't coax it into cooperating remotely, Jason
should be able to reset things when he goes in on Friday and copy them
off then.

We're continuing to optimize the database configuration and smooth out
the hot spots, and sooner or later those new machines should arrive and
we can balance the load more cleanly..

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040128/d3c792d3/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Servers update

body:
Pliny, which has been serving up en.wikipedia.org for the last few
days, has been exhibiting disk problems again. This tends to point to
problems in the controller or motherboard rather or in addition to the
drive, since we just replaced the previous aching drive with a shiny
new one.

en.wikipedia.org and boards.wikimedia.org have been moved for now back
to ursula along with the other languages. Since en makes up a lot of
the traffic by itself this is less than ideal; sometimes a surge on en
will briefly block out most access to other wikis, for instance.
Hopefully we can work something out on this soon with another machine
standing in.

Uploaded images from en are current on ursula up through January 24,
but newer updates are still on pliny and can't be copied off due to the
disk errors. If we can't coax it into cooperating remotely, Jason
should be able to reset things when he goes in on Friday and copy them
off then.

We're continuing to optimize the database configuration and smooth out
the hot spots, and sooner or later those new machines should arrive and
we can balance the load more cleanly..

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040128/d3c792d3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] news

body:
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:46 AM, Optim wrote:

> NAVY removes submarine commander
> Norwich Bulletin
> ... According to Wikipedia, an online
> encyclopedia, the Jimmy Carter is
> 100 feet longer than its sister ships and has
> been modified for "highly
> classified missions ...
>
> from
> http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/stories/20040127/localnews/
> 298767.html
>
> found from Google News Alerts.
>
> I receive some news stories from time to time
> which talk about wikipedia or use wikipedia as a
> reliable source. It seems that our work is good
> and what we do is useful to humanity!

I was just about to post that myself!  I guess I'm *not* the only one
using Google News Alerts... :)

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A danger of massive homework and research requests

body:
On Jan 28, 2004, at 5:07 PM, Anthere wrote:

> it would be nice as well, that people do not reach so easily the
> mailing lists, so they could ask information on wikipedia itself.
> Perhaps the way is not clear enough ?

That's what I've never understood.  One would think it would be easier
to click "Edit this page" on a talk page, type in a question, and wait
for a response, than to track down this mailing list, subscribe,
confirm, write an email, and scan the entire list's traffic for
replies.  But maybe that's just me.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --


from_name: Yann Forget

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

Hi,

Le Wednesday 28 January 2004 12:16, Walter Vermeir a ?crit :

> I use Mozilla and Firebird and the auto-login does not work. I must login
> several times a day. When not active for a while i am log out. Because my
> username and password are already automatically insert by the browser this
> goes fast and easy.

Then your setup is broken. I use Mozilla also and I am always logged in.

> Walter

Yann

- --
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAGAhim4KYjQo0y9oRAvpGAJoDL6qgEavE9QDkn2GOTi51dKuC8wCgiQEC
oM9YQgnhIqtI6fMyL+ahwLo=
=AGNp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Carl Witty

body:
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 05:39, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> At 09:59 PM 1/27/04 -0800, Optim wrote:
> >As Anthropos said, I would also have no problem
> >to disable this feature (minor changes)
> >completely. I also never pay attention to that
> >thing.
> >
> >But, To some users the minor changes seem useful.
> >I would say to keep this feature and improve it.
> >
> >So, I agree with Carl Witty.
> >
> >For the future, we can also do this:
> >A lot of checkboxes (NOT option boxes) under the
> >edit summary textbox which will include:
> >X Spelling/Grammar Fix
> >X Copyedit, same meaning
>
> Copyediting is more than spelling/grammar fixing. It generally
> means editing for clarity, and for correct choice of words, not
> just for whether those words are spelled correctly. If we're going
> to have a checkbox for that, let's not label it incorrectly.

I interpreted "Copyedit, same meaning" as "I reworded the article
without changing the meaning" (agreeing with your description of
copyediting).

Carl Witty


from_name: Thomas Luft

subject: [Wikitech-l] German Wikipedia slow?

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

Hi,

right now (21:03 UTC) the German Wikipedia is rather slow. Does one of
the servers have a problem?
Regards

Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAGCOwUfI+mHkmMg8RAtYDAJoCDsQTmYfHQ3sJ4is1RASttuUUoACcDRoW
0zilNwy88QFtNCnECM4h5Ng=
=4usd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] Martin Harper is again censoring Wikipedia

body:
On 01/25/04  at 07:05 AM, Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> said:

> Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is again censoring the article,
> "Palestinian views of the peace process". Instead of
> deleting the entire article, Martin Harper has deleted most of the
> (verfied) facts and quotes, leaving a skeleton article with vietually no
> content!

Robert is once again trying to shift the parameters of debate from the
validity and representation of Palestinian viewpoints within the discourse
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to that of "censorship", which is,
plainly and simply, a canard.

> This specific problem was already discussed in detail a few weeks ago.
> It was decided that [...]

Nothing was "decided" a few weeks ago. Jimbo expressed his opinion on the
subject, as is his right. Given his position within this community, his
point of view naturally carries substantial weight but by  no means
represents a definitive and binding judgement.

> One may not delete verified historical
> facts and quotes simply because it makes them
> uncomfortable. You cannot push your political agenda by
> deletin facts that are inconvenient.

The issue is not whether these quotes are verifable or not but simply the
fact -- as I have pointed out here before -- that taken out of context --
as they were here -- they are misleading. Given Israel's overwhelming
military and economic power, such nationalistic saber-rattling on the part
of Arafat and others can only be considered pathetic bluster, and most
charitably can be seen as a shameless effort to distract his Palestinian
listeners from the fact that he sold out their future for short-term
personal gain. Since you don't seem to be interested in adding the missing
context to this article (no surprise there), Martin is entirely correct
and should be applauded for removing this material which otherwise serves
as nothing more than crass anti-Palestine propaganda and is a blemish on
the image of neutrality we trying to achieve in this project.

V.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikimediaFoundation.org issues

body:
There seems to be something wrong with the WikimediaFoundation.org's template
http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising .

Please somebody with the correct access fix.

--mav


from_name: Anthere

body:
Robert a ?crit:
> Someone writes:
>
>>hi, i need help on my geography homework, i was
>>wondering if you could help?
>>''what is the name of the ocean current in the atlantic
>>to the west of the uk? and how does it affect our
>
> climate?
>
>
> We all want to be nice and helpful when someone asks us a
> question; it is only natural. But there is a great danger
> to directly answering questions like these: In a short
> amount of time Wikipedia might become known as a place
> where people can mail in requests for info, and then we
> will be flooded with thousands of requests each month for
> help on homework and research. We'd get questions from
> people in junior high, high school, and college.
>
> I think if we get such requests, we should tell them to
> read the relevant articles on Wikipedia (as well as suggest
> to them that they need to use multiple sources). The only
> times we need to answer such questions is when the
> questions reveal a gap in Wikipedia articles. (i.e. if
> someone asks a good question that interests us, and
> Wikipedia has nothing on that topic, then maybe its a good
> idea to begin doing a little work on that topic.)

me too

errr...sorry, I agree

it would be nice as well, that people do not reach so easily the mailing
lists, so they could ask information on wikipedia itself. Perhaps the
way is not clear enough ?