from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
There are still numerous issues with this validation feature, both
internal and external, I've pointed some of these out in the past.

1. The UI sucks

When you turn on this feature, go to a random page and click the
"validate" tab you're presented with this:
http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/revisions.png
A form that, excuse me for saying so, looks like shit, and furthermore
makes no sense at all, if you follow the 'See the validation
statistics for "Main Page" here' link you're presented with this:
http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/validation.png
Again, something that makes no sense at all, and it doesn't get any
better when you follow the 'Show my validations' link, then you're
presented with this:
http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/overview.png
...and those numbers are supposed to mean..?
And it doesn't get any better, in fact, I've been fiddling with this
thing for 20 minutes and still haven't figured out how to make it do
*anything at all*, it says things like "Your ratings have been
stored!" and yet it saves nothing to the validate table.

2. It's impossible to fully translate the UI
Please use wfMsg() for every string that should be translated, don't
hardcode messages in the code.

3. It's going to be slow

Here are some examples, with line numbers, of it making queries with
no LIMIT claues where the set of return values could get very large:

82                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', array(
'val_page' => 0 ), 'SpecialValidate::getTopicList' );

225                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', array_merge(
array( 'val_page' => $id ), $this->identifyUser($user) ) );

$limit here is a user supplied value with no upper limit enforced:
245                 $b = array ( "ORDER BY" => "val_page,val_revision"
, "OFFSET" => $offset , "LIMIT" => $limit ) ;
246                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', $a ,
'getAllVotesList' , $b );


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Kinzler

subject: [Commons-l] Should Commons host the Wikimedia Logos or not?

body:
Hi all

Felipe Micaroni Lalli wrote:
> I think the Wikimedia logos cannot to be on Commons. One exception open
> others exceptions. Maybe a photo of a person with a T-shirt with the
> Wikimedia logo...

I belive that is is not so much a question of where the logos are
*hosted*, but where they can be *used*. Including non-free images from
other sites in the wikipedia or the commons would violate the policy to
have free content only (at least on projects that do not allow fair
use). Worse, such images would not have a description page where
copyright and trademark issues can be explained and discussed.

That is, if we have a strict policy, and the logos are not free, they
cannot be used by the wikimedia projects, no matter where they are
located. In that case, the images would no longer *be* our logos,
because we can't use them...

For this reason, I belive calling fro a "technical solution" is pointles
and will just shift the problem around one more time.

Ideally, the logos would be protected as trademarks, but under a free
license copyright-wise. That, however, does not seem practical:
trademarks have to be registered (and paid for!) in several countries,
and they are much harder to defend than copyright. Also it has been
argued that if the trademark owner releases the image under a free
license, this could be interpreted by a court to overrule any
restriction placed on the trademark, rendering it undefendable (does
someone have a definite source on this?).

The only clean solution I see to this would be to have open content
license address the issue of logos separately. A lot of open source
projects have the same problem (debian, mozilla) - it seems just silly
that is has not been addressed in a standard license. Maybe this will
change in future versions of the GFDL and/or the CC licenses...

Regards,
Daniel

--
Homepage: http://brightbyte.de


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Page freezing on "good" articles

body:
That's not exactly in the spirit of wiki

On 10/27/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There was a lot of talk not too long ago about possibilities of
> protecting certain high-profile articles which are reasonably "good",
> in order to prevent various forms of content degredation which happen
> even with well-meaning editors, much less from vandals and the
> problems which come up in problematic reverts, etc.
>
> Is there a designated place to discuss this sort of thing?
>
> In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for
> Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
> opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
> people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
> was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
> article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
> it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
> "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
> which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
> no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
> (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
> who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
> would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
> talk page.
>
> So anyway, I'm not caught up on the latest status of this debate, but
> I think something of this sort might be a good idea, and prevent the
> sort of incoherence that sneaks into even good articles over a long
> period of time.
>
> (And before anyone points out that this would make it hard for new
> users to edit such articles -- that would be the *point* of such a
> policy, not an unintended consequence. And it would, ideally, focus
> users away from such articles and onto the legions which still need
> basic work).
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
Han Dao wrote:

>The problem is that most webcomics that are added into the encyclopedia are
>usually non-notable. So editors tend to vote delete because most will be non
>notable.
>
Well put!  Having determined that most webcomics are non-notable, it is
safe to assume that one need not look at the particular contribution to
verify that it is non-notable.  A rule-abiding decision to delete should
be disturbed by the introduction of real facts.

Ec


list: foundation-l

from_name: GerardM

subject:
[Foundation-l] Benefits of advertising (was Our exponentially
	increasing costs)

body:
Hoi,
I was at Wikimania and I do not even know that this poll was held. There may
have been a presentation about this, there may have been a "hands up" but
the amount of people present at this presentation do not represent all those
that were at Wikimania. The suggestion that it truly represents the ideas of
those that were at Wikimania is a fallacy. The suggestion that it represents
the ideas of the Wikimedia crowd is even more rediculous; what do you base
this on ??

As the mail says "apparantly" it is not even sure there was such a poll and
certainly it does not express the opinion of all those that were at
Wikimania.

Thanks,
GerardM

On 10/27/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Grey wrote:
> >On 27/10/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >> A full one-third of that hard core sufficiently dedicated to Wikipedia
> >> to spend their own scarce cash going all the way to Wikimania 2005,
> >> wasn't it? Something about that doesn't sound "insignificant" to me.
> >> Maybe it does to you.
>
> >I think you're under-estimating the total number of editors WP has,
> >over-estimating who'd leave, and over-valuing their importance.
> >Where'd you get that figure from anyway?
>
> This list:
>
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004659.html
>
> "Apparently a poll was done at Wikimania and 2/3 of people were
> against it and 1/3 said they'd leave. So yeah, there's one good
> argument not to have ads, I guess. I just can't figure out what any of
> the other ones are."
>
> (I've only just noticed it was posted by Anthony DiPierro, who may or
> may not be a primary source - was he at Wikimania?)
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
I am slightly concerned about the RfA for Acetic Acid. This is a user
whose only attempt to create an article is [[vitaminwater]] which is
really bad. He does however have overwhelming support (even from a
couple of people I know) and clearly has a huge fanclub, and he hasnt
done anything blatently wrong (apart from a perhaps unnecessary RfC).

I was wondering about suggesting a mentoring program in how to write an
article perhaps, which would be something I would be interested in
creating anyway.

I am sure he wont do any harm as an admin, but it all seems a bit odd.

Justinc


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> I am slightly concerned about the RfA for Acetic Acid. This is a user
> whose only attempt to create an article is [[vitaminwater]] which is
> really bad. He does however have overwhelming support (even from a
> couple of people I know) and clearly has a huge fanclub, and he hasnt
> done anything blatently wrong (apart from a perhaps unnecessary RfC).
>
> I was wondering about suggesting a mentoring program in how to write an
> article perhaps, which would be something I would be interested in
> creating anyway.
>
> I am sure he wont do any harm as an admin, but it all seems a bit odd.
>
> Justinc

What's the problem? My abilty to write articles is hardly top notch.
Good editors and good admins are not the same thing.
--
geni


from_name: Jei

subject: [WikiEN-l] Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Alphax wrote:

> Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally
> unknown outside of the Pokemon community?

So that people coming from outside such communities will
have the means to understand what they're talking about.

Coverage is what makes wikipedia rock.

// Jei


from_name: Brown, Darin

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and science

body:
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:03:53 -0400
> From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and
> 	science
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<98dd099a0510270903hb290f71p4456375b4dba13ee at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Two things:
>
> >And what about a proof?  One can always
> > paraphrase a proof, but at the end of the day, you're really violating
> > copyright in spirit under the above interpretation as much as if you
> copied
> > verbatim.
>
> I'm pretty sure mathematical proofs would not be copyrightable.

That's funny...given that a lot of mathematical papers consist almost
entirely of proofs, are you saying that copyright does not apply to them?  I
think the publisher would beg to differ.

> I could write my own
> version of the same facts in a given book and have full claim to a
> copyright in this instance.

This is my point -- statements of theorems don't have different "versions"
of themselves.  (Maybe *equivalent* versions, that's another issue.)  Or at
least, there's very little room for tinkering.

> I think a good line of work with NOR is to say that every fact which
> could be reasonably contested should be cited. That is, if I write an
> article the History of X, and I say that on such-and-such a date,
> so-and-so did something, I might from the get-go assume that this is
> common knowledge (at least among specialists). If someone comes to the
> talk page and says, "Hey, I don't know about that," then it is my duty
> to pull out some other source which says it. I think citation is
> allowed to be an evolving thing.

Yes, I understand; my point is that in math, there exists non-original
research which cannot be cited.  There is no "big book" containing every
possible true statement and valid argument in math.  Say someone comes up
with a particularly nice proof of some calculus result, but can't find it in
any reference in exactly the same way.  And suppose it's not a terribly
novel thing -- just a couple tweeks that make it more appealing.  Is this
original research?  Most math people would say, "no".  Even if it *were*
original enough to publish in CMJ, say, if it were never submitted, it would
*still* not require publication before being written up in
wikipedia...because it is something easily verified by any professional in
the field.  The difference between, say, history and math, is that in
history, the verification is the historical record (primary or secondary
sources), whereas in math, the "verification" lives inside the
mathematicians' brains.  It's hard to cite that.

Really, this is has not been much of a problem, so far.  In fact, the math
people have kind of interpreted these "rules" as they went along, as they
saw fit, collectively.  So, you might wonder why I go on.  I just want
people to realize that policies and rules require a fair amount of latitude
and interpretation from situation to situation.  A lot of people seem to
have the attitude that the way the policies are implemented and interpreted
in their little domain of existence is the "right" way and should be imposed
on everyone else.  I would hesitate (I hope I have hesitated in the past) to
tell the people in the biology project, or the history project, or a project
on some hobby or craft, how the policies should be interpreted in their
domain.  But several times I've seen a math person raise an issue like this
outside of the math community, and people just pounce on them -- imposing
their own view of a policy to a situation they don't even understand.

darin


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 15:25 +0100, geni wrote:
> What's the problem? My abilty to write articles is hardly top notch.
> Good editors and good admins are not the same thing.
> --
> geni

Your range of activities is much wider.

You have edits that cleanup and wikify articles, even if not
much.

But you would be welcome to sign up for how to write an article too...

Justinc


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again (was: Oour quality
	could	rival Encyclopedia Britannica)

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>A previous version of the code (not the current version, I think?)
>>>loaded *all* revisions of the article being rated, and switching it on
>>>would have caused an extremely unhappy DB server and a top-50 error
>>>message pretty much instantly ;-)
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>I *think* I fixed this...
>>
>>
>
>
>So how do we establish this to Brion's satisfaction?
>
>
>
Well, we could
* buy another 100 servers, set up a complete clone of ours, then
simulate millions of users rating articles
or
* turn the darn thing on at the live wiki. We could use the German one
if Brion's scared with the English one, there's way less users there,
and they'll love it, as we are in a perpetual quality discussion there
anyway...

*If* the servers do get sluggish from all the article rating, just turn
it off again. I would fully understand if there were security concerns
or we-can-never-turn-it-back issues, but a little slowness for a little
time /as worst case/ is plaing it too safe IMHO. After all, it wouldn't
really be wikipedia if it weren't slow, eh? ;-)

The only other way to convince Brion I can think of would be for him to
look closely at the code and decide for himself if it's too risky. Me, I
think it's ready. Of course, I thought the same thing about phase2 code,
with all features enabled...

Magnus


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which
>> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of
>> knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
>> [and gave ratings of 0, 5, 6, 6, 7, and 8 out of 10]

>One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct.  A
>simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article can
>be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly.  What would be more
>interesting would be to have these same critics review the same articles
>a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place as a
>result of their criticism.

Jam tomorrow.

To readers, Wikipedia is exactly as good as it is on the day they consult it,
not a month later.

Do you go to a newsstand and buy the late edition of a newspaper in case
something has been updated from the edition they delivered to your porch?


from_name: muhammad zaid zainuddin

subject: [Wikitech-l] continue: the missing diacritic

body:
Wikitech,

It's mentioned in the ''Tatabahasa Bugis'' book or Buginese grammar
published by ''Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Indonesia'' (The
Indonesian department of Education and Culture.) If you can read
Indonesian, I can scan it for you.

Likewise, as mentioned in the Andi Mallerangeng bugis font page, the first
to create this software-font, he used underline to replace this diacritic.
Here's the page:

<http://www.seasite.niu.edu/bugis2.gif>

Thank you,

Muhammad Zaid Zainuddin


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 27/10/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Sounds like an irc star. That would explain a fan club. I can't stand
> > irc, but I have no objection to folks who can constructively banter
> > becoming administrators.
>
> The name is vaguely familiar to me from IRC but not so much that I'd
> qualify him as a "star".

I don't use IRC but the name is vaguely familiar, so presumably he
does community interaction elsewhere as well.

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


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] I've said it before, I'll say it again...

body:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly
> unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them,
> but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
>
> --Mgm

 How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page protection
is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion system. I
don't see the difference.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:34 -0500, Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> > I am slightly concerned about the RfA for Acetic Acid. This is a user
> > whose only attempt to create an article is [[vitaminwater]] which is
> > really bad. He does however have overwhelming support (even from a
> > couple of people I know) and clearly has a huge fanclub, and he hasnt
> > done anything blatently wrong (apart from a perhaps unnecessary RfC).
> >
> > I was wondering about suggesting a mentoring program in how to write an
> > article perhaps, which would be something I would be interested in
> > creating anyway.
> >
> > I am sure he wont do any harm as an admin, but it all seems a bit odd.
> >
> > Justinc
>
> A substantial fraction of our admins are largely worthless at writing
> articles.  In fact, there's a good argument for the position that
> people who can write articles should not be admins: we need them
> writing articles, not running around breaking up fights.

Thats a very reasonable argument. But someone on new articles watch
really ought to know how to wikify an article I would have thought.

The mentoring process idea wasnt necessarily to encourage people to
write lots of articles, but at least if you have done it once you might
learn a bit about how to do research, how to recognise a good article,
how to make an article better and so on.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 10/27/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Thats a very reasonable argument. But someone on new articles watch
> really ought to know how to wikify an article I would have thought.

there are other things an admin can do (clearing the backlog at WP:CP
which is what I should be doing rather than posting this)

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and
> doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus.
> --Mgm

 Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins? You can argue it's
because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because
admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either
argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to get
into deletion wars.
 Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether or not non-admins
can delete articles, though. In my opinion the important thing is that
non-admins can view articles which have been deleted via the VFD process.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
geni wrote:

>What's the problem? My abilty to write articles is hardly top notch.
>Good editors and good admins are not the same thing.

Someone as heavily interested in deleting articles as yourself not
actually creating articles as well is something I find disquieting.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and
> > > doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus.
> > > --Mgm
> >
> > Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins?
>
> We do.
>
> > You can argue it's
> > because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because
> > admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either
> > argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to
> get
> > into deletion wars.
>
> The reason they are rare is there are fairly strong rules in place
> over what an admin can delete and when.
> --
> geni

 That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users
delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I don't
see why it's an advantage either.
 Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for
Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed can
be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual
article or a redirect.
 Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 10/27/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> Someone as heavily interested in deleting articles as yourself not
> actually creating articles as well is something I find disquieting.
>
>
> - d.

Except If you look at my actual history on AFD you will find that I
tend not to be a particularly heavy deletionist. I'm an eventualist. I
take the view that sooner or latter wikipedia will have to tighten
it's inclusion criteria or fall over. In the meantime I'm simply
interested in preventing the worst excesses of the pro content lot.

Aside from that I have created articles. They just tend not to be very
good (OTOH only one has ever been listed on VFD and that got voted in
as a keep).

--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unilateral action contrary to a vote from a rouge
	admnin, David Gerard

body:
On 10/27/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've deleted the scabrous template [[Template:Twoversions]] as a
> blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point
> Of View.  It was voted "keep" on TFD, which is complete rubbish
> because eight people can't vote to violate NPOV on Wikipedia.
> Currently protected blank.
>
> Voting is not only Evil, it's Stupid. Think, dammit.
>

I disagree with this; in my experience twoversions has been useful in
providing transparency to the nature of a dispute over two distinct
versions of an article.  Differences of opinion over which version is
more neutral are legitimate--balance is about judgement, not a black
and white issue.  There may also be differences over other issues,
such as style.  Most recently I used twoversions when an article
rewrite was opposed.  The dispute was over whether the correct
definition of the subject of the article was being used.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rigging at RfA

body:
Slimvirgin wrote:

>I'm pretty sure he's a sock puppet but I can't prove it. His
>contributions include blanking [[Jesus]] and redirecting it to
>[[Muhammad]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=18429618

After a pile of requests I just went through the oppose votes on
Anonymous editor's RFA. Muwaffaq = Deeptrivia, and I've blocked the
former indefinitely as a sock used abusively and the latter for a week
for using a sock on an admin poll.

There were not in fact any others I nailed. There's a few I'm
wondering about but I'd need to know more about how often the networks
in question change dynamic IPs. I probably won't chase it for the
moment because none have used the socks for duplicate votes on the RFA
that I could see.

I haven't looked through the 'support' votes and probably won't
without a request from someone who isn't an abusive sockpuppet.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] New Ideas for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>  Like I said, I can come to accept it if the process is changed from
> consensus to majority rule. If you think Wikipedia should drop consensus as
> a goal, by all means make that argument.

I don't think it should be droped as a goal but I do think we should
be realistic enough to accept that in certian areas it isn't going to
happen.

> What I don't accept is redefining
> the term consensus to mean majority rule.
>  Anthony

And destory all the hard work on the wikipedia newspeak project?

--
geni


from_name: Przykuta

subject: [Foundation-l] copyleft day

body:
Hhmmm, when is day of copyleft? Do we need it? I think, that if we
have more xxx days, it's better to promotion wikiprojects.

przykuta


subject: [Foundation-l] copyleft day


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
geni wrote:

>Except If you look at my actual history on AFD you will find that I
>tend not to be a particularly heavy deletionist. I'm an eventualist. I
>take the view that sooner or latter wikipedia will have to tighten
>it's inclusion criteria or fall over. In the meantime I'm simply
>interested in preventing the worst excesses of the pro content lot.
>Aside from that I have created articles. They just tend not to be very
>good (OTOH only one has ever been listed on VFD and that got voted in
>as a keep).

Ah, OK. Sorry. My apologies if I appeared to have been smearing your name.

(And you're doing better than me. I have had one nomination [that I
know of - I haven't looked at my watchlist in over a year, and that's
good] and it got deleted ;-)

- d.


subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyleft day

body:
> Hhmmm, when is day of copyleft? Do we need it? I think, that if we
> have more xxx days, it's better to promotion wikiprojects.
>
> przykuta
>
So, look for 23 april - International day of book & copyrights.
Maybe 23 october - International day of wikibooks and copyleft ?


subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyleft day


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> The only thing I can imagine is this: when a page has reached this state it
> is usually through the hard work of a few editors (and I am not trying to
> deny the contributions of countless other people).  I suggest those editors
> save that version of the article as sub-pages to their user pages.  If
> there is ever major vandalism of the article, or if it seriously degrades
> over a long period of time, those editors have a point of reference
> (without having to go back through the edit history) of when they thought
> of it as "done."

What we really need is to pay and/or bribe and/or beg a developer to fix the
performance issues of the 'rate this article version' feature. Then the highest
rated version of an article would be prominently linked from the top of the
most recent version of the article. It would also be neat if one could indicate
whether or not particular votes were useful and if the most recent version of
the article is still as good or bad (a cur diff would be displayed so
comparisons would be easy).

Logged-in users would have the option of displaying the highest rated version
of an article if and when available. But I think it is *very* important that we
never have that as a global default; the big thing wikiwiki has going for it is
the instant gratification factor and vandalism should not be hidden behind a
higher rated but older version.

Also, at the bottom of each page there should be an automatically-created
citation line that gives the exact page version you are looking at. I see there
is already a 'Permanent link' feature in the sidebar - but who the hell is
going to know what that is for? Citing a Wikipedia article is currently useless
w/o this feature (anybody checking such a cite could not be sure which of the
many versions on any particluar day were actually used).

Another idea: I'd love to have the ability to rate other editors and trust by
proxy what users whose opinion I trust think of editors they have rated
(trusting by double proxy may also be useful). No data on any one person's
rating would be public; the data would only be used to filter out edits made by
trusted members of the community so that more attention can be paid to those
who are still unknown or who are known but not trusted. Much of the major data
processing for this feature could be done on the client's computer like this:
*raw RC/watchlist data would be downloaded to your computer
*your user ratings and the user ratings of the people whose opinion you trust
are also downloaded (this would be incrementally updated as needed)
*your computer would do all the sorting by user name
Of course, there will still be lots and lots of extra reads and writes with
this feature unless a completlely separate p2p editing client is used.

The current system is just not scaling very well. If we want to stay open, then
we *need* to invest in some serious software and database improvements. All of
the above will have a very significant database hit, but I think it is all
worth if since it should push us toward the production of better quality
content.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 27/10/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> At the moment, even granting that viewpoint, adminship is still pretty
> useful just for editing.  I can't count how many times it would have
> been a real pain in the ass if I hadn't been able to do things like
> delete a redirect to make way for a move, not to mention needing admin
> rights to edit things like [[Wikipedia:In_the_news]] in the first place.

Indeed. I've been tempted to apply for adminship a few times simply so
I can copyedit the front page without having to prod someone about
it...

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


body:
It isn't much use for 3 dissputes and I don't like anything that
limits people to thinking there are only two posible outcomes.

geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> And you can't in my case either, because I really do have a reason why I
> think those nominations should fail to delete those articles. I don't
> vote "keep" unless I mean it.
>

Other than you addmissions on this list (but I'm not sure if we ever
decided that stuff from the mailing list could be used as evidence
against).

> Anyway, this back and forth POINTing isn't really furthering the
> discussion of AfD's problems. If you want to "get" me under some rule or
> another, go ahead; I won't argue it here.
>

You wanted someone else removed from AFD. I can't see any way of doing
it without going through arbcom.

I have no interest in blocking you. You would hardly be the first to
vote mass keep. It doesn't appear to cause to many problems in the
long run.

> Why shouldn't I vote when I've got perfectly good reasons for casting a
> vote?

It breaks the mold. It gives an example to other people to think about
AFD in a different way.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

body:
On 10/27/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen as much of that, lately.  The voting blocks I believe
> to exist seem more to be based on social networks rather than any
> particular position on Wikipedia policy.  Of course, at least one of
> these social networks does seem to have a strong deletionist bent.
>
> It would be interesting to do a social proximity analysis based on RFA
> supports (and maybe also RFC opinion supports); I suspect you'd find
> several well-defined cliques.
>
> Kelly

I could just be that people have a tendancy to vote for people they
have herd of.

--
geni


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Ironies

body:
"The Cunctator" <cunctator at kband.com> wrote in
message news:BF867DFA.3E8E5%cunctator at kband.com...
> There's something painfully ironic about the Cleanup-priority template.
> Its
> text is ungrammatical and awkward:
> "This topic is considered a necessary subject on Wikipedia, and there is a
> high-priority on its being cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of
> quality. See How to Edit and Style and How-to for help, or this article's
> talk page."
> "There is a high-priority"? Does *anyone* know the rules of English
> grammar
> any more?

ObAaron: No.

> I don't even know where to start with improving it.
> The whole idea of edit-comment templates is wrongheaded, anyway.
> Is there some way to hide them? They're maddening.

I'd say we have a good case for moving all this kind of crap to the Talk
Page.

Let me think about it overnight, maybe my head will feel clearer in the
morning :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's why I don't really understand the purpose of letting all users
> > delete. I'm not opposed to it, and don't see the disadvantage, but I
> don't
> > see why it's an advantage either.
> > Really I think the best solution would be to get rid of Articles for
> > Deletion and replace it with...nothing. Pure trash which can't be fixed
> can
> > be speedily deleted. Anything else can be turned into a short factual
> > article or a redirect.
> > Anthony
>
> Geni was right. Deletion wars are rare because there's clear policy on
> it and admins are trusted members of the community who with a few
> occasional exceptions follow these rules.

Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete
articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an
article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.

If we were to get rid of AFD, the creator of a crappy article could
> repeatedly undelete it.

As opposed to repeatedly creating it? I don't see the barrier there.

If we were to address how people handle AFD,
> they might actually learn why the article wasn't a good idea to start
> with.

That assumes that deleting a crappy article is the right solution. I'd say
making a crappy article not crappy any more is a better solution.

PWD would call for page protection to stop the recreation,
> creating loads of needless protected pages and less discussion about
> something people should really talk about.

We already have loads of needless protected pages. This has nothing to do
with whether or not non-admins can delete. Non-admins already can undelete,
in fact, people who aren't even logged in can already undelete.

Page protection isn't the only solution against vandalism. In fact, it's
usually not even the best solution.


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo's RFA or whatever trigram

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> This decision is very unpopular with the community.
> A couple of
> things: Stevertigo's request should stay up for the
> usual time and
> receive consideration based on him, not on what
> folks think of the
> arbitration decision. The arbitration decision can
> be appealed to
> Jimmy Wales by Stevertigo.
>
> Fred

I asked for WP:RFA/SV to be reinstated for the simple
reason that I be allowed to comment directly on the
RFA. The expressed popular dislike of the Arbcom
"decision" is a direct consequence of the Arbcom
decision, not of my RFA. So your criticising the
criticism seems rather "unwiki" and only opens the
door for further criticism of the Arbcom process --of
which I now have some uncommon perspective.

All of this could have been solved long ago if the
Arbcom had taken the time to actually consider my
point by point statement and talk page questions with
regard to the original 3RR question, and the
self-unblocking question. The "finding of fact" that
the block was "equitably applied" was so simplistic as
to be false, considering the block on the second party
was not applied until 24 hours later.

This curious lack of attention to detail is something
that a larger community is supposed to make easier to
deal with, and hence make arbitration decisions more
complete and well-founded. Take a look at any
well-regarded court opinion for example, and you will
find that the strength of the opinion itself rests on
the strength of its understanding and representation
of the arguments and the explanation in depth of the
decision and its rationale. The Arbcom doesnt seem
staffed to do this, and as a consequence, its decision
in my case (for one) was poorly thought out.

While I am continuing the RFA process as directed by
the Arbcom, there is in my mind no convenient
separation between the problems with the Arbcom
process in general, its apparent lack of
responsiveness, or the "final" remedy in my case. And
while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he
is now a rather busy man in charge of running an
international foundation. I can't imagine how his
dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be
considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant
imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his
proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to
properly investigate the case findings of fact which I
maintain are incorrect.

In otherwords, if a committee with several active
members cannot properly do the job, ask all the
questions, and respond to all the criticism and
issues, how can I expect Jimbo, busy as he is, to do
it?
Even on appeal to Jimbo, I still would have legitimate
worries that he would feel compelled to simply trust
the findings of the Arbcom, even though its decision
was "very unpopular" and its process and findings were
(as I maintain) 'not without flaw.'

In short, such a last resort for fixing a remedy so
"unpopular with the community," must be seen as a
complete and total failure of the Arbcom to act
properly, meaning 'to make a fair decision or
otherwise do no harm.' I can't imagine how I could
have argued against a ruling which simply desysopped
me for a month, provided it dealt point by point with
the issues I raised in an open fashion.

Sincerely,
SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2006 : general meeting & getting involved

body:
I completely support your point of view. Especially when I think that we
will take decision that will engage the legal liability of the Foundation.

It is necessary to play by the rules !

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> Some points here:
>
> Before answering what might be duplicated or wasted, let me ask:
> 1. Do you have a list of what tasks need to be done?
> 2. Since some of these tasks involve representing the foundation to
> potential donors and making snap decisions regarding funding, do you
> know who is authorized to make these decisions?
> 3. Have said people come aboard on this?
> 4. Are there any tasks which require professional assistance, and do we
> have any professionals within the community who are willing to assume
> these responsibilities?
> 5. What channels of communication are there to avoid contradictory
> messages to potential sponsors, supporters, suppliers, etc. -- for
> instance, if I am in the process of negotiating a price of $500 for
> food, and someone else had already told them we will pay $700, my
> position is weakened considerably.
> 6. Who are the on-the-ground people who will be conducting these
> negotiations? What are their relations to the community? Have they
> attended the previous Wikimania or other, similar events?
> 7. Why are we changing the name? How does that help in our effort to
> brand our product?
> 8. Who is qualified to allow the use of our logo without it becoming a
> trademark violation? Allowing people to use it freely is a surefire way
> to lose our rights to it.
> 9. WHO IS KEEPING RECORDS OF ALL COSTS, RECEIPTS, ETC. HOW WILL THEY BE
> KEPT? (intentionally caps)
>
> Wikimania is an event that will cost tens of thousands of dollars. It is
> very easy to blow that kind of money without even noticing it. Certain
> key decisions will have to be made in a top-down manner, considering the
> financial, legal, and other implications of the decision.
>
> Danny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:00:57 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2006 : general meeting & getting
> involved
>
>  Which tasks and efforts might be duplicated or wasted?  The purpose of
> a meeting is to encourage discussion, so that people interested in
> Wikimania can throw out ideas or volunteer to help organize the event.
> I don't see how anyone can know who would be coordinating the event,
> or what it would involve, before these conversations have started.
>
> Right now the larger problem seems to be the lack of public discussion
> about Wikimania, replicated or otherwise.  July seems like a long way
> away, but it isn't truly that far off.
>
> --SJ
>
>
> On 10/27/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>> These are all very valid points. However, before we have a meeting, it
>> would seem rather sensible for the board to decide who the organizing
>> committee is. In that way, tasks will not be replicated, and efforts
>> will not be wasted. Do we know who the coordinators for this event
> are?
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com>
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>;
>> Wikimedia Translators <translators-l at wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:11:38 -0400
>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2006 : general meeting & getting
>> involved
>>
>>   Dear all,
>>
>> Wikimania this past August was a joyous and wonderful event.  It was
>> remarkable above all for the geographic diversity of its attendees.
>>
>> Help make the next Wikimania just as wonderful, and even more
>> international and multilingual.  Please translate this message and
>> pass it on to your respective mailing lists and wikis.
>>
>> How to get involved :
>> 1. Come to an IRC meeting next week.  We will be discussing conference
>> dates, among other things.  Note what times you can make it, or add to
>> the agenda, here:
>>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Planning#Meetings
>>
>> 2. Volunteer your time, language skills, and enthusiasm:
>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Planning#Volunteering
>>
>> 3.  Sign up for yet another mailing list (wikimania-l).  It is
>> currently low-traffic and primarily English-language; two things you
>> can help change.
>>     http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>> 4. Plan carpools or offer crash space for the event.  (harder to do
>> before the date is fixed, of course)
>>     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006:Venue#Attendees
>>
>>
>> Organizing Wikimania is at once demanding and rewarding; and a chance
>> to learn about the inner workings of a large conference.  Please join
>> us on IRC, or on the wiki, to find out more.
>>
>> ++SJ
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> --
> ++SJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>   _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
> Right, but it has little to do with the fact that only admins can delete
> articles. You can get rid of AfD, give anyone the ability to delete an
> article, and still have a clear policy on deletion and undeletion.
>

By the way, we *don't* have a very clear policy on deletion and undeletion.


subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy and editing anonymously notice.

body:
Actually, most laws only require us to record connection informations
for a limited amount of time. I know that the delay is not established
in France as of today, but 1 year is commonly accepted. Still, many
lobbyists are asking for a 3 years delay in the next legislations.

JBS, Legal Maven

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Chris Jenkinson wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As the Board have been rather slow with publicising the new privacy
>> policy, I have taken the step of adding a notice to the bottom of
>> [[MediaWiki:Copyrightstext]] on the English-language Wikipedia (the
>> text which is displayed when you click "Edit this page"), which
>> mentions that if you are editing anonymously, your IP address will be
>> publically and permanently associated with the edits, and if you're
>> editing while logged in, your IP address will be stored for around 2
>> weeks.
>>
>> Someone has also added a link to the privacy policy on the bottom of
>> every page.
>>
>> I urge admins on all the various projects to update their project with
>> this information - make it clear that editing will mean that some
>> personally-identifiable information is kept about the contributor.
>>
>> Chris
>
> As a matter of policy is this reasonable?  I'm just thinking out loud
> here, but might it be reasonable after a certain length of time that
> anonymous edits from IP addresses could be turned into simply a user
> with the name "Anonymous" instead?  It would require a minor change in
> MediaWiki, but I don't think it is that difficult of a challenge
> technically.
>
> I'm raising this here to suggest that perhaps another policy could ben
> enacted for anonymous users.  After a year or so it would be very
> difficult to even find logs to claim that you used a particular IP
> address unless it was on a permanent IP table for an organization and
> somehow dated.  Besides, we are using IP addresses anyway to help
> distinguish trolls from honest contributors who are trying to add
> reasonable content but just want to stay anonymous.  Why not purge these
> IP address records as well?  I'm talking about the social policy aspect
> of doing this, not actually implementing this in MediaWiki software.
>


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

body:
Fast Fission wrote,

>There was a lot of talk not too long ago about possibilities of
>protecting certain high-profile articles which are reasonably "good",
>in order to prevent various forms of content degredation which happen
>even with well-meaning editors, much less from vandals and the
>problems which come up in problematic reverts, etc.
>
>
>Is there a designated place to discuss this sort of thing?
>
>
>In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for
>Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
>opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
>people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
>was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
>article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
>it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
>"frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
>which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
>no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
>(hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
>who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
>would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
>talk page.
>
>
>So anyway, I'm not caught up on the latest status of this debate, but
>I think something of this sort might be a good idea, and prevent the
>sort of incoherence that sneaks into even good articles over a long
>period of time.
>
>
>(And before anyone points out that this would make it hard for new
>users to edit such articles -- that would be the *point* of such a
>policy, not an unintended consequence. And it would, ideally, focus
>users away from such articles and onto the legions which still need
>basic work).
>
>
>FF

The only thing I can imagine is this: when a page has reached this state it
is usually through the hard work of a few editors (and I am not trying to
deny the contributions of countless other people).  I suggest those editors
save that version of the article as sub-pages to their user pages.  If
there is ever major vandalism of the article, or if it seriously degrades
over a long period of time, those editors have a point of reference
(without having to go back through the edit history) of when they thought
of it as "done."

(consider this a supplement to providing links to pages you are proud of,
on your user page)

I understand if those editors have left wikipedia in the meantime, such
saved pages may go with them.  I do not consider this a tragic loss as far
as the articles go, since there always is the edit history (although if
this happens a lot it would be worth thinking about why contributors to
great articles are leaving).

But let's assume most don't go away.  What constitutes a great version of
an article is subjective; my suggestion allows versions that are great from
at least one person's point of view to be preserved, without in anyway
undermining the wikiness of the article itself.  By the way, I think some
users already do this or something like this anyway.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


subject:
privacy disclaimer text (was: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Privacy
	policy and editing anonymously	notice.)

body:
Anyway, such a disclaimer is mandatory under EU regulations. Though, I
don't think the wording of the disclaimer is extremely important BUT...

It should better show that the user agrees with the use of his personal
data by wikipedia.

For example,

By editing Wikipedia, YOU AGREE THAT your [[IP address]] (which is
[[personally
identifiable information]]) will be recorded. If you are not logged in,
your IP address will be publicly associated with your edits. If you
are logged in, your IP address will not be publicly displayed. Please
read our [[wikipedia:privacy policy|privacy policy]].

That simple modification, but I think it is important.

Angela wrote:
>>> As the Board have been rather slow with publicising the new privacy
>>> policy, I have taken the step of adding a notice to the bottom of
>>> [[MediaWiki:Copyrightstext]] on the English-language Wikipedia
>
> I think including this information in the privacy policy and linking
> every project to that would make more sense that putting people off
> editing by having all this text on the actual edit page. Addressing
> whether we should be publicly displaying these IPs forever might be a
> better option than just trying to scare users into logging in. If the
> privacy policy is linked, please link to the official version on
> wikimediafoundation.org rather than to non-updated local copies.
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikipedia-l


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Member Since. Was Rigging at RfA

body:
On 10/27/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> >Is there an easy way to find how long ago a user has been a member?
> >Maybe a special tag that renders that automatically?
> >
> >
> You can go to their user contributions page, scroll to the bottom and
> click "Earliest", and it'll list their first 50 edits.

The date of first edit is also displayed on the edit counting tool at
http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits (though page move
bugs may show someone moving pages years before they really did).

Angela.


body:
On 10/27/05, steven l. rubenstein <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:

> The only thing I can imagine is this: when a page has reached this state
> it
> is usually through the hard work of a few editors (and I am not trying to
> deny the contributions of countless other people). I suggest those editors
> save that version of the article as sub-pages to their user pages. If
> there is ever major vandalism of the article, or if it seriously degrades
> over a long period of time, those editors have a point of reference
> (without having to go back through the edit history) of when they thought
> of it as "done."

Why not just save the link?

It might even make sense to create a single page for everyone's links. And
then, after a few months or whatever, we can get a diff between the "perfect
article that can't be improved" and the current one. Maybe we'll find it
wasn't so perfect after all. Or maybe we'll find it has degraded over time
and can revert back.

All of this without page protection and without coding any new features.
Freezing articles doesn't make much sense when the history is always there
and it's easy to link to any historical version of a page. And now you can
even make a permanent link to the *current* version of a page.


from_name: Marcus Buck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Deactivating upload on nds.wikipedia

body:
Please could somebody of the developers deactivate the image upload on
nds.wikipedia?

I made a request for this on the wiki since July [1]. There were little response
to this (but this is not astonishing, because there a few regular contributors
at all) and no real concerns against it. Reasons for the deactivating are, that
we have no expertise on legal issues regarding images so we couldn't sort out
violations of licences effectively if such would occur. Additionally we have
only generated around 100 images in two and a halv years of existence of which
I already deleted 50, because they were duplicates of images which are now on
Commons. So it seems better, when users of nds.wikipedia esteem the Commons as
their main image repository.

Thanks
Slomox
Admin on nds.wikipedia

[1] http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ik_bruuk_H%C3%BClp#Hoochladen


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> The answer for AfD:
>
> Get rid of it. Allow anyone to delete articles. Anyone who tries to create
> an article or clicks on a link to a deleted article will get the
> notification that previously deleted entries exist (the message that admins
> get for deleted articles). Allow anyone to view and restore those edits.
>
> That is, because deletion is now non-destructive (i.e., reversible), there's
> no need to restrict the power -- or the power to restore. The rules about
> edit wars and reversions apply as normal.
>
The rules about edit wars don't work very well (and since when was
image deletion reversible?). I'm sure you can find all the other
objections to pure wiki deletion if you look around a bit.

> Only exception: copyright infringement/illegal content. Those go through the
> AfD process, are hard-deleted. That's it.

If we are going to have to start takeing copyvios through AFD we are
in real trouble

--
geni


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Pure Wiki Deletion

body:
Bjorn,

My experience is the opposite. I frequently edit pages nominated for
deletion explaining their notability, expanding them, cleaning them up and
provided sources.

Saving such articles on "Articles for Deletion" and noting you have made
done so is by far the most effective method of ensuring the retention of an
article. If a majority of people have voted to delete it based on the
original substandard article, I leave messages on their talk page advising
them that the article has been changed and asking them politely to have a
fresh look at the article.

The outcome of doing this has always been that the article has been retained
in much better shape. People vote to delete articles generally because the
article has problems with verification, notability and presentation.

Fixing these problems changes their mind about the merits of an article.

Regards.

Keith

Keith
User:Capitalistroadster

On 10/27/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You ever seen a long running edit conflic where neither side with
> > compramise? I have. they generaly end in one side or the other
> > implodeing. You know who wins such conflicts? Not the side that was
> > right or even the side with more people on. No it is the side which
> > has the greater wiki warfare skills. The ones who know how to play the
> > politics and their oponents emotions. The ones who have no problem
> > with fighting a battle for months at a time. The ones who know how to
> > play the intensity of the conflict so as to maxism stress on thier
> > oponent.
>
> That is a completely made up scenario. Edit wars last because the
> status quo remain unchanged. When page blankings become the new
> deletion system, it becomes easier to resolve the standstill.
>
> Most articles nominated for deletion are about something that the
> nominator didn't think was "notable." But the nominator is usually not
> an expert on the subject and usually has added anything to the
> article. The article is also usually very small. Since most people
> think it is a complete waste of time (I'm guessing here) to edit an
> article that will be deleted, they will refrain from it. The only
> reason to edit the article is if you think that your edits will make
> it so that the article will not be deleted. But it is much more
> effective to ARGUE on the AFD page why you think that the article
> should be kept. It is also more convenient to write something like
> "Keep. This person has been on the cover of a magazine see [bla bla]"
> than to write the same thing in a Wikipedia article.
>
> That's why sane editors avoid AFD - it turns productive work into
> pointless arguing. Not so with page blanking as deletion. Why? Mostly
> because those who would vote Keep can instead add their arguments as
> facts to the article without threat of it being completely erased. A
> Keep vote becomes productive work.
>
> As a side note, I think with page blanking as deletion, many more
> articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. But that is not such a big
> deal since mistakes can be rectified. Someone who votes delete only
> has to look at the article in its current version and decide for him
> or herself whether he or she thinks it merits for inclusion in
> Wikipedia or not. Someone who votes keep has to go through the page
> history and decide that any revision, despite that someone has voted
> delete on it, should not be excluded from Wikipedia.
>
> --
> mvh Bj?rn
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Previews

references:
<fbad4e140510260816va8e8328u579c332f69fc2e53@mail.gmail.com>	<djokmk$cni$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<djq158$c1$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Andreas Hoerstemeier wrote:
>> A closely related problem is being spontaneously logged out if you didn't
>> select the "remember me" checkbox when you logged in.
>
> Strangely, this only happened in the Thai wikipedia yesterday, while in
> the english one the login was remembered at the same time.

It's not that strange, assuming it is a memcached server problem, the
frequency of the problem would depend on which server your session ID is on,
and you have a different session ID for th and en. That's why logging out
and logging back in helps: you get a different session ID, hopefully on a
different server.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Fastfission wrote:

> Obviously anything "can" be improved. But when articles hit a state
> where most of their edits are incremental additions of misc.
> information, rather than real contributions of encyclopedic content, I
> think it's worth asking whether or not that's helping anything.
>
I am reminded of a comment that Ward Cunningham who invented the
Wikiwiki software, is alleged to have said to Jimbo, way back when
Wikipedia was but a few weeks old. He observed that a Wiki is
nothing more than an ongoing conversation (kinda like what happens
between academics with their specialized journals & conferences),
but which never can be brought to an end -- unlike anything written
for publication.

The continuing arguments around VfD/AfD suggests that some of the
community does not understand -- or believe -- that there is a goal
to this project, a place where our Wiki will eventually end. I suspect
that FF has found another end point to our Wiki.

Geoff


from_name: Han Dao

subject: [WikiEN-l] More at the Register

body:
I wonder if this aritcle is marked as editoral. It feel so negative! The
wikipedia community is not stucked into idealogy, they are trying to address
quality problems like AfD, systemwide crap articles, etc.
On 10/27/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/
> >
> >I sent a lengthy message, which Mr Orlowski represented with some
> >creativity, and the version run almost reflects things I said. I
> >strongly suggest that anyone answering one of Mr Orlowski's articles
> >in future also sends a copy to the editor directly:
> >http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_the_reg/?user=joef . I have no
> >idea if it'll make any difference, but at least the editor can't then
> >claim he wasn't aware.
> >
> >
> >- d.
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> Yeah and of course they still put the criticisms on the first page and
> to find the good statements you have to go through a link at the bottom
> of the page to get to the second page. It is and has been for some time
> obviously clear that the register is anti-wikipedia.
>
> -Jtkiefer
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Skyring edit history to date

body:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, David Gerard wrote:

> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
> >He's become a difficult problem, & all of the easy solutions have
> >been tried & shown not to work. And he's gotten to the point
> >where attacking Wikipedia has become his life: calling that
> >"pathetic" doesn't properly do it justice.
>
>
> Skyring's life is denial. If he's in this much denial about being the
> author of his own misfortunes on Wikipedia, he's well practiced in the
> art and will be in denial about lots of things. However, he's actually
> noteworthy enough to get an article (for his work on Bookcrossing -
> he's doing getting a metric shitload of press and media on it of late,
> check his blog, and his past involvements in politics).

I followed your link to his diary on LiveJournal, & it was boring --
punitively boring. (Did I do something that deserved reading that for
all of that time?) I don't blog -- although I've tried -- but I doubt
anything *I* could write would be so banally polyanna. Either the
man happily lives a shallow life, or he is omitting a heckuva lot of
what is actually happening around him. (I heard Isabel Allende once
making an interesting comment about why working class readers prefer
happy but unrealistic fiction over real but grim stories: people who
live a grim life want to read stories that are cheerful & uplifting
to distract them from their grey lives. I thought of her words as
I worked my way thru Skyring's paragraphs of treacle.)

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
That why I recommended that someone to define the notability standard for
webcomics. A webcomic that meet notability shouldn't just relies on Alexa
ranking and google all the time but use it to determine if it seem notable.
If they do not meet the Alexa ranking. Than it time to consult notable
webcomics resources such as the blogger Websnark, magazine like Webcomic
Examiners, and Comixpedia.com <http://Comixpedia.com>. If they are mentioned
at any one of those site, than it must be vaguely notable. One should not
however consult comixpedia.org <http://comixpedia.org> because it allow
everyone'a webcomics thus making it useless to determine notability. Lastly,
consult a trusted wikipedian you knew is a webcomic expert to see if they
consider it notable.

Alexa ranking tend to be extremely inaccurate for determine how popular it
is and google don't tell you the whole story. It is important to do more
research than that in the case of webcomics to see if they are indeed
notable.

On 10/27/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Han Dao wrote:
>
> >The problem is that most webcomics that are added into the encyclopedia
> are
> >usually non-notable. So editors tend to vote delete because most will be
> non
> >notable.
> >
> Well put! Having determined that most webcomics are non-notable, it is
> safe to assume that one need not look at the particular contribution to
> verify that it is non-notable. A rule-abiding decision to delete should
> be disturbed by the introduction of real facts.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimania 2006 : general meeting & getting
	involved

body:
SJ wrote:
> On 10/27/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I completely support your point of view. Especially when I think that we
>>will take decision that will engage the legal liability of the Foundation.
>>
>>It is necessary to play by the rules !
>
>
> I agree with this wholeheartedly.  The financial, legal, and even
> community implications should be considered for everything the
> Foundation does.  This need not be a barrier to people getting
> involved with community projects, or to finalizing a date for
> Wikimania.
>
> ++SJ

Okay, good, I see we are in agreement :-)

Now, legally speaking, I'd definitly prefer you take this page down for
now, until there is an agreement on the use of such a derivative.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/pictures/viewer$1119

I also think that we must absolutely remember that we are not organising
a Wikimedia Foundation/Boston city event, but an event by Wikimedia
Foundation and taking place at Boston. There is a huge difference, and
any common logo should be agreed beforehand. This is both a legal and a
public relation issue Sj.

Ant


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] More at the Register

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/
>
>I sent a lengthy message, which Mr Orlowski represented with some
>creativity, and the version run almost reflects things I said. I
>strongly suggest that anyone answering one of Mr Orlowski's articles
>in future also sends a copy to the editor directly:
>http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_the_reg/?user=joef . I have no
>idea if it'll make any difference, but at least the editor can't then
>claim he wasn't aware.
>
>
>- d.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
Yeah and of course they still put the criticisms on the first page and
to find the good statements you have to go through a link at the bottom
of the page to get to the second page.  It is and has been for some time
obviously clear that the register is anti-wikipedia.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Heinz

subject:
[Commons-l] Why are the Commons not a Library catalog (metacatalog)
 of images found in all WPs?

body:
I wonder, why images have to be uploaded to the commons. Most
wikipedians upload their immages to their 'local' wp. One major reason
is the language, other reasons are national rigths etc.

If i had to make a catalog of all files and images used in WPs
worldwide, i would directly use all wp-databases existing. I would scan
their database an just implement a link to the images to make them
visible. No uploads of images - Just Links.

Further i would also implement some kind of multilanguage-feature.
Images are not 'common', when you have to learn a language before. So i
would import the image discription where the image comes from and update
it. Aditionally descriptions in other languages should be possible

justai


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

> Well to add some seriousness do the RfA (someone else has moved the
> really
> blatent joke votes off the page) I am seeing what happens if I try to
> get
> him to improve the article. Possibly cruel and unusual punishment, but I
> suspect that he might be more pleased if I change my oppose vote than
> with
> the votes of the legions of fans.
>
> Justinc

I'd strongly urge against it since doing so would be pointless not to
mention disruptive.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA concern

body:
On 27 Oct 2005, at 18:16, Puddl Duk wrote:
>>
>> A substantial fraction of our admins are largely worthless at writing
>> articles.  In fact, there's a good argument for the position that
>> people who can write articles should not be admins: we need them
>> writing articles, not running around breaking up fights.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>
> The old phrase "it takes all kinds" comes to mind. Just as some people
> aren't good at writing, others aren't good at interaction. But we
> really need both these, and many other qualities in administrators and
> editors alike.

Well to add some seriousness do the RfA (someone else has moved the
really
blatent joke votes off the page) I am seeing what happens if I try to
get
him to improve the article. Possibly cruel and unusual punishment, but I
suspect that he might be more pleased if I change my oppose vote than
with
the votes of the legions of fans.

Justinc


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guardian article about Wikipedia

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 10/25/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the
>>managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia
>>(so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the
>>interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).
>>
>>That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the
>>real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.
>>
>>
>The guy looking at the entry on TS Eliot was critical because it
>didn't list his book in the bibliography. I think that's certainly an
>unfair criticism.
>
>
I think his comments were a little tongue-in-cheek.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which
>> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of
>> knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
>>
>> At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed,
>> particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor
>> rated at 0/10.
>>
>> Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]]
>> article at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might
>> well be worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by
>> improving the quality of this article, and backing up its statement
>> with solid cites. Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own
>> fabulousness might be a useful first step.
>>
>> The other article ratings were:
>>
>> [[Steve Reich]] 7/10
>> [[Basque people]] 7/10
>> [[TS Eliot]] 6/10
>> [[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10
>> [[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
>>
>> A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of
>> the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious
>> about the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the
>> article ;-)
>
>
> One distinctive feature of Wikipedia is the ability to self-correct.
> A simple issue like the Wheatley/Wheatly spelling in the Pepys article
> can be checked, and if need be corrected, very quickly.  What would be
> more interesting would be to have these same critics review the same
> articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken place
> as a result of their criticism.
>
> Ec

As I also posted in another thread roughly on this topic, although we
should be concerned whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy we shouldn't
get ourselves too concerned about the register's "articles" about
Wikipedia since every single article is clearly biased against wikipedia
beyond factuality so the register slamming us with criticism is just
business as usual.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Michael Turley wrote:
<snip>
> I simply cannot imagine a plausible end to this nonsense at this time.
>

I can. Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2C057MAAH8MeUlWAQjsVwgAg6oxkGOMAutIQxl/serL+U8kWg9HJ6Xr
68DzA1TY7WC4FKbaCKhYBAPO67EbpOiwRmy9gqHPWF+Fkc1c2Gc+SAoN9z1nUV+f
ASGg2vvjjz8wdvUYdYjg+X0441t7jVF0Z3dDrHBufC3N2MkE6DR8svAgqKn89zMf
cGXugPC0MVfkeVwxM0yh4UKXdYZrHiONXS4WimtSWexYdRF2v49rPjpf59YC6vhB
4Wa3JNSmBezjC7gKrb8hOD9B5cOfYVJiCL1HcAWXyKqFZQa62nNcb1mYnDtmNzS3
kTwYdxNDtd8dxwOY0zFylDoSCCSAloSDImDnyqhyEVuMTkV9pui9Nw==
=2Yu+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> Today's VFD zen: the first twelve of fifteen entries on this days page
>> are nominated simply as "NN, D. ~~~~" (and there's more after that). I
>> swear this becomes self-parody sometimes...
>>
>>
> Just voted blanket "keep" on all of them, and am awaiting the inevitable
> accusation of WP:POINT. Nevermind that I probably spent more effort on
> my votes than the nominator did....
>

I'm sure that some nice person has written a script by which all they
have to do is click a link/press a button and it will automatically
votet "keep/delete" for them...

(I hereby claim copyright/patent/whatever on this idea and am willing to
write such a function in exchange for a position on Arbcom.)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2C09bMAAH8MeUlWAQgaEwf/cLvXEUowuBZLodXMjJnQ/E6PhAuaDEJ3
lG1N4zolQF7MWHfB9G+24IgHfQG1tasVZMECQRCLP8QgdJV5vyZSPZT23+hu51zE
t5XAgIoqgz4d5APD8u5xHpGaLZFUqCBBBn+WFxMZbLXpZhU549eDjnnBVGJTD8ku
0QHZnHlBc1O3cA57QcU2Ba5mEvumam85Rl/yNQ4cp8QbnKmytVfyWrZRzDxDLNks
JztJVOkkHDHHYGMaKkyXWeryLMntFb9oTpBCuRHtaxNAd+XHEq8TfE+1+xgKw/Zn
/DecKSEggwtiaoY5gqfOXspGy14BNemusOKYYA0WrRvCPp7ROAtB/g==
=Shv8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Justin Cormack wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2005, at 05:06, geni wrote:
>
>>
>> No it shoulds be dissregarded because WP:POINT. I take it you conceed
>> that the nominator did in fact take more effort to nominate than you
>> did to vote.
>
>
> The nominator is just wasting everyones time. In one case the article is
> a joke (Mattism), but was listed as "NN D". This is not helpful,
> especially
> as it means that everyone who wants to vote has to do the research  rather
> than the nominator. One of the articles was part of a series, so
> nominating
> it alone was stupid (I think he did it as it had school in the name).
>
> The amount of time wasted makes this tantamount to vandalism and I think
> blocking the user from VfD would be a suitable response.
>

I invite you to join [[WP:RFC/AfD]]. Yes, that's a valid shortcut. Yes,
the targets are probably wrong, so I invite you to add more on a case-by
case basis.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2C1z7MAAH8MeUlWAQh7vQf/aGB63eRkTWhtfmzyGFgmPpGiojCMf8CY
El1sF/2ckD0FqWtpku/fjXRR/4+FcrdMFNjhRZLHrHfHYihKMof33MhHQotsH5kA
Ia3jd13VMAcbDIddnwDG/TeiWNaLgLoaRrv1nkrymWvYNMlUdnKw5V+OOl4IyAc6
IFpNjmjiy7nvtXElMAo0KEYoGdzTYGAo1zKE/rAjDkuht92rYRPQOal6IfN8OyKU
uNud7ix12Iby7ObpuzNYOFSvYh/br4UAaUdVxkcZ2MVN4KVC4gq2AWVt4JZoEIpn
qbPLBYNsaYXX2oagom6YoO1VjFuIrDZyVrtb/H5cb9Mrl2ij/gNHCA==
=xieJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How do I edit a page from inside China?

references:
<e5e6e5cc0510250747o4e021cc7qd673cb6dedfa6f3d@mail.gmail.com>	<djm7si$v7h$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<435F3CA2.5070104@gmail.com>
	<98dd099a0510262247pbe9503cj4edc95b8cb38b3b0@mail.gmail.com>

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Fastfission wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Isn't Tor back-tracable by timing attack in China due to the size of the
>>network, making any "anonymity" useless?
>
>
> I think he's less concerned with anonymity than he is about getting
> around the Great Firewall and being able to edit Wikipedia. If he's
> worried about prosecution, well, that's his own fear and he should be
> aware of what is or what is not legally/technically possible. Anyway,
> that's an issue for Tor and him to worry about, not us.
>

Hehe, the Great Firewall of China. Remind me to put that on Uncyclopedia :)

> There are a host of reasonably simple technological solutions which
> could mitigate most of this (i.e. allowing users with reasonable edit
> histories to edit from tor accounts) but as Jimbo said all of that
> means very little unless we sit down and hack out the code for it.
>

I like that proposal. I also like the idea of getting more developers,
even if it means training them ourselves. (Hrm, can someone write a
Wikibook on Mediawiki?)

> On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Looking at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550 , the
>>problem isn't having the code to hand - we have code patches on hand
>>for lots of possible options. The problem is deciding what is actually
>>a good idea socially. What's an obviously elegant solution to the
>>problem? If there isn't one, what compromise would make things better
>>rather than worse?
>
>
> I took a look at it briefly and it seemed to be 80% of the people
> saying, "This might be a good option to have in some circumstances"
> and another 20% saying "I dunno, vandals might be able to still abuse
> it!" Personally, I think it looks like an instance of the perfect
> trumping the good.
>

Damn, where on en.wp do I vote for that?? I voted for it on buzilla ages
ago.

> If the code is there to do the "block certain IPs from allowing anon
> edits but not from account creation" trick, why not just turn it on?
> If all hell breaks loose we can turn it off again. We don't have to
> get it perfect on the first try, do we? Whatever happens, the
> experience would definitely inform future discussion and speculation
> about these sorts of things.
>

Agreed. Excellent idea. Turn it on and see what happens.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2C3HbMAAH8MeUlWAQjl9gf+ItzqITTCumG760UcZE0tgUgB7q5wVGCR
efZbQoAeThADDSZhULmiuQzbarb38bZOCxnJ2WVLR5h2Jfr/f0W7okMFC2SonbJX
Xh7lJn0x3gK25ayNF7H46qCcp559FlZyWfyTQ5ucANGrW1cphQHQIuhib2mLCcr8
BfxVAeQDtKz7NRawEnmbC8dsSRXtOvbmztZVaA2z7Dicv29Fn8IrkuRJARhVi69E
DzFqQSaFSnSkc6DADHgjt40xnXcdWDiPbFDB9OJz9YNS+3tvPg+Tkxhz5ZhPkd4/
DCuCaz2hGIPfSDAftoAAEfo//atsBd1ovR+TakG57uaab9dQStgBXw==
=MMtc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: SAM

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Change Navigation Sidebar in Non-English Media Wiki
	Installations

body:
I am trying to change the navigation sidebar in a Media Wiki 1.5
environment installed with Romanian as default language. I tried editing
the MediaWiki:Sidebar page, which did come up, but the change does not
show up in the interface. Do I need to address a Romanian-specific
namespace (and if yes, what is that?) or do I have to mess up with the
php files?

thanks a lot.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and
> > doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus.
> > --Mgm
>
>  Why is it that we don't have deletion wars among admins?

We do.

> You can argue it's
> because admins are better than that, or you can argue that it's because
> admins know they'd be deadminned if they did such a thing. But either
> argument could apply to any editor. We don't have to allow editors to get
> into deletion wars.

The reason they are rare is there are fairly strong rules in place
over what an admin can delete and when.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Page freezing on "good" articles

body:
On 27 Oct 2005, at 17:16, Fastfission wrote:
> In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for
> Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the
> opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby
> people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article
> was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This
> article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit
> it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of
> "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA
> which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review,
> no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out
> (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those
> who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which
> would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a
> talk page.

Show me an article so good that it cant be improved.

And reverting can be used to do this if you really want.

Justinc


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> There are still numerous issues with this validation feature, both
> internal and external, I've pointed some of these out in the past.
>
> 1. The UI sucks
>
The text is changeable through the normal MediaWiki way. The colors etc.
are CSS.
> When you turn on this feature, go to a random page and click the
> "validate" tab you're presented with this:
> http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/revisions.png
>
Well, apart from the black buttons, which seem to come from your
personal settings (?), you haven't define any topics to validate/rate,
which makes it kind of hard to display a list of these...
See:
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/rate1.png
for how it would look like (again, color is CSS).
> A form that, excuse me for saying so, looks like shit, and furthermore
> makes no sense at all, if you follow the 'See the validation
> statistics for "Main Page" here' link you're presented with this:
> http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/validation.png
>
Again, no topics defined. No topics, no ratings. Of course the page
looks rather plain.
> Again, something that makes no sense at all, and it doesn't get any
> better when you follow the 'Show my validations' link, then you're
> presented with this:
> http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~avar/tmp/overview.png
> ...and those numbers are supposed to mean..?
>
Again...
> And it doesn't get any better, in fact, I've been fiddling with this
> thing for 20 minutes and still haven't figured out how to make it do
> *anything at all*, it says things like "Your ratings have been
> stored!" and yet it saves nothing to the validate table.
>
> 2. It's impossible to fully translate the UI
> Please use wfMsg() for every string that should be translated, don't
> hardcode messages in the code.
>
Is it, keeping up the high quality of your review, in any way possible
that you didn't use the latest version? Because that *does* use wfMsg
throughout.
The latest version is in CVS HEAD; copying it back to the 1.5 tree
should do nicely.
> 3. It's going to be slow
>
> Here are some examples, with line numbers, of it making queries with
> no LIMIT claues where the set of return values could get very large:
>
> 82                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', array(
> 'val_page' => 0 ), 'SpecialValidate::getTopicList' );
>
You omitted:
# NOTE : This query returns only the topics to vote on
So, if there are, say, fifteen topics defined, it returns fifteen
entries. This will, of cource, clearly overload our 100+ servers.
> 225                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', array_merge(
> array( 'val_page' => $id ), $this->identifyUser($user) ) );
>
You omitted:
        # NOTE : This query gets the votes for a single user on a single
page.
        # Assuming most people will use the "merge" feature,
        # this will be only a single entry.

> $limit here is a user supplied value with no upper limit enforced:
> 245                 $b = array ( "ORDER BY" => "val_page,val_revision"
> , "OFFSET" => $offset , "LIMIT" => $limit ) ;
> 246                 $res = $db->select( 'validate', '*', $a ,
> 'getAllVotesList' , $b );
>
You omitted:
    # Reads a partial vote list for this user for all articles

Yes, that one could become potentially large over time, except for the
LIMIT you quoted yourself. The default call (line 747) sets the limit to 25.

So, if we could please go back to the state of the feature *right now*,
which is basically the same as *before WikiMania*. If there's anything
to complain about, please tell me or (shock!) take a minute and fix it.
It's supposed to be a collaborative effort, though this long demanded
feature sure as hell hasn't see its share of it.

Magnus (state: slightly annoyed)


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>The continuing arguments around VfD/AfD suggests that some of the
>community does not understand -- or believe -- that there is a goal
>to this project, a place where our Wiki will eventually end. I suspect
>that FF has found another end point to our Wiki.
>
>
Britannica has been editing and rewriting and adding to their
encyclopedia for two hundred and thirty-seven years now, with no sign
that they're planning to stop changing stuff and publish the "Final
Encyclopedia" any time soon. Why do you think Wikipedia is likely to
start reaching an "endpoint" any time in the forseeable future? I think
a version-rating method is probably vital in the near future to prevent
our best articles from backsliding, we've become good enough in many
areas that IMO this is a real concern. But we're nowhere near "done,"
and since the corpus of human knowledge is itself constantly changing I
doubt we ever will be.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] The answer for AfD

body:
On 10/27/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> > The answer for AfD:
> >
> > Get rid of it. Allow anyone to delete articles. Anyone who tries to create
> > an article or clicks on a link to a deleted article will get the
> > notification that previously deleted entries exist (the message that admins
> > get for deleted articles). Allow anyone to view and restore those edits.
> >
> > That is, because deletion is now non-destructive (i.e., reversible), there's
> > no need to restrict the power -- or the power to restore. The rules about
> > edit wars and reversions apply as normal.
Allowing anyone to delete articles will encourage deletion wars and
doesn't help at all to establish discussion let alone concensus.
--Mgm


body:
On 10/27/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alphax wrote:
>
> >
> > I've said it before, I'll say it again:
> >
> > Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
> >
> > Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way
> > around.
>
> Naturally. But that isn't an answer to the point I was making. If
> someone wants to say that "PWD is terrible because there would be edit
> wars" they have to explain why deletion edit wars would be any more
> horrible than content or vandalism edit wars. We can handle the last
> two well enough; what's wrong with the first? It just doesn't explain
> the basis for the judgment that deletion ought to be treated
> differently from other edits.
>
> Ryan
Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly
unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them,
but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?

--Mgm


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 205

body:
On 10/27/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >As the Board have been rather slow with publicising the new privacy
> >policy,
>
> What new privacy policy? Is there a new one?

The privacy policy is at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy but it's not new.
It's been on the Foundation wiki since April, and isn't too different
to Brion's draft in early 2003
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&oldid=8692>).

Angela.


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Can you trust Wikipedia?"

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

>What would be more interesting would be to have these same critics review
>the same articles a month later to comment on the changes that have taken
>place as a result of their criticism.

Only one of them saw the potential of hypertext (Julius).  I don't suppose
you'd get more interest  in the adaptive ability of wiki.  Doesn't matter
much.

Charles


from_name: Tom Cadden

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ironies

body:
Cunc is correct. The template as words is utterly
appalling.

Thom

--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:

> There's something painfully ironic about the
> Cleanup-priority template. Its
> text is ungrammatical and awkward:
>
> "This topic is considered a necessary subject on
> Wikipedia, and there is a
> high-priority on its being cleaned up to conform to
> a higher standard of
> quality. See How to Edit and Style and How-to for
> help, or this article's
> talk page."
>
> "There is a high-priority"? Does *anyone* know the
> rules of English grammar
> any more?
>
> I don't even know where to start with improving it.
>
> The whole idea of edit-comment templates is
> wrongheaded, anyway.
>
> Is there some way to hide them? They're maddening.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] I've said it before, I'll say it again...

body:
On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 10/27/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure we can deal with vandalism and edit wars, but those are nearly
> > > unavoidable. Deletion wars can be avoided. Sure we can deal with them,
> > > but why create them if they're avoidable in the first place?
> > >
> > > --Mgm
> >
> > How can deletion wars be avoided? Through page protection? Page
> protection
> > is available whether we use wiki deletion or the current deletion
> system. I
> > don't see the difference.
>
> The difference is that without PWD we have virtually no deletion wars.

What do you call it when the same article gets recreated and deleted over
and over again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protected_deleted_pages

It would create an aditional problem while we should be addressing
> people's attitudes instead of the process.
>
> --Mgm

You assert that it would create an additional problem. But that doesn't mean
it would.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Pure Wiki Deletion

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ryan Delaney wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>
>>>Delete is different from other dissputes in that the result is rather
>>>binary (there is also the issue that if I started doing PWD on low
>>>profile articles it would be much harder to pick up.
>>>
>>>I do not want to get into more edit dissputes that last for months.
>
>
> Well, every edit is binary. Either it stays or it doesn't.

I have to disagree. There is such a thing as compromise.

However, the thickhead edit warriors are convinced that they are RIGHT
and everyone else is WRONG.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2DHQbMAAH8MeUlWAQj6Vwf9GPmP6WrBISEPHHhu/Vivn6Mu8F7W516z
CAPpWtULVdBuWvN5v/8ycehY/nmRUm7H7sLgxQJ2bTA4Dz2F2oTecywGYSTzhyp7
UUAE5lZjs50s8BKApAaCJZN8jGQE85jeUTESSS6i6XthpEX1EDgbW/r03kg/C+42
y/+x33DGQVEZFe6q+ljNIAVZEEnz8SER9fp4diZ7HHFhi0hGaiAkG1JIDzhxXRQJ
qndWp7En9GUgmg9SMXM7o4IzGhe5bwnU8uH3XIU+hm5xiyHtloaJdlj6CDCH55x9
qkFfnzAZ5Kgr6wgXUc5+H7PQG/fioh2SHbr8SvHJkPfgTj6+Xw0Lvw==
=umGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----