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

body:
Molu,

> If there's something an admin wouldn't be doing if he knew he would
> be accountable for doing it, then he shouldn't be doing it anyway. If
> you are prepared to take an action only in the knowledge that you
> have nothing to lose if you are found to be wrong, then you are
> reasonably certain that you are in fact wrong in which case your
> actions are the most obvious abuse of power.

Define "accountable".  Deleting a copyright violation is not an abuse of
power, but I have seen users claim that it is (one particularly strident
offender explained that, although he had not studied copyright, as a Law
student he was allowed to declare direct copy and paste of entire
articles from other sources as "fair use", and nobody could argue
differently).

Administrators are accountable to each other, to ArbCom, to Jimbo, and
to common sense.  An administrator should not act inappropriately, and
if he does, he should be held accountable.  However, an administrator
should not be afraid to perform a necessary but unpopular action.  There
is a very vocal, ignorant minority on Wikipedia in favour of just
ignoring copyright law and stealing what they want ... this minority is
easily powerful enough to sink someone's adminship out of sheer
vindictiveness.  Admins should be held to account for *inappropriate*
actions, not *unpopular but necessary* ones.  Your system makes no such
distinction; it's pure madness to punish an admin for doing a good job
--- and it deprives Wikipedia of an excellent volunteer.

> Tenured professors don't provide a valid analogy in this case,
> Supreme Court justices are more likely and not all think appointing
> them for life is a good idea. Our justice system is far from perfect,
> there is no need to take it as model in Wikipedia.

Whose justice system?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re : sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
On 5/29/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean
> it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at
> once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and
> control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work
> where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an
> environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more
> database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might
> well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free
> editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as
> necessary.

Largely true, however, one should never underestimate the advantages
of even the simple technology we have. We take the ability to edit and
improve the description of an image on Commons for granted, but that
is something you only get from a wiki-like system. Similarly, at least
some degree of consistency within our taxonomy can be maintained
because people can add/remove categories as they please. Compare
Flickr's tags, where keywords are rarely consistent across images of
the same type.

As for Wikisource, I continue to hold that one of its great promises
are free translations of public domain texts, and this is where wiki
becomes quickly indispensable.

Erik


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] How to edit the bookshop list?

body:
Hi!

>Edit [[Wikipedia:Andoa trov? dij l?ber]] (which is defined in
>[[MediaWiki:Booksources]]), and use MAGICNUMBER in place of ISBN; see
>e.g. [[en:Wikipedia:Book sources]].

I do not get any edit link on the special page. The only access I seem to
get is about the title (from system messages), which I already translated.
But I do not see the list anywhere.

B?rto


list: wikien-l

from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia : protection, death, transubstantiation

body:
Protection is a hack.  When it was first implemented in early 2003, it
was noted as such; from the start, there has been the idea of
improving on protection by "reduc[ing] the requirements for sysop
intervention for useful things to happen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages&oldid=787186

Wikis are designed to be editable; the ideal wiki is as open to
incoming content as possible -- a metric of a wikis success at
wiki-nature might be how long it takes first-time contributors to make
typical edits, and how long it takes them to get/see feedback.

"Open to incoming content"  isn't the same as "open to changes in what
everyone else sees as outgoing content".  We should strive to increase
our openness to inboud content, even as we tighten quality controls on
outbound content.  Articles for Creation is an even worse hack than
protection, and regularly fails silently and completely [the user
never comes back, or thinks their work is lost; their work *is* lost].

Semi-protection is also a hack.  One way to make these protection
hacks work more effectively is to recognize that they are *not* the
desired solution, but a quick way to implement something close.
Protection is a 'reasonable' hack because anyone can still edit the
talk page, leave comments for page-contributors on *their* talk pages,
&c.  New editors don't know any of this.  Old editors and vandals
don't need to be told what protection's all about.

Suggestions for improving these hacks through more information :
* make protection templates very short and inobtrusive; not in the
header, to maintain a clean interface : most readers don't need to
know about them (an NPOV or Disputed template can be placed there if
needed, that's separate.  If an article's being protected just b/c it
was on slashdot, that's different).
* keep the "edit" button for protected pages.  add a little icon in
that tab if needed, to denote the protected nature.  Offer a message
on editing, varying by protection type, explaining briefly why the
protection, and where to post edits and suggestions (the talk page),
with a link to a longer explanation of who can edit where, how to
request unprotection, how to ask for help, &c.
* update the "this page is protected from editing" message one gets
when viewing the source of a protected page.  make it friendlier,
again linking to where one *can* suggest changes and explaining this
in postive rather than negative terms.
* make it more clear than it is now who applied protection when, and
what their protection-summary was.  pull this information into the
notices listed above.

-- SJ


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
On 5/30/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
> > Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices
> > (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking
> > policy.
>
> Not quite true. Other than new editors no warning is required for a 3RR block.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

That's why I block 31 and not 24 hours without warnings (chuckle)

The policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
doens't say you must warn an user, however.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
Joe Anderson wrote:

>[[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states:
>
>Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
>Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
>
>
>>Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).
>>
>>
>
>
>On his userpage he claims
>
>  I'm General and future president Eisenhower.
>
>
>I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
>started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&diff=55756520&oldid=55755552>however.
>
>According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?
>
>Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
>Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> ? ( at war
>or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
>15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
>
>He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
>here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly
>make a namechange compulsory.
>
>Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
>slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the
>main namespace), which makes it harder.
>
>
>
The policy Eisenhower is in violation of was added less than a week ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsername&diff=54486848&oldid=54300648

Personally I think the change is stupid. We have to distinguish between
dead and living figures; we don't want living figures to have accounts
named after them because there is real risk for confusion. However,
there is no risk whatsoever of confusing our Eisenhower with the former
President Ike, whatever he may say on his userpage. I recommend not
forcing Eisenhower to change his username, and removing the silly change
to policy.

John


list: wikitech-l

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikitech-l] Creation of new wikis

body:
Hoi,
Indeed also min-nan has its ISO-639-3 code: nan. And when we want to
do things right, we should not call Chinese Chinese but Mandarin and
use its code cmn instead. The zh and zho code are now considered to be
a macro language .... the question is do we dare to bite that bullet.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 5/30/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I specified "wuu" on the initial request; I don't know if maybe
> someone has changed that, but it definitely should be "wuu".
>
> In the future, zh-yue should probably be moved to yue:
>
> Mark
>
> On 30/05/06, Arbeo M <arbeo.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/30/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Would it not make better sense to have a wuu in stead of a zh-wuu? In
> > > ISO-639-3 wuu IS a language so there is no need to suggest that Wuu is
> > > second to Mandarin.
> >
> >
> > I've noticed that, too. The main reason why I specified "zh-wuu"
> > was consistency with the existing "zh-min-nan" ("Taiwanese") and "zh-yue"
> > (Cantonese) Wikipedias. Apart from that I fully agree with you that an
> > individual three-letter code, where available, is to be preferred. I for one
> > have no objections against picking "wuu".
> >
> > Arbeo
> >
> > P. S. Sorry, I misspelled the domain name for the Min Nan (Taiwanese)
> > Wikisource. It should read zh-min-nan.wikisource.org, of course.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 5/29/06, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
> Indeed. I have grave doubts that a confirmation system would be anything
> other than absolutely disasterous, at least in the short term, to the
> wikilove principle in favour of which it's apparently being proposed
> (let alone the actual practical functioning of the site).

I doubt I'd survive any sort of reconfirmation vote.  Then again, that
might work out well in the long run, since I think the owners of
Wikipedia would rather that I were an admin.....

Kellyt


from_name: Redvers @ the Wikipedia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe

body:
From: Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven
death of Wikipedia

> If you are unpopular, then you are doing something
> wrong.

People who whine on about admins and admin abuse
broadly seem to fall into two categories. Either
they're people with an agenda (or a model for the
'pedia that the majority don't support) to push or
they're admin-wannabies who see the post as some sort
of reward and want it for themselves and are
frustrated they don't think they'll get it.

Interestingly, people who criticise Jimbo fall into
similar categories - either they have an agenda to
push or they think they can do a better job of being
figurehead and are frustrated they won't get it.

It's interesting to watch these people in action.
Again, they split into two categories. They're either
the ones demanding someone be de-sysoped for using
her/his judgement, or they're quoting (or misquoting)
rules back to admins and demanding someone be
de-sysoped for not using her/his judgement.

They can be found complaining about articles being
deleted and articles not being deleted. About what
admins said and what admins didn't say. About admins
WP:IARing and admins not WP:IARing. About how admins
are inconsistent and how we all act as a hive.

They can be found picking over every letter of an
admin's post looking for a tiny violation of a rule
and screaming that an admin has dinged them for
breaking a rule that suddenly doesn't apply to them.

You can find them, begging your pardon, MSK, screaming
about userboxen rights and unilaterally changing the
graphic in a userbox because they don't agree it
represents certain users, of which they are not one,
correctly (cf {{User Socialist}}).

They are likely to be found nominating themselves for
admin after 50 edits and being appalled when they are
(usually quite nicely) told to come back later and
carrying userboxen that say "this user doesn't want to
be an admin". They are to be found demanding higher
quality admins but voting "oppose" to all candidates
regardless and to be ignoring RfA completely and then
feeling affronted that they weren't personally
consulted before someone was given extra buttons. They
are to be found demanding penalties for admins'
miniscule transgressing of rules and forgiveness for
their (minor, non-, not really, it doesn't count)
vandalism and POV pushing. They say a wheel war means
a permanent ban for admins, but a revert war between
them and others means that admins have abandoned them
and they were right anyway.

They are to be found spending all evening watching one
admin's edits and crying "stalker" if an admin
nominates two articles by the same person for deletion
in the same month. They are to be found demanding
complete anonymity and trying to tear the shreds of
anonymity away from others. They want every admin
action to be reviewed but their own actions ignored or
buried. They want others to do all the work and want
articles reserved for them only to edit.

What amazes me is how these people can represent
either or both of these views depending on what they
feel will get them an advantage that moment. How they
can dismiss Wikipedia as meaningless, then spend hours
on a bloody forum devoted to how meaningless Wikipedia
is. How they can demand perfection at all times from
admins whilst demanding everyone ignore their own
failings.

How they are completely unable to get the hint that
their complete inability to fit into a community that
celebrates diversity and eccentricity is indicative of
a problem /they/ have, not a problem that Wikipedia
has. How they had the choice of contributing to an
open free encyclopedia or a UBB forum for nutjobs with
an agenda, and they chose the latter *because they
didn't fit in to the open encyclopedia*.

Above all, I remain gobsmacked how these people can
fail to get anywhere in a community, fail to make
friends, fail to write articles that prosper, fail to
be trusted by the community with two extra buttons,
fail to make anything of their freely-given time on
Wikipedia other than to be banned, bemoaned or
generally be wished away by their fellow editors, how
they can go through all of this and *still* use
sockpuppets to try to contribute, subscribe to the
mailing lists, visit IRC and generally hang about like
a bad smell rather than doing what rational people
would do and find another bloody hobby! One day,
Wikipedia may eclipse the internet. Until then, there
are some 3 billion other places to waste others' time
that they could be checking out.

If nothing else, don't they realise that they're
driving admins to cabal, that they're creating more
people who agree with the status quo, that they are
having *exactly* the opposite affect to the one they
seem to want?

And don't get me started on the actions of
[[User:WR-Recruiter]] and the like, busy writing to
the total mentalists, the tiny unstable minority who
detonate when asked their opinion or find themselves
disagreed with on an obscure talk page. If they're
actively recruiting from that particular gene pool,
it's no wonder they attract stalkers, shitbags and
specials.

The company you keep often tells more about you than
you do yourself, I find.

-> REDVERS

___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Selina . wrote:
>
> If people feel unable to read or contribute to a project that has things
> that don't agree with the theology of their own personal religion, they're
> not suitable for working on ANY secular project.

Agree

> Having things critical of religion on Wikipedia is not the same as "
> "foreign" faiths or cultures aren't welcome" at all.

Agree

> If people simply cannot cope and have a temper tantrum when they see
> anything in their religion criticised (ala. the Mohammed cartoons), maybe
> they should set up a strictly religious Wiki where the thin-skinned and
> reactionary can "safely" contribute.

I wonder how you can expect people not to feel at least irritated,
if their religion gets criticized. Calling them reactionary is the
kind of arrogance, which unnecessarily heats up the debate.

I strongly disagree, that the Mohammed cartoons are merely
a critique on Islam. Instead they consist of mockery on Mohammed,
an insult (one of the cartoons states: "Prophet, you crazy bloke!")
and insinuate Mohammed an his followers to be terrorists.

You might prefer only unreligious people to contribute to Wikipedia,
but that would result in a big loss too, since religious topics
wouldn't be covered a quarter as good. Furthermore is it especially
bad to write a one-sided article on a controversy.

Yes, critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia,
but WP:NPOV does not mean to call those who disagree vandals
and block them, if they deem the "critique" a respectless
insult and remove it. This is what I was refering to, when
I wrote "foreign faiths or cultures aren't welcome".

--
Raphael


from_name: Ilya N.

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice
	(Forwarded email)

body:
That's quite interesting...especially when the article is deleted

On 5/29/06, Will Sceptre Noble <tintower at tintower.tk> wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Pce3 at ij.net <pce3 at ij.net>
> Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM
> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
> To: Sceptre <sceptre at tintower.co.uk>
>
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
>
> The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation in
> accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or disable
> access to the web pages listed below:
>
> 1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
> [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
>
> Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
>
> Pce3 at ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
>
> 2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location
> [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information
> location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the
> infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction
>
> 3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
> [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
>
> 3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
>
> 3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk: Harvard
> Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
>
> 4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is
> no
> legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
>
> 4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use of
> the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and
> withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. ? Patrick Eberhart
>
> 5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of
> perjury,
> that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner
> [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
>
> 5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my
> knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. ?Patrick
> Eberhart
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or
> disable access to the material.
>
>
>
>
> --
> -Sceptre
> http://tintower.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> 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. (Now with 2% Juice)
http://ilya.nepfamily.com (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
 a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:

>Will,
>
>   he's not trying to take Wikipedia down at all.
>
>Here's what happened:
>
>1) Patrick wrote a bunch of articles on mathematics and computer
>    science-related topics.  They were quite good, really.
>
>2) One of them was full of original research.  It was taken to AfD, and
>    mocked.
>
Perhaps there should be a way of punishing those who abuse process that
way.  That lack of civility is every bit as serious as breaching
original research rules.

>3) He wasn't very happy about this (gosh, I wonder why?), and declared
>    that we couldn't use a couple of *other* of his articles.  He tried
>    blanking the articles, but was reverted by Tawkerbot.  So then he hit
>    on the idea of a DMCA takedown notice to force us to remove his
>    contributions from our records.
>
It's an interesting approach which opens up a lot of fantastic
opportunities.

>Okay, not the nicest thing or the smartest thing that he could have
>done.  But this is a case of a user we did wrong by, who over-reacted.
>This is generally considered something to be regretted, not an
>opportunity for humour.
>
>He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him
>here, and especially not to republish his full personal details,
>including home address.
>
In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal
details.  It may even be legally required.

One of the requirements of takedown orders is that the alleged infringer
must be notified by the service provider (Section 512(g)(2)(A)).  It
would seem that the practical approach would be to put a copy of the
full takedown order where the article once appeared.  That notice is a
legal document which includes, among other things, the notifier's
identifying details.

There is an open question about just who is the infringer.  Presumably,
it's _everyone_ who participated in editing that page, or at least it
should be for purposes of determining who should receive the notice.  If
they aren't infringers they have a legal complaint that their work was
illegally removed.

Unlike original notifications which require that the person complaining
of copyright infringement must have a personal interest in the material,
there does not appear to be any requirement that a person issuing a
counter notification must have a personal interest.  The law uses the
term "subscriber".  That could mean anyone with a Wikipedia account!
The standard in 512(g)(3)(C) is "A statement under penalty of perjury
that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was
removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the
material to be removed or disabled."  The other requirements relatively
more mechanical.  One does not even need to describe the basis for that
good faith belief, but providing such a description could still go a
long way to resolving the legal issues

I assume that the take down notice under consideration was properly sent
to Michael Davis in his capacity as the registered agent, and that there
was no mistake in that regard.  There are however other arguments that
could establish the required good faith.

A service provider is still protected by a safe harbor if he does not
comply with a substantially deficient notification.  In this case the
notice is deficient in identifying the works that were infringed.  He
merely repeated the titles of the articles, which, oddly enough included
two talk pages.  What this provision should do is identify the truly
original works so that either the service provider or a subscriber can
seek out those works, and with due dilligence determine for himself
whether he believes that an infringement really took place.

If our complainer is through some recursive slight of hand both
contributor and infringer of something that was originally written as a
part of Wikipedia he is in violation of the GFDL.  GFDL makes no sense
unless the licensing is irrevocable in the first place.

Does any Wikipedian living in the United States want to issue a counter
notification giving jurisdiction to the Federal District Court where he
lives?  I could file from outside the US, but I am having a problem
interpreting the phrase "any judicial district in which the service
provider may be found".  For me the most convenient district would be
the one that includes the State of Washington, but it's unclear whether
that choice is available to me.

Ec


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 5/30/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Yes, critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia,
>> but WP:NPOV does not mean to call those who disagree vandals
>> and block them, if they deem the "critique" a respectless
>> insult and remove it. This is what I was refering to, when
>> I wrote "foreign faiths or cultures aren't welcome".
>
> You say "critique on religions should be included in Wikipedia", then
> immediately afterwards say those people that remove it should not be
> called vandals.  Removal of appropriate material is considered
> vandalism, and repeatedly doing so may result in a block.  Do you not
> think it should be so?  I don't really want to get into *this*
> specific debate, I was just a little confused about what you wrote.
> Thanks.

There's a difference between fair, accurate and reasonable critique
and stereotyped hostility. The former should be included, the latter
should be removed. It's not always easy to differenciate between the
two, but you can easily see, that it's the latter, if it is itself
not subject to critique respectively if people who disagree are
blocked before even discussing their issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:148.81.117.224
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:68.173.27.37

--
Raphael


body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On May 29, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> Yes, Wikipedia publishes anti-Semitic cartoons as well, but they
>> are published on the article about "anti-Semitism" resp.
>> "new anti-Semitism". I wouldn't complain about publishing the
>> J-P cartoons on the Islamophobia article.
> Wait a sec.  We are talking about putting the cartoons in an article
> *on the J-P cartoons*, right?  AFAIK, no-one is suggesting the cartoons
> be included in the [[Islam]] article, or even [[2005 Islamic events]]
> (if we have such an article).  So, you think it's utterly wrong to
> include the cartoons in an article * devoted solely to them *, but it
> would be fine to include them in an article on a general subject of
> which they are an (arguable) example?  Does this make any sense to
> anyone else?
>

The article is called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"
and should report about the *controversy* surrounding the cartoons.
How are we supposed to write a neutral report on this controversy,
if we block the editors who feel insulted by the cartoons?

--
Raphael


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
Will,

   he's not trying to take Wikipedia down at all.

Here's what happened:

1) Patrick wrote a bunch of articles on mathematics and computer
    science-related topics.  They were quite good, really.

2) One of them was full of original research.  It was taken to AfD, and
    mocked.

3) He wasn't very happy about this (gosh, I wonder why?), and declared
    that we couldn't use a couple of *other* of his articles.  He tried
    blanking the articles, but was reverted by Tawkerbot.  So then he hit
    on the idea of a DMCA takedown notice to force us to remove his
    contributions from our records.

Okay, not the nicest thing or the smartest thing that he could have
done.  But this is a case of a user we did wrong by, who over-reacted.
This is generally considered something to be regretted, not an
opportunity for humour.

He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him
here, and especially not to republish his full personal details,
including home address.

Please, just *think* a little before you post!

<forwarded message snipped/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
Peter Ansell wrote:

> I dont know how serious this one really is. If he had Dwight
>
>Eisenhower it may be more serious. As it is, it is likely to be more
>disruptive to try to enforce it than it will be to let him keep it.
>
Years of experience around here would support that outlook.
Unfortunately it's in direct conflict with people's right to engage in
pointless argument.

Ec


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote

>* Nick Boalch wrote:
>
>> This is simply not the case. If an admin is acting in the interests of
>> the encyclopaedia then he is doing the right thing, regardless of what
>> the majority of the community thinks.
>
> Good to know.
>
> The other day a fellow named Linuxbeak acted in the interests of the
> encyclopedia (as he saw it). Some people disagreed, but clearly he was
> "doing the right thing" because HE thought so. No need for that silly
> 'consensus' stuff. :]

If admin A is actually acting in WP's interests, then of course that is
fine.  If A is not, but is acting under some delusion, then that is not fine
at all.

The key point here is not whether there is some sort of backing for the
option taken, but whether the action is clear-sighted or otherwise.  I don't
see that the logic has to be smudged here.  Admins are given discretion.  If
they foul it up, they are poor admins and eventually they should have their
mop retired.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
Well, you can see for yourselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465

Titoxd.


subject: [WikiEN-l]  Lovely.

body:
And I really need to get a better mail program.

Titoxd.


from_name: Jeffrey Latham

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:

>Well, you can see for yourselves:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
>did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
>
>Titoxd.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that
[[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on
Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr. Morrow
that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at this
time, but it is a regrettable situation.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] okay (was Re:  Aww, so cute,
 a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice)

body:
G'day Chris,

> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
>> He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him
>> here, and especially not to republish his full personal details,
>> including home address.
>>
>> Please, just *think* a little before you post!
>
> That's a bit rich coming a few hours after you just told Molu his posts
> were annoying and full of nonsense, and demanded he stopped posting to
> the list.

"a bit rich" implies inconsistency.  I assure you both emails are quite
consistent.  They're both a case of someone posting something silly to
this list and me getting snappy about it.

If you'd called me on civility alone, well, you'd have been 100% right.
   While everything I said to Molu was true, it did not, perhaps, need
to be said, and *definitely* did not need to be said in such a tone.
Molu: I am sorry, my post was rude and insulting.  I always aim to be
straightforward, but there is a line between "being straightforward" and
"being a dick" and I crossed it.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
jf_wikipedia at mac.com wrote:
> On May 30, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
>> The article is called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"
>> and should report about the *controversy* surrounding the cartoons.
>> How are we supposed to write a neutral report on this controversy,
>> if we block the editors who feel insulted by the cartoons?
> Raphael,
>
> The blocks may not have been against the editor(s) who felt insulted,
> but against the editors that disrupted the editing process by
> editwarring, violating the 3RR rule, etc. Was not this the case?
>

Take a look yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144

A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it?
At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.

--
Raphael


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
On May 30, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:

> Well, you can see for yourselves:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%
> 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
> did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465

Holy shit. How much will it take before people get up and start
taking these pricks seriously?

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


from_name: Virgil Ierubino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal for the next Wikimarkup

body:
I have made a proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimark2 for
a Wikimarkup v2. I was unsure where to mention that I'd made this proposal.
I am also aware that an update to syntax isn't pertinent or desperately
needed; nevertheless I'd like feedback on the ideas from the community. Like
Wikitax, the proposal can become a non-MediaWiki-integrated language on its
own, or, if there is support, it can indeed be the next base of MediaWiki
wikitext.

Disclaimer! I'm not being a "noob" with funny ideas that disrupt
unnecessarily  -  I would probably have thought that of me if I saw this
post straight-off  -  I've just had what I believe is a good idea for a
MediaWiki syntax which, regardless of status-quo, I thought might be
interesting to some of you. Let me know what you think at my Wikipedia
user:Alfakim.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-31

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 322 of 332 tests (96.99%) FAILED!


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne
> directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone
> books are not valid sources.  That name was the straw man.  Choosing a
> much rarer name may have resulted in the quite different conclusion that
> a phone book is _sometimes_ a valid source.  If among all those Ngs
> there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.  And we
> haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in
> establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.

I did what?

I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.

I gave one.

Now you're just being nasty.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wikitech-l] Hiding titles of pages

body:
You can use CSS to hide the page title in the H1 heading. You can't
hide it in the top of the browser window though.

To hide the H1 heading in the article namespace you can use:

body.ns-0 h1.firstHeading { display: none }

To just hide it in certain articles you might need to use JavaScript
too. You could make some kind of template which places an HTML tag
with a specific ID in the articles you want to hide the title of, then
in the site's global JavaScript file you put a function which looks
for this ID and if it's there it finds the H1 with the class of
firstHeading and set's it's "display" to "none".

Good luck.

Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)

On 5/30/06, Claudi Meneghin <clamengh at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am admin in Lombard wikipedia: we would like to hide the titles of some pages, for matters related to dialect fragmentation of Lombard tongue.
> An exemple of this feature can be found at:
> http://ca.wikipedia.org.
> Unfortunately, I have got no idea about how we could proceed.
> Do you have any suggestions, please?
> Many thanks.
> Sincerely yours,
> Claudi
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface r?volutionnaire.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
http://linguaphile.sf.net


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test

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

For what it's worth,

a) Any attachment nasties from the random virus / worm claiming my name are
stripped automatically.

b) I've now placed my address under moderation for this list. ;)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEfUWQwRnhpk1wk44RAnh7AJ9J+N9BSP556dpxrU3uIyC4DzO/vwCg0OoR
TxX9tFq4yb1Hxq/BPLp31Sw=
=QrMt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ben Yates

body:
> Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt' because, rightly if they're
> trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.

That strikes me as a dangerous line of thought -- "Trolls, by
definition, are always wrong.  And the people who disagree with us
must be trolls, because trolls are who we're fighting.  Therefore
anyone who disagrees with us is wrong."  I'm not saying you've taken
it to that extreme; more, I'm objecting to widening use of words like
"troll" (and "meatpuppet") -- they make it too easy to class all
opposing arguments as nonsense and all opposing people as not worth
the time of day.

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/25/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
> To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city.

Except that to be non-profit in the US, you have to have an office in the US....

Kelly


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Molu

body:
    On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:45:04 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:

>Nonsense. Admins make calls all the time that are recognised by the
>community as necessary, but still make one unpopular with certain
>subsections nonetheless. RfAs are extraordinarily easy to stack, as
>opposers count for more than supporters and the wider community does not
>generally take an interest in them. Requests for adminship tend to
>involve only a very small subset of the community, who, fortunately, are
>usually considered sane (editcountitis notwithstanding); requests for
>confirmation will have all the problems of RfA, with the added drawback
>of being inhabited by trolls and idiots who are too concerned with
>advancing their own agendas to bother learning what admins do and why.

  Why are you bringing vote stacking into this? That's a completely different issue. This is not about vote stacking.

>I am not the only person who has noticed that, in your brief time on
>this list, you have rarely posted anything that could not be considered
>"nonsense". I would like to suggest you spend more time on Wikipedia,
>attempting to learn what we're about and how we work, before you try to
>instruct the Wikipedia Grannies in advanced egg-sucking procedures. The
>views of someone ignorant of Wikipedia procedures can be useful, at
>times; fresh eyes, etc., but at others it's damned annoying to see
>someone who doesn't know what he's talking about attempt to lecture us.
>Please, give it a rest, and fill your head instead of this list.

  Thank you for your kind suggestions. You'll have to excuse me as I ignore them.

  Molu

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


from_name: Petr Kadlec

body:
Hi!

> I do not get any edit link on the special page. The only access I seem to
> get is about the title (from system messages), which I already translated.
> But I do not see the list anywhere.

I have created an example list at
http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Andoa_trov%C3%A9_dij_l%C3%ACber
-- take a look at the example (You can check the result by clicking at
the example ISBN I have put to
http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox) and edit it as you
wish.

HTH,
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


body:
But that is an exceptional case, when Jimbo hands out a decree from the top against community consensus, and it doesn't happen very often. It can't be taken as the general situation. In general, what is good for the Wikipedia is determined by the community and not some omnipotent being with an absolute and unquestionable benchmark of appropriateness. We ARE here to build an encyclopedia, but since it is WIKIpedia and not Nupedia, there can be no encyclopedia without the community. The community builds the encyclopedia. Except for certain special authorities like Jimbo, it is the community that must decide whether an admin's actions are in the best interests of the encyclopedia, we shouldn't take the admin's words for it.

  Look at it this way, we rely upon the community to decide who will work best for the encyclopedia in the first place. What miracle suddenly happens after the RfA concludes that the very admins who were chosen by the community get the power to disregard the community? It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"

  And for the trolls complaining about corrupt ArbCom, ofcourse they whine about it because the ArbCom tends to rule against trolls. But if we have an avenue of removing those invalid criticisms without any negative effects, and have as an additional benefit the direct accountability of the admins to the community without going through the indirect and unnecessarily resource consuming process of ArbCom or even worse, Jimbo himself.

  Molu

  On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:04:00 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:

>This is simply not the case. If an admin is acting in the interests of
>the encyclopaedia then he is doing the right thing, regardless of what
>the majority of the community thinks.

>We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a community. Usually the
>interests of the encyclopaedia and those of the community go hand in
>hand. Where they don't, the encyclopaedia comes first. Always and
>without exception.

>[[:m:Instruction creep]]. Such a mechanism would be totally unnecessary.

>Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt' because, rightly if they're
>trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.

>Cheers,

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


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed. (was Wikimedia main office)

body:
On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to
> some subset of interesting orginizations...  But being near a solid
> airport places us near all of them.  This really is the way a lot of
> business is done today.

I think this is a large reason why Park Ridge, Illinois is such a
popular location for non-profits.  Park Ridge is a $15 taxi fare from
O'Hare, which alternates with Altanta for busiest airport in the
U.S.), has good civic amenities (due to high taxes, which the
non-profits largely avoid, being tax-exempt), and is also close to
Rosemont, which has some really good convention facilities.
Chicagoland is the third most popular convention destination in the
United States, after Orlando and Las Vegas.

Caveat: I used to work for a non-profit located in Park Ridge.

An alternative Chicago office location would be at 310 S. Michigan,
although I've no idea what it costs to live there.  Still, there'd be
some amusement value in sharing a mailing address with our leading
competitor.  Also has good proximity to the Equinix facility at
McCormick Place, which is an excellent hosting facility, as well as
the hosting facilities at CBOE (which I don't know as much about).

Really, though, what matters is who you need to be close to.  And I
don't really know who the Foundation needs to be close to, as I don't
know who our big corporate and institutional donors are.  I doubt many
of them are in St. Petersburg, though.

Kelly


body:
On 5/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Proximity for whom and to whom?  We are an online organization with a
> global perspective.  We depend on online communications.  Wherever the
> headquarters happens to be will involve travel by some people if they
> want to meet in person.  If all you're trying to do is improve meetup
> opportunities for the select few you just end up promoting the idea that
> Wikimedia is a much less broadly based organization than it really is.

There's a limit to how much you can schmooze people online.  Large
donations and grants are going to require face time.  Might as well
position yourself to make arranging that easier, which means you want
to be near a transportation hub.  This means places like New York, DC,
Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles.  Hubs have more flights per day to more
destinations, which usually means your total travel time is lower
because your options are broader and you are less likely to have to
use a connecting flight.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/25/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> (Incidentally, that's how globalized "real companies" are increasingly
> running things; the giant centralized main headquarters is no longer in
> vogue.)

At least one major multinational I'm aware of has its official "home
office" in Bermuda with a staff there of one.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject:
[WikiEN-l] okay (was Re: Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice)

body:
Apology accepted.

  Molu

    On Tue, 30 May 2006 23:28:28 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:

  >"a bit rich" implies inconsistency. I assure you both emails are quite
>consistent. They're both a case of someone posting something silly to
>this list and me getting snappy about it.

>If you'd called me on civility alone, well, you'd have been 100% right.
>While everything I said to Molu was true, it did not, perhaps, need
>to be said, and *definitely* did not need to be said in such a tone.
>Molu: I am sorry, my post was rude and insulting. I always aim to be
>straightforward, but there is a line between "being straightforward" and
>"being a dick" and I crossed it.

>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice

body:
I think I can safely say you didn't bother to take a look at my WP acount before you decided to hit the send button. I think the non-editor me has contributed more t Wikipedia articles than this 'potentially good editor' who by some curious coincidence also manages to be a banned user. I'm a strong fighter for NPOV and I always remove the slightest POV wherever I come upon them. NPOV is the most important policy in Wikipedia and it needs to be upheld strictly.

  I also don't remember ever advocating getting rid of admins (in fact I said admins were a necessary evil). The only thing that irks me is when a certain class of admins decide that they as editors form a class superior to other editors who are not admins and their special abilities give them the right to ignore community consensus and impose their own POV on issues. I'm sure this is only a small fraction of all admins, but they tend to be a highly visible one.

  Molu

    On Tue, 30 May 2006 12:07:48 -0400 jayjg wrote:

  >Nonsense; the two aren't even remotely comparable. A potentially good
>editor who has been hard done by over an article is nothing like a
>non-editor who feels they need to get rid of Wikipedia admins because
>they can't POV the project to their own liking.

>Jay.

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


body:
An interesting and insightful essay (one I may have read before), but why did you quote my message above it? I don't see how your message has anything to do with anything I said, unless that last sentence is directed at me?

  Molu

    On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:26:42 +0100 (BST) "Redvers @ the Wikipedia" wrote:

>People who whine on about admins and admin abuse
>broadly seem to fall into two categories. Either
>they're people with an agenda (or a model for the
>'pedia that the majority don't support) to push or
>they're admin-wannabies who see the post as some sort
>of reward and want it for themselves and are
>frustrated they don't think they'll get it blah blah...
><snip>
>The company you keep often tells more about you than
>you do yourself, I find.

>-> REDVERS

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


body:
You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not. WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken, not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the backing of the community.

  Molu

    On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:57:07 +0100 "charles matthews" wrote:

>If admin A is actually acting in WP's interests, then of course that is
>fine. If A is not, but is acting under some delusion, then that is not fine
>at all.

>The key point here is not whether there is some sort of backing for the
>option taken, but whether the action is clear-sighted or otherwise. I don't
>see that the logic has to be smudged here. Admins are given discretion. If
>they foul it up, they are poor admins and eventually they should have their
>mop retired.

>Charles

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 312

body:
If you believe that you no longer enjoy the support of the community that elected you to your position, don't you think it would be only proper for you to voluntarily lay down your mops?

  Molu

    On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:13:51 -0500 "Kelly Martin" wrote:

  >I doubt I'd survive any sort of reconfirmation vote. Then again, that
>might work out well in the long run, since I think the owners of
>Wikipedia would rather that I were an admin.....

>Kellyt

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


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

body:
That is what I was suggesting.

  Molu

  On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:13:59 -0600 Fred Bauder wrote:

>This kicking out business is not cool, but we could require periodic
>reaffirmation of administrator status.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed bzip2

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

Between other things I've been working on a distributed bzip2 compression tool
which could help speed up generation of data dumps.

By trading LAN bandwidth for idle CPU elsewhere in the server cluster, an
order-of-magnitude improvement in throughput seems reasonably practical; this
could cut bzip2 compression time for the large English Wikipedia history dumps
by a full day.

Status/documentation:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/dbzip2

Source:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/dbzip2

Updates on my (*blush*) development blog:
http://leuksman.com/

I'm hoping something similar can be accomplished with 7zip as well...

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEfVkSwRnhpk1wk44RAv/wAJ9JJghnGX6wmPvVz8lX6WLa+sfeZwCg1wex
ZcadcVpBCsZP866C4gdG7/M=
=SpCq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/31/06, jf_wikipedia at mac.com <jf_wikipedia at mac.com> wrote:
> Admins that block a users for 24 hrs without placing warning notices
> (minimum one, better three, have done so outside of the blocking
> policy.

Not quite true. Other than new editors no warning is required for a 3RR block.

--
geni


from_name: Scott Stevenson

body:
[[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) has literally been droning on
about this issue for MONTHS. He is extremely singleminded about this
to the point of making his issue with the displaying of the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons very disruptive.
It is very much a pity to see Raphael1 (Wegmann) bring his disruptive
tendencies here to the mail list.
The following bit of his last letter is extremely demonstrative of his
one sidedness here.
</snip>
>Take a look yourself:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144

>A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it?
>At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.
What Raphael1 (Wegmann) fails to mention is that one of these IPs is a
confirmed open proxy and the other two were part of image blanking
barrages by IP hopping vandals.
Raphael1 has had no qualms taking matters into his hands in terms of
altering the display characteristics of the cartoons on the
[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article repeatedly
himself and has been repeatedly blocked for it (thankfully):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Raphael1

Raphael1's latest disruption (for which he's been  EXTREMELY correctly
blocked for a week over) was the creation of a list entitled
"Persecutors of Muslims" that listed every single admin who ever
blocked so much as an IP address of those who vandalistically removed
the images (which he subsequently spammed messages providing links to
a group of select editors -without ever even informing the admins
listed on his user page-):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week

Raphael1's actions have inspired copy-cat editor who've gone so far as
to impersonate him in efforts to remove the images (never with any
attempt at consensus). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael101
The way Raphael1 is going, much like the extremely disruptive editor
that he recently tried to defend, Resid Gulerdem (see the Admins
causing death of Wikipedia letter thread) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
he'll probably be permanently blocked before too long as well.
Please move on and be less disruptive and help make Wikipedia even
better so that those familiar with your neverending "discussion" won't
first think of the expression "don't feed the trolls" the moment your
name pops into their heads.

-Scott Stevenson (Netscott)


from_name: Michelle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:

>Well, you can see for yourselves:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&oldid=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
>
>Titoxd.
>
>
>
>
Holy.......shit.  This has gone beyond the realm of absurd.  I didn't
make a big deal out of it when my office was called, oddly enough the
same day Brandt put me on his Hivemind page, but then, my boss told
whomever called that he was proud of my volunteer effort.  How can we
expect anyone to work as an admin if they have to contend with stalking
as a perk?

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)


body:
On 5/31/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt I'd survive any sort of reconfirmation vote.  Then again, that
> might work out well in the long run, since I think the owners of
> Wikipedia would rather that I were an admin.....
>
> Kellyt

Things generaly don't work out too well when the foundation tries to
involve itself in the day to day running of en.wikipedia.

--
geni


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

body:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:56:46PM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> It will be a lot easier for a community to build an encyclopedia.

Hmm.  It seems that "community" has a lot of costly overhead that gets
in the way of getting things done.  Two of those sources of overhead
feed off of one another:

  * People who want to be in charge, just for the sake of being in
    charge; and

  * People who want to attack the people in charge, just for the sake
    of attacking the people in charge.

Many people seem to think that Wikipedia has only _one_ of these two
types.  For instance, people who complain about "rogue admins" are
complaining about the appearance of the first type; people who complain
about "trolls" are complaining about the second.  The fact is that we
have _both_ problems:  people who want to *be* Authority for no good
reason, and people who want to *smash* Authority for no good reason.

The worse problem is that these two feed on each other.

  * As pain-causing authority actions increase, more people become
    disgruntled and think it would be a more satisfying use of their
    time to be trolls and vandals, or to stalk people and post their
    home addresses on Wikipedia Review.

  * As pain-causing anti-authority actions increase, more people become
    Concerned Citizens and think it would be a more satisfying use of
    their time to create more rules and more procedures, to lock the
    whole project down tighter and tighter, to drag everyone in front of
    a tribunal to have their sins beaten out of them.

People can easily become convinced that the purpose of their being here
is to Fight Crime, or to Fight The Man, rather than to contribute.

It's like Gang Violence and Police Brutality ... or domestic terrorism
and domestic fascism.  The worse the "Bad Guys" get, the worse the "Good
Guys" can become, in order to be Tough On Badness.  And the worse the
"Good Guys" get, the more defensible the "Bad Guy" position looks to the
disaffected and the pissed-off.

I'm not saying that the Bad Guys are good -- they aren't.  They're bad.
Vandalism, trolling, stalking, and disruption _suck_.

But the Good Guys can _also_ become bad, in their attempt to eliminate
Badness.  Instruction creep, paranoia, admin touchiness, newbie-biting,
itchy trigger fingers on the "block" button, and the escalation of
content disputes into allegations of wrongdoing, _also_ suck.

It is possible to make people's lives miserable, and to drive them off
the project, with trolling.  It is also possible to make people's lives
miserable, and to drive them off the project, with newbie-biting and
heavy-handed administration.


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

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

body:
The comments were very useful in general. The most
important ones among them are the ones addressing
possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
for it was one of them.

I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and
had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I
decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked
indefinitely (how do you think I know the
'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
hope that the points raised below contribute to the
efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...

I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
Further explanations are given [in the square
brackets].

Best,

Resid

--------------------
[[WP:OURS]]
--------------------

[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.

[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]

1. '''Ethics and Standards'''

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

[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]

[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]

[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]

2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''

Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is
resolved.

[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
the opinion of the related study groups. The group may
vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a
decision. It does not have to be a final decision
though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR,
edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may
result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and
admins who feel obligated to force the rules
consciously.]

3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''

Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.

[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]

4. '''Limited block policy'''

A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.

Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.

[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]

[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.]

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

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


from_name: poore5 at adelphia.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
Yes, he is. Since this is a public list and I will not discuss further.

---- Jeffrey Latham <jeff462 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
>
> >Well, you can see for yourselves:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
> >did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
> >
> >Titoxd.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that
> [[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on
> Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr. Morrow
> that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at this
> time, but it is a regrettable situation.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re : sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
On 5/31/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

(Re: Wikisource)

> ... but the *original source* should be protected at the steward level,
> which requires a software change.

You mean the "original source" as in the print edition that was
scanned to create the Wikisource document? You could lock it up
somewhere, I suppose. ;-) In seriousness, the scanning and
proofreading process is, of course, prone to errors which are fixed
over time. Even for a well-checked document, new metadata is added,
annotations are made, new formatting standards implemented, and so on.
So what you end up with is, once again, the need for the "last known
stable version". Same as in Wikipedia, really.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using wiki processes for small
changes to large documents.

Erik


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for disruption and trolling?

body:
On 5/31/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> I havent looked at all your links, but I do think User:Zoe was being
> rather odd.

Anittas was trying to justify the inclusion of some disputed text with
some questionable sources.  When challenged on this, he went around
questioning the sources of other articles rather than backing up the
quality of his own, trying to make a point of "These articles get away
with bad sourcing, why can't I?".  The answer to that one is obvious.

This being Anittas' standard mode of operation, his block for
disruption was, IMO, completely justified.  If you look at his block
log, you will see a history of similar.

-Matt


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
Quite.

First submit something, then complain it's there.
If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright
infringement.

Some people....

Mgm

On 5/31/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's quite interesting...especially when the article is deleted
>
> On 5/29/06, Will Sceptre Noble <tintower at tintower.tk> wrote:
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Pce3 at ij.net <pce3 at ij.net>
> > Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM
> > Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
> > To: Sceptre <sceptre at tintower.co.uk>
> >
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
> >
> > The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation
> in
> > accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or
> disable
> > access to the web pages listed below:
> >
> > 1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
> > [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
> >
> > Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
> >
> > Pce3 at ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
> >
> > 2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location
> > [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information
> > location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the
> > infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduction
> >
> > 3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
> > [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
> >
> > 3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
> >
> > 3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk:
> Harvard
> > Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
> >
> > 4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is
> > no
> > legal basis for the use of the materials complained of
> [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
> >
> > 4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use
> of
> > the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and
> > withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. ? Patrick Eberhart
> >
> > 5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of
> > perjury,
> > that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the
> owner
> > [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
> >
> > 5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my
> > knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material.
> ?Patrick
> > Eberhart
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove,
> or
> > disable access to the material.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Sceptre
> > http://tintower.co.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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. (Now with 2% Juice)
> http://ilya.nepfamily.com (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 5/31/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Kelly Martin wrote:
> Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen,
> Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien,
> Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok,
> Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney,
> Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel
> Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires,
> Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city
> these are out of the top of my head)
>
> All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with
> multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters
> etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.

And all of them fail to meet the legal requirement of the Wikimedia
Foundation to have its headquarters within the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Kelly


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] test


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
So, going by that reasoning, as was brought up before, [[User:Governor
Bush]] or [[User:President Bush]] are allowed then?

--NSLE

On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/30/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > [[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is
> states:
> >
> > Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
> > Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
> > > Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).
> >
> >
> > On his userpage he claims
> >
> >   I'm General and future president Eisenhower.
> >
> >
> > I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
> > started<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&diff=55756520&oldid=55755552
> >however.
> >
> > According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?
> >
> > Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
> > Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> ? ( at
> war
> > or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
> > 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
> >
> > He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
> > here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to
> possibly
> > make a namechange compulsory.
> >
> > Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
> > slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in
> the
> > main namespace), which makes it harder.
> >
> > --
> > Joe Anderson
> >
> > [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
>
> I dont know how serious this one really is. If he had Dwight
> Eisenhower it may be more serious. As it is, it is likely to be more
> disruptive to try to enforce it than it will be to let him keep it.
>
> Peter Ansell
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Wikimedia main office

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>
>>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
>>>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
>>>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
>>>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
>>>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
>>>>nature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
>>>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
>>>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
>>>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
>>>what it does best.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the Wikimedia Foundation
>>(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am an amateur when it
>>comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And yet I'm the CFO. Which
>>may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small budget, but not now.
>>
>>I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied responsibilities that
>>require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the Wikimedia treasurer who does
>>have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but there simply is a limit to
>>what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or two - at most - a day to
>>this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education perspective.
>>
>>That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into effect once the foundation
>>finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
>>
>>The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
>>
>
> I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
> staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
> dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
> the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
> with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
> avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
> has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
> concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
> indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
> need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
> WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
> Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
> innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
> any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
> are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
> development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
> relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
> that.
>
> Ec

Hello

You are absolutely correct both Foundation and Wikipedia are two
different conceps, and this is why Gavin comments are interesting. Some
of his comments mix the two systems resulting in a description which
would be neither acceptable from the community (Wikipedia) point of view
nor from the board (Foundation) point of view.

Gavin : "I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:
volunteer works on a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become
the project leader, stays in that for a year and grooms his / her
replacement, gets invited to join the core team, gets groomed to become
director, serves for a set period, becomes a board member."

Implies a pyramidal organisation of Wikipedia with the Foundation on
top, which is absolutely not the way we are currently organised. There
are some non-official project leaders, but they lead only by voice and
reputation, not by authority.

Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
answerable to the organisation at large."

Precisely mixes the two jobs. Collecting, organising and creating
content PLUS settling disputes between editors is entirely a Wikipedia
job and should not involve Foundation. It does only because there is a
confusion between a role at the Foundation and a moral authority AND
because the Foundation hosts the project (so, is liable, has access to
logs, can block etc...). Budget or being answerable to the organisation
at large is a Foundation issue and absolutely not a Wikipedia one.

This does not remove in any sense the value of his comments on the need
for continuity. But the fact is that he seems to see one system... where
there are several systems. Wikipedia is one. Wikibooks is another.
Wiktionary a third one. These three are tightly related and work under
rather similar rules. Foundation is an entirely different system.

Wikipedia system is free to join. Editors may stay anonymous.
Foundation system is very closed, based on peer approval. Real names are
registered. Foundation is NOT a democracy.

Roughly, all editors are equal in terms of decision making on wikipedia.
On Foundation, some have a voting voice, others have an advising voice.

Wikipedia organisation is very flexible and its rules change without
much pain, upon editors push. Foundation is pretty static, relying on
bylaws which are not easily changed, with decisions made through votes
and resolutions; through official delegations to individuals and
committees. And all this with the weight of history.

Wikipedia editors are all volunteers. They have no legal obligations. If
unhappy, they can easily quit anytime for a wikibreak or definitly.
Foundation has paid staff or board members earning money through
speaking fees. Others are only volunteers. Earning a living does not
imply working harder, so, to the contrary of Wikipedia, people working
on Foundation issues have to manage with the concept of mixing
volunteers with paid members. Whether paid or not, people are expected
to be available 7/7 24/24. For most, there is a binding relationship.

Wikipedia editors may feel accountable... or not. They can actually do
many stupid things and not be embarassed by more than losing a sysop
status. Foundation activity is scrutinized (an audit has been going on
for several weeks now), the board is accountable and lawsuits DO happen.

In most cases, Wikipedia can run at its own peace. Nothing is really
urgent, everything can be delayed. It is easy enough to call for more
volunteers as well. Editors may go on a rant for days.
On Foundation, this is not true. If a bill is not paid, the site stop
working. If a cease and desist is not answered, we can get in big
troubles. When a japanese editor complains at 4 am that personal data is
posted on the website and should be *immediately* removed... it must be
*immediately* removed. When there is too much work to do, one reduces
its sleep time. Foundation people are expected to behave professional.

And I could go on forever.

One of the hardest things is to identify the needs of "system
Foundation", talk about these needs, and read criticism from people
belonging to "system Wikipedia", who have no beginning of an idea of
where the need comes from, why it is critical... but who considers they
have a say nevertheless.

I think Ec, that you are correct in saying we need a firewall between
the two systems; You, as an editor, feels this need. Me, as a board
member, feel it as well. I think it is slowly being put into place.

A huge limitation for the construction of the firewall will stay the
legal considerations. Contrary of what you say, much have been said, but
it has been said in other places than public mailing lists (precisely
due to our paranoia :-)). The WP:Office issue is still unsolved though.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Everyone who sprung into action and DID SOMETHING when Linuxbeak did
what he did, aggravated the situation. He may have acted in error or
unwisely, but the solution is to discuss the situation.

Fred

On May 30, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

> * Nick Boalch wrote:
>
>
>> This is simply not the case. If an admin is acting in the
>> interests of
>> the encyclopaedia then he is doing the right thing, regardless of
>> what
>> the majority of the community thinks.
>>
>
> Good to know.
>
> The other day a fellow named Linuxbeak acted in the interests of the
> encyclopedia (as he saw it). Some people disagreed, but clearly he was
> "doing the right thing" because HE thought so. No need for that silly
> 'consensus' stuff. :]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I would not expect to survive either, but I still think it's a good
idea. Actually I think it does not hurt for a new wave of hard asses
to take over and let the old tired wore out hard asses regenerate for
a while. As Stephen Gaskin once said (with respect to those who
hoarded paper during the Caravan) "You are not the only one who knows
how to keep toilet paper dry."

Fred

On May 30, 2006, at 8:13 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 5/29/06, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. I have grave doubts that a confirmation system would be
>> anything
>> other than absolutely disasterous, at least in the short term, to the
>> wikilove principle in favour of which it's apparently being proposed
>> (let alone the actual practical functioning of the site).
>>
>
> I doubt I'd survive any sort of reconfirmation vote.  Then again, that
> might work out well in the long run, since I think the owners of
> Wikipedia would rather that I were an admin.....
>
> Kellyt
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a
list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed)
consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate
request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider
the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist
points of view.

Fred

On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with
> shouldn't be
> grounds for blocking, though.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Re: Wikisource)
>
>
>> ... but the *original source* should be protected at the steward level,
>> which requires a software change.
>>
>
> You mean the "original source" as in the print edition that was
> scanned to create the Wikisource document? You could lock it up
> somewhere, I suppose. ;-) In seriousness, the scanning and
> proofreading process is, of course, prone to errors which are fixed
> over time. Even for a well-checked document, new metadata is added,
> annotations are made, new formatting standards implemented, and so on.
> So what you end up with is, once again, the need for the "last known
> stable version". Same as in Wikipedia, really.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with using wiki processes for small
> changes to large documents.
>
> Erik
>
Hoi,
When a source is scanned, OCR-d, spell checked (mind you a spell checker
should be a spell checker that allows for the spelling of the period)
and checked again, it provides a facsimile of the document that was
scanned. This underlying data is what should have some form of
protection. However, there is nothing stopping anyone from annotating
the document, the point is that it is outside the document itself and it
should be obvious that it is. When I read something like a work of
Shakespeare, I am not necessarily interested in all the fluff that his
work has accumulated over the years. I would like to read the bard. The
functionality to read the original text without annotations and stuff is
very much essential to reading a source. Remember, it is a SOURCE.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs.  While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization.  If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
> I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
> staff.  I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
> dry in the CFO job.  While you have no doubt worked at the position to
> the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
> with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
> avoided volunteering for the task.  I really don't think that the Board
> has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
> concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
> indeed be different in these two organizations.  In many respects we
> need to start building a firewall between the two.  This would leave the
> WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
> Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
> innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
> any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing.  There
> are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
> development with great glee.  There needs to be an arm's length
> relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
> that.
>
> Ec
>
I totally agree with this statement.  The Wikimedia Foundation and
Wikipedia are and should continue to be kept very separate.  Besides
the points you have raised I think this bolsters the legal position
that the foundation is an ISP, and not a content provider.  The
servers are owned by the Foundation.  But the content is owned by
everyone.

As for Daniel Mayer being CFO, I think a large portion of what he does
(at least, what I've seen him do) could easily (and rather
inexpensively) be outsourced.  Sure, someone internal needs to decide
on a budget to submit to the board for approval, but that shouldn't be
an enormous time-waster.  I've seen it done effectively many times by
volunteer committees with absolutely no finance or business
background.  Someone internal also needs to record transactions, but
the CFO shouldn't be the one doing this anyway.  Last time I heard
this was something the treasurer was doing.  If the work is really
overwhelming it might make sense to hire a bookkeeper, but most
non-profits don't require this.  Wikipedia's budget is big, but it's
not enormous.  There are plenty of community organizations with
roughly the same size budget that get by fine without a CFO -
homeowners associations, special taxing districts, volunteer fire
departments, activities organizations, etc.

Am I missing some legal requirement to have a CFO in a non-profit
organization?  Sarbanes-Oxley, as it applies to non-profits, seems to
suggest that any "financial expert" be a member of the board.  If
there's no legal requirement for a CFO, I'd say drop the CFO and put
Daniel Mayer on the board.  He can lead a budget committee on a
regular basis from there.  Then look into outsourcing as much of his
old job as possible.  Wikimedia's board is obviously way too small.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
On 5/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> DMOZ is a creepy mess; Wikipedia's starting to develop some of the same
> self-congratulating culture of admins that it has (or had last time I
> checked). It freaks me out.

I hope I didn't suggest that DMOZ was any more than a creepy mess.  I
think the decision to add such large barriers to entry was a huge
mistake.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
What we are dealing with is psychological warfare. To be taken
seriously, to be responded to calmly. The point is to induce panic.
The best response is to stay calm, respond in appropriate forums and
support those who are attacked.

Fred

On May 31, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Philip Welch wrote:

> On May 30, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Titoxd at Wikimedia wrote:
>
>
>> Well, you can see for yourselves:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%
>> 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
>> did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
>>
>
> Holy shit. How much will it take before people get up and start
> taking these pricks seriously?
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 5/30/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's nothing inherently wrong with using wiki processes for small
> changes to large documents.
>
In practice it seems difficult to ensure that the good edits outweigh
the bad ones when the number of good edits that can possibly be made
is small.

I initially made that statement to refer to something like Wikisource
(and to a lesser extent, Wikinews), but I wonder how much it applies
to something like Wikipedia.

Anthony


body:
On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> You extrapolated the frequency of the name "Ng" in the Melbourne
> directory as an argument to prove the much broader hypothesis that phone
> books are not valid sources.

As he explained, that's not at all what he was doing.  He was giving
an example of when a phone book can be a valid source.  A very
insightful example, at that, and one which I conceded disproved my
suggestion that phone books were never valid sources.

> If among all those Ngs
> there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.

I don't see how.  Just because there is only Egg Foo Ng in the phone
book still doesn't mean that there is only one Egg Foo Ng in the area
served by that phone book.  I just don't see how such information can
be useful, especially considering how easy it is to put false
information into a phone book (in my experience there is generally no
verification of the names at all).

> And we
> haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in
> establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
>
It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.

Anthony