from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need
> >>> for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need
> >>> is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband
> >>> from
> >>> lack of use.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
> >
> > Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer
> > feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own
> > list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.
>
> Well put. Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use and
> to engage in some of the flaming that Tim Starling has observed that
> I, as a male, am apparently more likely to enjoy.
>
> I have never been so disgusted with this community as I am right now,
> and particularly with Greg and The Cunctator, both users I have in
> the past had tremendous respect for. Greg's public shunning of the
> idea of gendered discussion and The Cunctator's stunt of subscribing
> to the list so he could play martyr were bald-faced power moves that
> had no content other than sending a clear message to female
> contributors that they'd better not get out of line. They were
> shameful power plays. And if anyone fails to understand why that is,
> I can only say that you are why this list needs to exist, and why it
> needs to be female-only.

I think you misunderstood my motives and actions entirely.

>
> Why is the list not open to men? Because there are men like The
> Cunctator and Greg, who are happy to declare that they know how
> discrimination should be talked about, and anybody who feels
> uncomfortable talking to them can go to hell.

When you start attacking me like this, you really better have evidence to
back it up.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Robth

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/6/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> I should have said, the current attitude of a significant number
> of active admins is that we accept nothing but free images.  See for
> example some of the arguments at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use]].
> See also [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok]], and especially
> the outside view by Jimbo Wales.

As someone who participated in that RfC, I have no idea how you got
the idea that anyone there was advocating the removal of all unfree
images--and the same goes for the recent discussion on the pages of
the Wikproject talk page.  The recent debates at both locations are
specifically about replaceable fair use images--images of subjects for
which a free image could reasonably be created.  We do accept fair use
images of dead people, historic events, copyrighted fictional
characters, and a number of other subjects, and a move to change that
at this moment would find very little traction.  On that specific RfC,
even Jimbo (who has advocated a more restrictive fair use policy in
the past) isn't arguing for anything more than that.

>(Most of these arguments are
> nominally about fair-use images, but they're being interpreted
> to apply to other kinds of nonfree content, such as promotional
> photos.)

In general, people on those pages are using the term "fair use" to
mean "stuff covered by Wikipedia's fair use policy", some of which
would be best described as by different legal terms. Thus,
"replaceable fair use" actually means "replaceable unfree images".
(See why we need to rename our policy?)  From the perspective of the
immediate legal concerns of Wikipedia, the various types of unfree
images are different; from the perspective of the project's goals with
regard to free content (which is the basis of the policy being
discussed on those pages) they are the same (i.e. not fully reusable).

--
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
On Monday 04 December 2006 06:36, Oldak Quill wrote:
>Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't
>one.

I'd be suspect of the empirical claim you are making, how do you know there
is no difference? Questions of bias, particularly gender, are difficult.
But there is no doubt that some *perceive* a gendered culture in common
spaces, otherwise there'd be no impetus to start the list.

>It will also discourage some women from contributing to the
>general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").

Again, another empirical/causal claim. In my informal observation of similar
communities, I haven't perceived a decrease in female presence after the
provisioning of a female space. A counter hypothesis is that: women who
have a more supportive space to fall back upon will become more comfortable
in speaking in the common spaces.

In any case, the presumption of equality and the objection to separate
spaces -- as this thread evidences -- is quite interesting, and happens
again, and again, and again! :) Wilson [1] notes such discussions orbit a
*presumption* of equality.

[[
In order to defend their views of a just world and equality, three
strategies have been adopted by the participants in the study:
1. The situation is changing (and men seem to believe this)
2. Men and women are seen as equal but different -- women do not enjoy
competing as much. This would be supported by the data from both the
questionnaires and interviews where women were using computers less, have
less confidence in their abilities, and are more attracted to the arts.
3. There is a misperception that computing and technology is for males.
]]

The interesting consequence is that even if there is gender bias no action
on the part of females is taken because (1) those females who believe there
are equal opportunities will see no reason for action; (2) those who
believe there is a misperception or that women feel less confident will be
tolerant of encouragement for women, but they are also content see the
status quo maintained; and (3) the women who believe in their equal
abilities do not want to be singled out for special treatment and may
therefore "count themselves out and express ambivalence" (Wilson 2003:138)

[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=423703


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] wgBlockOpenProxies

body:
Ok, I seemed to have figured it out. The default path for

$wgProxyScriptPath = "$IP/proxy_check.php";

wasn't finding the script, it was looking for it in the base installation
directory, but changing it to this

$wgProxyScriptPath = "$IP/includes/proxy_check.php";

worked.

Travis

On 12/6/06, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I've been playing  around with this setting and can't seem to get it to
> work. Although I've set it in LocalSettings and made sure the open proxies
> I've tested with are through ports set in wgProxyPorts, I can still edit
> pages without a problem.
>
> Any ideas?
> Travis
>
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:

> The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
> appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
> everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
> the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
> to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
> done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
> including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
> open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
> several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
> would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
> of others' needs.
>
> -Kat

I think this should be up to the women who feel there is a need. I
support hosting if a significant number of women want it. Whether it
has value can be determined by participation and outcome. That is an
experiential thing. Such groups provide an opportunity for gossip and
backbiting, but so do a host of other venues. It is up to the women
who participate to weigh the negative as well as the positive
outcomes. One positive aspect might be development of the confidence
to appropriately assert yourself, should anyone feel reluctant or
unable to.

Fred


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material

body:
> > And please stop asserting 80% of our articles are unsourced, when my
> > informal check suggests that the number is more like 20%.
>
> Ah how great random page is for sampling articles...  Here's my 10
> article "study":
[...]
> 40% no sources or external links, 30% one external link, 10% one
> broken external link, 10% one ISBN link, 10% two external links.  Of
> the working external links, 3 were to primary sources, and 2 were to
> secondary sources.
>
> Of course, 10 articles is hardly a scientific sample size.
>
> Anthony

Bah. I'll stick my neck out and say 50% of our articles have no sources or
external links. Give or take 40%. 19 times out of 20. SCIENCE!!

No really, I think people doing their own small samples of Special:Random is a
great idea. Truly random sampling is more "scientific" than you might realize. I
am not a statistician, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if all
you're trying to do is rule out the <20% and/or the >80% claim, then 25 clicks
on Special:Random ought to be more than enough, 19 times out of 20.

Dan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
Reading http://www.laboratorium.net/archives/SevenWikipediaFallacies.html :

So maybe the argument is that the fluff somehow degrades the tone of the
encyclopedia. But that can't be much of a concern either. Are we really
going to discredit something useful because it also chooses to be fun? No
one ever forces you to read about Star Trek. If you want to know how a Geneva
drive <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_drive> works, what matters to you
is that Wikipedia have a damn good entry on it. That the same web site also
contains a multi-part list of fictional
cities<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_cities>is neither here
nor there.

I tried to follow the link to the list of fictional cities (because I find
the topic interesting). But it had been deleted.

Why? The argument was that a category would be better.

I have my opinions about that, but then WHY DID THEY NOT JUST REDIRECT TO
THE CATEGORY?

Arghhhhhh.

Sorry for the rant.


list: foundation-l

from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] Gender issues, a short analysis

body:
Can someone please repeat this statistical experiment for the malay wikipedia?

http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/c17224/artikkel/vis.html?tid=39199
http://ms.wikipedia.org

SJ

On 12/5/06, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
> [snip]
> > In sum, female participation in the german wikipedia seems appallingly
> > low, however we find a slightly higher ratio of women in "higher"
> > ranks like admins, jury members than the overall participation numbers
> > would suggest.
> [snip]
>
> I did a very very quick check on the italian Wiki.
>
> Admins: 8 out of 71 are female (11,3%)
> Bureaucrats: 2 out of 5 (40%)
> Check Users: 0 out of 3 (0%)
> Board of WMI 1 out of 5 (20%, but she is the chairwoman)
>
> Regarding sexist remarks I can't remember any relevant episode, nor any
> complaint by women. The fact that I don't remember doesn't means that it
> never happened, but being pretty active on it.wiki pratically from the
> beginning, I'm confident to say that is not a problem. I will ask to the
> ladies on it.wiki their opinion anyway.
>
> One consideration. In my experience, whenever computer are involved, be it
> my class at University, workplace, Wikipedia, or spending the evening
> playing with PlayStation with my friends, the female population drops to 20%
> of the total.
>
> It has been like this in the last 20 years. I don't know why this happens,
> but there are chanches that this percentage is endemic.
>
> Roberto (Snowodog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Ordina subito la scintillante lampada a forma di Renna di Babbo Natale
> lascerai i tuoi ospiti... a bocca aperta !
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
In 12/6/06, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
>
> > Michael Snow wrote:
> >
> > Traditional list etiquette encourages that approach, yes, although
> > really I think the odds have more to do with how the message is crafted
> > than with whether it is delivered publicly or privately. Here it was a
> > difficult balancing act. It is evident that at least some people do not
> > see much of a problem, perhaps not surprising since bias and
> > discrimination often operate in subtle and systemic ways. As a result,
> > it is sometimes necessary to publicly call out examples.
> >
> > However, Snowdog is a valuable part of the community and has a good
> > reputation, so I wasn't happy to be so critical. I did try to "play the
> > ball, not the man" (sexist idiom, but the right gender in this case) by
> > focusing on the comment itself and what was offensive about it. I am
> > thankful that he continues to participate, with good grace and in a
> > constructive fashion. A "botched joke" may cost John Kerry the chance to
> > run for President again, but it shouldn't cost anyone the chance to post
> > again to this list.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
>
> Well, it was clear to me, from the beginning, that the issue of the thread
> was gender bias and sexist remarks. So basically my "sexist joke" was a
> field test (I'm not so stupid to make such comments in a place where those
> comments are in discussion).
>
> Working primarily on the italian Wikipedia, and since this issue has
> started on en.wiki (on which I do not follow the ongoing discussions), I
> wanted to realize quickly, and maybe brutally, how this kind of things are
> felt. So thanks Michael for your public reply, and you all forgive me if I
> used you as Guinea-pigs.

Wait, you were being *deliberately* inflammatory?

Sheesh.


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 12/6/06, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthere highlighted it, Angela and here made and make a great job for
> the wikimedia foundation. But even making a great job, there's people
> to say they are on the board only cause they are female.

Obviously, if this is really happening, it's pretty dreadful.  I have
not, however, seen anyone actually say this.  I am quite ready to be
proved wrong.

I hope, of course, that I am not to be proved wrong.

--
Sam


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Profoundly bad idea.

body:
Robth wrote

> The problem is this: the volume of contributions to Wikipedia by
> one-time or occasional contributors who "pass-by", as it were, and add
> something, is far too great for the community of steady
> maintenance-oriented contributors to keep up with "fixing" all of it
> as it comes in.  If we're going to place the onus on these steady
> contributors to fix all this stuff, then we're going to end up with a
> huge pile of stuff waiting to be "fixed" that is broken in very basic
> ways; articles with no sources, images without specific enough
> information, etc. This is the approach we have taken up till now, and
> huge piles of stuff waiting to be fixed is exactly what we have.

Well, you'll notice that the _unselective_ wish o have everything sourced to the hilt is aggravating this.

We have always had the 'piles'. The question is more like: are the quality initiatives proposed fit for purpose?

Labelling with [[Category:Living persons]] is good, because it addresses a serious issue. Fretting about the quality of pop-culture articles is fairly pointless, on that scale. Deleting dodgy images is good (my take - I'm a text person first and foremost); it is quite true that images are worth at least 1000 words, but getting the text straight is the foundation. 100K 'featured articles' - did nothing for me. Getting a page up per surname, i.e. at least 10000 dab pages of the kind most people pay no attention to: very useful, because it inherently opens up the navigation and checking.

And so on. Just let's acknowledge that quality beefs should be prioritised.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject:
[Foundation-l] Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election
	Process

body:
I would like to emphasise the issues with voting against people you
would normally support, as this has been an issue with me with the
current steward election. Alternatively, a secret ballot makes
everything infinitely more serious and this can cause problems with
honesty. You have people arguing about who can be trusted to handle
the information.

Personally, I think that what we have now works as long as the
community is strict over the issues that you have hilighted - it is a
virtual world, so threats can be somewhat toned-down.

Just my thoughts.

On 06/12/06, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <stephanie at sosdg.org> wrote:
> Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
> shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
> has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
> these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>
> I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
> the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
> voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
> open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
> is anything but.
>
> There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
> secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
> bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
> feelings.
>
> Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
> where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
> voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
> position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
> ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
> do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
> election.
>
> We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
> facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
> Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
> defies logical sense.
>
> In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
> as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
> a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
> way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
> such an unjust and flawed process.
>
> I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
> their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
> the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
> elections process.
>
> --
> Stephanie Daugherty
> stephanie at sosdg.org
> User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton	(Xyrael)	[sean at silentflame dot com]
	Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Where did we stick the list of community blocks?

body:
I can't find a reference for where the community blocks were supposed
to be logged to.  Can it be tagged onto the Blocking Policy article or
some such?

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6206084.stm

The Swedish traffic sign is popularly named "herr g?rman" (Mr.
Walker, but also a pun on "here you can walk") and "fru g?rman" is
simply Mrs. Walker,
http://images.google.com/images?q=fru%20g%C3%A5rman

You can get similar examples from (East) Germany by searching for
Ampelfrau, http://images.google.com/images?q=ampelfrau

See also the article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampelfrau

The category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crosswalk
is clearly gender biased.  I see no women on street signs there.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement


from_name: Luna

body:
Both [1] and [2] (below) suggest posting to AN/I for discussion, and then
listing at [3] if consensus is achieved. That's how I read it, anyway?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK#Bans
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_ban
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users

On 12/6/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't find a reference for where the community blocks were supposed
> to be logged to.  Can it be tagged onto the Blocking Policy article or
> some such?
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to
	be deleted

body:
On 12/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wikipedia wants the option to use the encyclopaedia for commercial
> > purposes at some point in the future (for example, selling a printed
> > version, perhaps). By refusing images with non-commercial licenses, we
> > leave our options open.
>
> Why do we have fair use images then?

If we were being entirely logically consistent, we wouldn't.  I have
agitated for changing the criterion to something along the lines of
"the image must be directly discussed by the article where the article
cannot be complete without discussion of the image", which would
thereby rule out most images with the exception of those truly
notable, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg

This would move us further towards our goal of being a *free-libre*
encylopedia.  Being an encyclopedia is of little use without being
free.

--
Sam


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use

I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric
were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your
characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out
seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an
unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own
credibility.

The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
of others' needs.

-Kat

--
"I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in
distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani
DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Foundation-l] OLPC & Windows?

body:
On 06/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is a difference between the hardware being able to run Windows and
> the OLPC project running Windows. What the OLPC project develops is
> hardware that runs Linux and software that runs on top of Linux.

Quite. I read the actual basis of the story as being:

"If we hack our system around in certain ways it can run Windows, too,
which could be interesting. We'll see what we can do with this, but
it's worth looking into"

rather than

"Oooh! We can run Windows! Now let's convert everything over to being
proprietary!"

There is a big difference between a little bit of testing to sketch
out a possibility for some third-party development, and committing to
something as The Grand Solution. There's nothing in the original news
story which says "the OLPC will be a Microsoft product, look, here's
our grand evil plan"; it says "the OLPC may be able to run Windows, at
some indefinite point as an aftermarket extension, and both we and MS
are interested by the possibilities".

The goal of this project isn't to serve as some kind of great
free-software evangelism program, or to put one in the eye of
Microsoft - the goal of this project is to provide a cheap, reliable,
and widespread educational computing infrastructure to the developing
world. This sort of thing doesn't compromise that - it just means that
there is the possibility for expansion in interesting ways in the
future. Yes, that expansion may be commercial. Does that in some way
mean the project is now a bad thing? Does it mean that we should
pre-emptively write off the prospect of making this infrastructure
expandable, because MS and their ilk will always creep in somewhere if
we don't lock down and kneecap the machines at birth?

The capacity to expand these machines by running Windows is also the
capacity to expand these machines in a dozen different ways, many of
which haven't been thought of. Windows is simply a nice driving force
to get the capacity there.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] OLPC & Windows?


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 5, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Nobs02 <nobs03 at gmail.com>

 That's because I hadn't sent it yet: I had meant to send it (I had a rough
draft ready) after I logged off yesterday, but inadvertantly didn't get
around to it. My apologies for that; I've copied and pasted the response
below. Thanks for your understanding.

Hello, nobs, good to hear from you again! Before I undelete the pages, I
would just like to know what you intend to use them for; I know you cited an
appeal of your ArbCom case, but I would like to know some more details of
your intended use, given that *the topics we discussed were unrelated to
Cberlet's and your Arbitration case *[emphasis mine]. Because of
confidentiality issues, I have to be careful when undeleting any of these
pages;  I will be happy, though, to fulfill your request if it is
appropriate and necessary.

Thanks again for your understanding.

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

-----

It appears some negotiation may be necessary here.  I thought this was
moreless a done deal when Fred Bauder personally restored the main page;
Flchelloguy now reserves some right to act at his own discretion "if" and
when he decides it is "appropriate and necessary".  I don't know how to
proceed from here.

As to your draft, yes I like it; no problem with mentorship.  The big
question is, how much eividence of good faith on my part is necessary.  Let
me clarify the question: in the omitted evidence do we want to show more
that I acted in good faith, or that I was the victim of bad faith?

As to #12, I believe that ends 23 Dec 2006 cause it has been one year; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Probation#List_of_users_where_normal_probation_is_dormant

which refers to it as "dormant probation".  Does this need to be clarified?

Thanks again,

nobs

 ------------------------------
 Use Messenger to talk to your IM friends, even those on Yahoo! Talk
now!<http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=7adb59de-a857-45ba-81cc-685ee3e858fe>


body:
On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Are you looking for [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_ban]]? It is
> linked from WP:BLOCK.
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> > I can't find a reference for where the community blocks were supposed
> > to be logged to.  Can it be tagged onto the Blocking Policy article or
> > some such?

Just not one of my better days.  I guess the info WAS right in front of my
nose...

Some days, work chaos and WP chaos don't mix well.

Thanks, Luna and Puppy.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
boardelections. I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from the
devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder as
when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
sockpuppet)
So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to decide
herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf has
prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe it
would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)

Effeietsanders

2006/12/6, Stephanie Erin Daugherty <stephanie at sosdg.org>:
>
> Having not participated in last years ArbCom elections, I was quite
> shocked to see, that with the important role the Arbitraton Committee
> has in safeguarding the ideals and policies of the English wikipedia,
> these elections are being held with an open ballot.
>
> I cannot have any confidence in such an election. Open ballots bring out
> the worst in politics - bullying, fear of retaliation, groupthink, and
> voting with the hope to gain political favor in the future. While an
> open ballot appears open on the surface, as history has demonstrated, it
> is anything but.
>
> There is a reason that most free elections use secret ballots. Only in
> secret can someone make their true opinion known, without fear of
> bullying, fear of retaliation, undue influence of others, or hurt
> feelings.
>
> Secret ballots also allow for good judgement to be exercised in cases
> where a moral dilemma would otherwise exist - how do you deal with
> voting against someone who you are close friends with, or who is in a
> position of power over you, be it actual or percieved? In an open
> ballot, this at the very least means either hurt feelings, or votes that
> do not reflect one's true beliefs as to right choice to make in an
> election.
>
> We have facilities for secret ballots and approval voting. Those
> facilities work well, as demonstrated in the last board elections.
> Why on-wiki voting was chosen in favor of this, I don't know, to me it
> defies logical sense.
>
> In conclusion, I condemn this election in the strongest possible terms,
> as being flawed, subject to tampering, and as being anything other than
> a free election. I would hope that I'm not the only person that it this
> way, but even if I am, I know that I cannot in good concience stand for
> such an unjust and flawed process.
>
> I would encourage anyone else that feels strongly about this to make
> their voice heard, and loudly, so that future elections do not follow
> the same flawed path, and so that we can have confidence in our
> elections process.
>
> --
> Stephanie Daugherty
> stephanie at sosdg.org
> User:Triona on en.wikipedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Puppy

body:
I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read
it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the
very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only
"tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of
others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who
participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem
goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?

-kc-

Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
>>
>
> I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric
> were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your
> characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out
> seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an
> unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own
> credibility.
>
> The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
> appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
> everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
> the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
> to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
> done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
> including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
> open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
> several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
> would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
> of others' needs.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in
> distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani
> DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
>
> In the spirit of this, I did my own Special:Random sample of 30.  I found:
>
> Unsourced: 13
> 1 Working External link/reference: 6
> Printed only: 2
> Multiple References: 8
>
> Of the 13 unsourced articles, 3 were lists (and I didn't check the
> articles they were linking to for sources) 9 stubs, and only one was a
> full-blown article lacking sourcing.  I may be in a minority on this one,
> but I find unsourced stubs much less problematic than unsourced
> ''articles'', so my personal findings gave me a lot more hope than I
> thought.
>

Oh. Hadn't thought of that.

Having opened this can of worms, I guess I should warn that the secret power
here was that it was a truly random sample -- of ALL articles, not of full-blown
articles.

But wait!

All is not lost!

You can: click Special:Random, if it does NOT give you a valid article, ignore
it and try again. When you have 25 valid articles, you're good.

Of cousre, the result might depend heavily on your idea of valid. Also, if you
have a restrictive definition what makes an article valid, this might not be
practical at all.

Share and enjoy,
Dan


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:43:23 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>An erroneous speedy doesn't need DRV - any admin can restore it. (This
>is so that speedy patrollers don't have to be infallible.) This is of
>course problematic for non-admins.

Only if they don't know a friendly admin.  There's a category for
admins willing to undelete stuff in response to a reasonable request
(yes, I know, first find your category).  It's not too hard, though.

The point is a fair one, though - we can't do without RC patrollers
tagging the enormous volume of crap created every day, so we have to
be at least reasonably understanding of the possibility for good-faith
errors, and fixing such errors does not imply any criticism and should
not require the user to chop down the tallest tree in the forest WITH
A HERRING!!!

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


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not to
shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer doing
so.

On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read
> it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the
> very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only
> "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of
> others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who
> participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem
> goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
>
> -kc-
>
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> > On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
> >>
> >
> > I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric
> > were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your
> > characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out
> > seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an
> > unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own
> > credibility.
> >
> > The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
> > appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
> > everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
> > the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
> > to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
> > done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
> > including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
> > open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
> > several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
> > would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
> > of others' needs.
> >
> > -Kat
> >
> > --
> > "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in
> > distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani
> > DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images
 to	be deleted

body:
Kat Walsh wrote:
> -Kat
> who is, unfortunately, not a very good photographer
>
I can relate to that! But I'm much better than when I started taking
pictures for WP three years ago. For instance, I find that thinking
about someone on the other side of the world and in another culture
viewing my photo is an aid to composition - how do I get the key
information and context into the picture, while cutting out the
irrelevant? I've also gotten brazen about studying the unfree pictures
to see what it would take to get the same shots.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote

> > From: David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather
> > bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the
> > article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with
> > a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put
> > a {{hangon}}).
> >
> > The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of
> > Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the
> > RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was
> > given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171
> > A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
> >
> > It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a
> > redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was
> > redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while
> > it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary,
> > that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good
> > redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often
> > overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
>
> Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to
> illustrate a point.

And underwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense, either.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
On 12/6/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> > I found his statements well considered and well written.
>
> I didn't.
>
> > it can help to shame those who
> > participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem
> > goes away
>
> So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about
> posting
> because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot
> disagree
> with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and
> shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.

I think you're misunderstanding what Puppy said -- there was some ambiguity
about antecedents.


from_name: geni

body:
On 12/6/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy. Even
> more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
> boardelections.

First lot of arbcom elections on en.wikipedia.
--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikichix-l] Moderating an open list

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>
>>>>>> From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it
>>>>>> would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do
>>>>>>
>> not
>>
>>>>>> have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.
>>>>>>
>> Please point to where I am being too thin skinned. Where I am, in fact,
>> even stating I am hurt or unhappy in any way, valid or not.
>>
>>
>
> Well, simply speaking, the way *I* read this, is that you feel that either
> you or someone else has been attacked because they brought up the issue. Of
> course, I cannot judge whether you are being hurt by it, but if you do not
> feel that there have been attacks, I don't see why you would consider such a
> worry.
>
Because that is a very odd way to read my post. Boiled down, I said
/Many women feel intimidated and would like a safe place to post./  A
sizable number of men have said that, too - yet you choose to lump me in
with those women, and say *I* am too sensitive (not once did you say
*they* are too sensitive, although the other posts were often far more
supportive than mine) and you haven't told any of the men who support
those who wanted a separate list that *they* were being "too sensitive".
In other words, you're selectively applying standards and lumping me in
with "the women" - who are "too sensitive" - rather than responding to
my actual post. I find this disappointing, but not surprising.
-kc-


body:
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the
issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are
doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be
intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not
intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they
are not a women wondering if its intimidating.

-kc-

The Cunctator wrote:
> I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not to
> shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer doing
> so.
>
> On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>> I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read
>> it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the
>> very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only
>> "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of
>> others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who
>> participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem
>> goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
>>
>> -kc-
>>
>> Kat Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric
>>> were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your
>>> characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out
>>> seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an
>>> unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own
>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
>>> appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
>>> everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
>>> the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
>>> to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
>>> done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
>>> including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
>>> open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
>>> several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
>>> would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
>>> of others' needs.
>>>
>>> -Kat
>>>
>>> --
>>> "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in
>>> distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani
>>> DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
Matt R wrote:
> <snip>
> So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting
> because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree
> with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and
> shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.
>
> -- Matt
>
>
>
I have no idea where you got the idea that is my position. It is
completely opposite of my position.
-kc-


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 06/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>  "Sage Ross" wrote

> > A little grist for the mill, blog posts by feminist academics who are
> > Wikipedia outsiders or near outsiders:
> >http://badgerbag.typepad.com/badgerbag/2006/08/feminist_histor.html
> > http://smg.typepad.com/smg/2006/09/wiki_wiki.html

> The second strikes me as more thoughtful. It does illustrate a few general points (not specific to feminist issues).

The first proposes a very nice idea, a feminism resource wiki. I
provided what I hoped was an encouraging comment. Commenting more now
...

> People who scan WP and say 'change that, or that, or that ...' may never actually get into the pool and edit. The learning curve is probably much less steep on the non-core articles, rather than articles on the 'major topics' (I wouldn't advise anyone to start on any of the top few hundred articles by hits.)
> Another thing: this collection of comments does pick up on the spottiness of the 'notability' criteria.

AFD causes public relations problems shock! Ogg Theora at 11.

- d.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 12/6/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia wants the option to use the encyclopaedia for commercial
> purposes at some point in the future (for example, selling a printed
> version, perhaps). By refusing images with non-commercial licenses, we
> leave our options open.

Why do we have fair use images then?

Steve


body:
Are you looking for [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_ban]]? It is
linked from WP:BLOCK.

George Herbert wrote:
> I can't find a reference for where the community blocks were supposed
> to be logged to.  Can it be tagged onto the Blocking Policy article or
> some such?
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
On 06/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Gregory Kohs" wrote

> >I would argue that if you looked at the
> > original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or
> > career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to
> > a background check.

> Original research! Original research! Can you find a reliable source for this outrageous claim?

I put a link to my own blog on [[Sharity]], but I took care to note I
was doing so on the talk page. And we didn't end up buying a copy of
Sharity ;-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Making it easier for the public to help out

body:
On 12/2/06, Christopher Hagar <cmhagar at gmail.com> wrote:
> We could, right now, put a link on the anonnotice to "Report a problem" that
> links to create a new section on the talk page, but that would be only the
> most minimal of the suggested improvements, some of which may require
> developer intervention.

I would like to at the very least be able to guide the user through
the most common problems. In particular, if they are reporting libel
or copyvios, there are better channels to take. Doing that implies at
least one intermediate page with a menu (like the one I referred to
recently here), but I don't know if we can maintain state through that
intermediat page so the "create new section" would still know which
talk page to go to.

Steve


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate.
> We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space

Wikipedians (including men) can insist that WikiChix may not discriminate on
gender if they use Foundation resources.

Further, males have every right to comment on the approach of WikiChix, and on
gender issues in general, without being insulted or flamed for it.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
"Matthew Brown" wrote

> The postings are also interesting from the point-of-view of finding
> what turns off qualified people from contributing Wikipedia.

Well, lack of time, obviously ...

> Unsurprisingly, both blogs mention that the whole 'notability' mess is
> a big barrier, and a big part of our systemic bias.

Our concept of notability is anyway not transparent. It would not be an improvement, necessarily, to have a clearer criterion with a worse outcome. If you target the systemic bias thing, it is fairly clearly the case of not enough 'minority interest' articles created, rather than too many deleted, though.

Academics are going to focus on the borderline cases: the way their minds work. We have least to say about those, really.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Jim Schuler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected

body:
On 12/5/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/5/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Subscription request
> > > has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> > > following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> > > "Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
> > > comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
> > > list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
> > > wikien-l etc."
> >
> > Maybe we should have a mailing list just for men, too! And a mailing
> list
> > for British people where no Americans are allowed! Or a mailing list
> > just for atheists where no Christians would be accepted!
>
>
> Has a need for British-only or atheist-only lists been identified?  I
> haven't noticed ay such discussion on this list.  If such an issue has
> been
> identified and discussed, then it's worth considering.  If it's just based
> on the fact that people feel excluded - sure, I don't like being excluded
> from things either.  But the list was organised to avoid a specific
> problem
> - women feeling uncomfortable posting to this male-dominated list where
> explicitly sexist statements (even if they weren't meant seriously) are
> left
> unchallenged by a large number of people.

This is not, however, the proper way to deal with the issue.  In effect, the
editors who subscribe to wikichix have caved in to the intimidation by
creating their own mailing list.  Imagine if Rosa Parks, no matter how tired
she was, caved in to intimidation that December day in 1955.  Imagine if
Marin Luther King had given in to intimidation and not called for the
Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Caving in resolves nothing.

_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


from_name: Darko Bulatovic

subject: [Foundation-l] OLPC & Windows?

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> The capacity to expand these machines by running Windows is also the
> capacity to expand these machines in a dozen different ways, many of
> which haven't been thought of. Windows is simply a nice driving force
> to get the capacity there.
>

As I have understand this system has lot of specifics, the laptop
hardware ask for some unusual requirements (no hdd,...), quite different
power management, etc. Also it has limiter processor resources which
looks to me to like basic requirement for specific OS. So right out of
box i don't see how will windows run on this. never less i am personally
more interested in current Open Source solution as it will give
possibility for localization and adaption for specific use in different
circumstances by local development community.

Darko


subject: [Foundation-l] OLPC & Windows?


body:
On 12/6/06, Robth <robth1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> For depicting subjects where the creation of a free image would be
> impossible or very unlikely.  A non-commercial image would be
> acceptable for these subjects as well, but should have a fair use
> rationale explaining why it meets Wikipedia's criteria for using
> unfree images (i.e. why a free image is not a viable alternative).

Why do we need to resort to fair use if we have permission to use the
image anyway? Surely "permission for non-commercial use" images are
preferable to "fair use" images...if nothing else, we can use them at
full resolution.

Steve


body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you looking for [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_ban]]? It is
>> linked from WP:BLOCK.
>>
>> George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> I can't find a reference for where the community blocks were supposed
>>> to be logged to.  Can it be tagged onto the Blocking Policy article or
>>> some such?
>>>
>
>
>
> Just not one of my better days.  I guess the info WAS right in front of my
> nose...
>
> Some days, work chaos and WP chaos don't mix well.
>
> Thanks, Luna and Puppy.
>
>
>
Oh, you should see what I do before I've had enough coffee. In fact,
check my contribs and you *will* see.. but please be kind about it.
-kc-


body:
On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the
> issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are
> doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be
> intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not
> intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they
> are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
>
> -kc-

"and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.

The Cunctator wrote:
> > I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not
> to
> > shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer
> doing
> > so.
> >
> > On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read
> >> it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the
> >> very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only
> >> "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of
> >> others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who
> >> participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the
> problem
> >> goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
> >>
> >> -kc-
> >>
> >> Kat Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric
> >>> were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your
> >>> characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out
> >>> seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an
> >>> unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own
> >>> credibility.
> >>>
> >>> The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2)
> >>> appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by
> >>> everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects
> >>> the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like
> >>> to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have
> >>> done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects,
> >>> including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that
> >>> open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including
> >>> several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who
> >>> would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration
> >>> of others' needs.
> >>>
> >>> -Kat
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in
> >>> distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani
> >>> DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need
> > for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need
> > is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from
> > lack of use.
> >
>
> ... whoa. Care to rephrase that?

Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer
feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own
list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.

Steve


subject: [Wikitech-l] Block message

body:
On 12/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one of the GNU tar time units, and the blocking admin need not
> set whole numbers as the quantity ;-)

Yeah, looks like that's how that particular admin gets his kicks ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Can%27t+sleep%2C+clown+will+eat+me&page=

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 06/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do think there is significant systemic bias in terms of what things
> tend to be nominated for deletion, however.  Not the biggest source of
> systemic bias by any means, as you point out.

I suspect it's often systematic bias, i.e. a deep conviction that
certain areas of coverage should be killed and anyone disagreeing must
be clueless or a troll.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:37:52 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith"
<wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

>Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to
>illustrate a point.

His intentions were good?  That's a first :-)

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


from_name: Husky

subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement

body:
On 12/6/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> The category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crosswalk
> is clearly gender biased.  I see no women on street signs there.

The Ampelfrauen are there:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Traffic_light_-_female_%28aka%29.jpg

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]


subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:16:22 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>You mean 'on the Internet, no one knows you're a pet skunk'?

Far and away the most appropriate response to this spammer :-)

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


body:
Jim Schuler wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>> Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the
>> issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are
>> doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be
>> intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not
>> intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they
>> are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
>>
>> -kc-
>>
>
>
> "and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
>
>
>
As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further
qualifier. I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement
about all, or most, men.

-kc-


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 12:30:32PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> And as I mentioned, BigTable seems not useful as long as our indexes fit in
> RAM, which I hope is the case.

Well, 64-bit architectures relax one limit there, but RAM's still not
*that* cheap; I suspect our curve will grow faster than the price drop
curve of the memory...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	(I've been informed that the 'divorce' quote makes me look
	misogynistic, even though Jennifer Crusie is (pretty obviously)
	a female romance novelist.  So I've removed it. :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Profoundly bad idea.

body:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:28:24 +0000, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>The question is more like: are the quality initiatives proposed fit for purpose?

Yes.  Exactly that.  And it's a good subject for debate - we do seem
to be rather making it up as we go along, and working from the back
end forwards at that.

Having said which, if a group of people with time on their hands want
to take it upon themselves to rid Wikipedia of the mass of personal
essays masquerading as pop culture articles, more power to their
elbows, but I don't see it as anything like as high a priority as
ensuring that *every* biography is impeccably sourced, and as many
spam articles neutralised or deleted as I can manage in a day.  Which
is just my personal hot buttons.  Vive la difference, and all that.

I think we can all agree on the living persons issue, though.

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


body:
On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jim Schuler wrote:
> > On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the
> >> issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are
> >> doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be
> >> intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not
> >> intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they
> >> are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
> >>
> >> -kc-
> >>
> >
> >
> > "and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
> >
> >
> >
> As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further
> qualifier, I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement
> about all, or most, men.
>
> -kc-

The many carries over as it's the only qualifier, thus the statement becomes
that *all* men who turn the tables decide that it isn't intimidating.  Yes,
I'm being picky.

--
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant Deletionism

body:
"The Cunctator" wrote

> Sorry for the rant.

Seems that Fabianism and VanWinkleism are somewhat different.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Bill Konrad

body:
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:49:01 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid
	material
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:

<4588.63.151.8.141.1165423741.squirrel at www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>

Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

"Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> In the spirit of this, I did my own Special:Random sample of 30.  I found:
>
> Unsourced: 13
> 1 Working External link/reference: 6
> Printed only: 2
> Multiple References: 8
>
> Of the 13 unsourced articles, 3 were lists (and I didn't check the
> articles they were linking to for sources) 9 stubs, and only one was a
> full-blown article lacking sourcing.  I may be in a minority on this one,
> but I find unsourced stubs much less problematic than unsourced
> ''articles'', so my personal findings gave me a lot more hope than I
> thought.
>
> -Jeff

Well, this was an interesting exercise. Out of a sample of 25 consecutive
random articles:

9 had no sources whatsoever (well, one linked to a youtube video, but that
is equivalent to no source at all)

2 I felt were *very* weakly sourced -- one fairly long article on a
proprietary treatment listed only a self-published web site and an article
of "research" published in an unrefereed journal--the other had a single
link that did not provide any support for most of the article

9 were weakly sourced, in that I had little confidence that it would be able
to verify more than a small fraction of the content with only the sources
provided

4 appeared to be moderately well-sourced, in that there were multiple
sources provided and reasonable confidence that much, if not all, of the
content could be verified from the provided sources

Only 1 was really well-sourced, in that I had a pretty high confidence that
nearly every detail in the article could be verified with the provided
sources.

So 9/25 (36%) is unsourced or 44% if you include the very weakly sourced.

Of the 25, 11 were marked as stubs (a couple of the others probably
qualified as stubs, possibly even for deletion). If we exclude the marked
stubs, 4 remaining had no sources or 4/14 (29%).

I any case, no support for the 80% unsourced cannard.

Bkonrad


body:
Jim Schuler wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim Schuler wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the
>>>> issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are
>>>> doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be
>>>> intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not
>>>> intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they
>>>> are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
>>>>
>>>> -kc-
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further
>> qualifier, I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement
>> about all, or most, men.
>>
>> -kc-
>>
>
>
> The many carries over as it's the only qualifier, thus the statement becomes
> that *all* men who turn the tables decide that it isn't intimidating.  Yes,
> I'm being picky.
>
I intended the many to carry over, but to mean that many men consider
and thus decide - not that all men who consider thus decide. Again, I
apologise for being unclear.

-kc-


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 12/6/06, Stephanie <stephanie at sosdg.org> wrote:
>
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> >Afaik has there never been a closed vote on the wiki for local policy.
> Even
> >more, there has in my memory never been a closed vote other then for the
> >boardelections.
> >
> While I'd recomend that we look at secret ballots for some policy issues
> too, they are more insulated from the problems
> that make a public ballot unsuitable for this election. Elections of
> individuals have much more at stake - both emotionally, and politically,
> where as votes on policy are very straightforward. In an election such
> as the arbcom election, there are factors such as personal relationships
> that should take a back seat to what a voter thinks is best for
> en.wikipedia - with the votes public, that's not possible. A lot of the
> factors that influence a vote such as this are subtle and hidden, and
> remain hidden even when voting in this format. The temptation to vote to
> gain percieved political favor is one of the worst aspects of such a
> system, and if it happens in RFA !votes, where much less is at stake,
> then we can be sure that it happens in arbcom votes.
>
> To put it quite bluntly, people are unwilling to risk the consequences
> of voting their concience, going against the masses, going against their
> friendships in an "open" or public election. People are only truely open
> about their opinion when they can express  that opinion without
> possibility of reprisal. Therefore open ballots are not ballots placed
> under free will, and the election is subject to the worst kinds of
> tampering.
>
> I realize its too late to change this how this election run, however I
> also hope that this is the last time we use such an opressive method for
> an election in the name of "openness".
>
> >I guess it's not for nothing that the system we are voting
> >with for the board is called boardvote. I think it would indeed be
> >interesting to use the system on the one hand as it is more peacefull and
> >like we vote irl, but on the other hand it might require assistence from
> the
> >devs, or it might be very hard to track which votes are egligable, harder
> as
> >when using open voting (when everybody can help looking who might be
> >sockpuppet)
> >
> >
> Boardvote has elegibility checks, and more importantly, the list of who
> voted is public, so that votes can be stricken in a transparent manner
> without knowing how they effect the outcom.
>
> >So it has it's pro's and con's. I think at least the community has to
> decide
> >herself whether she wants a open or closed voting, but as well the wmf
> has
> >prolly to agree on voting this way (as it requires dev assistence). Maybe
> it
> >would be best to ask the wmf first indeed :)

Looking at these concerns, I see where you are coming from, but I think that
this comes down to a difference in goals.  Is this an election?  If it's an
election, then it's not run well.  Is it an exercise in
consensus-gathering?  It works reasonably well for that.

I know it's a common desire to want Wikipedia to be more election-like, but
so far the policies say we aren't.  Exactly what the "pass" criteria are for
this election are sort of vague, for example; Jimbo could create more
positions if he wants more people on Arbcom, and select more than the top
five "winners".

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Block message

body:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:12:41AM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> I believe several en:wp admins routinely use odd block times for
> repeat vandals so they don't just come back same time next day. e.g.
> that's why "31 hours" is one of the listed times on
> [[Special:Blockip]] on en:wp. See the other blocks for that IP by
> Clown - it's not a routine thing.

It's also an easy way to mark your personal blocks, so they can be
spotted easily in the list, assuming the list doesn't already show who
set the block.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	(I've been informed that the 'divorce' quote makes me look
	misogynistic, even though Jennifer Crusie is (pretty obviously)
	a female romance novelist.  So I've removed it. :-)


body:
On 12/6/06, Robth <robth1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> of fair use.  Second is our "fair use policy", which should properly
> be called our "unfree image policy" or something similar.  You are

Ah yes, that would certainly be a lot clearer.

> recent proposal to do this seems to be running into appreciable
> opposition from folks who support basing our unfree image policy only
> on immediate legal concerns.

Well, I guess I'm mostly sympathetic to that view. I didn't think the
creation of free images was a core goal of Wikipedia. Rather, having a
ready supply of usable images - free or otherwise - was. I don't feel
strongly about it as long as the effort of producing free images
doesn't distract us too much.

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Profoundly bad idea.

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>Robth wrote
>
>
>
>>The problem is this: the volume of contributions to Wikipedia by
>>one-time or occasional contributors who "pass-by", as it were, and add
>>something, is far too great for the community of steady
>>maintenance-oriented contributors to keep up with "fixing" all of it
>>as it comes in.  If we're going to place the onus on these steady
>>contributors to fix all this stuff, then we're going to end up with a
>>huge pile of stuff waiting to be "fixed" that is broken in very basic
>>ways; articles with no sources, images without specific enough
>>information, etc. This is the approach we have taken up till now, and
>>huge piles of stuff waiting to be fixed is exactly what we have.
>>
>>
>Well, you'll notice that the _unselective_ wish o have everything sourced to the hilt is aggravating this.
>
Exactly.  Being guided by obsessive-compulsive neat-freaks too easily
can cloud our long-term vision.

>We have always had the 'piles'.
>
And they are a pain in the ass. ;-)

>The question is more like: are the quality initiatives proposed fit for purpose?
>
In a normal growth environment the number of sub-standard articles is
bound to grow too.  If this is in proportion to other growth looking at
just the absolute number of these in isolation the problem can often
seem worse than it actually is.  On any given article one needs to
expect that it will itself grow over a continuum from stub to fully
documented article, but that takes time.

>Labelling with [[Category:Living persons]] is good, because it addresses a serious issue. Fretting about the quality of pop-culture articles is fairly pointless, on that scale. Deleting dodgy images is good (my take - I'm a text person first and foremost); it is quite true that images are worth at least 1000 words, but getting the text straight is the foundation. 100K 'featured articles' - did nothing for me. Getting a page up per surname, i.e. at least 10000 dab pages of the kind most people pay no attention to: very useful, because it inherently opens up the navigation and checking.
>
I tend to be text bound too, and pay minimal attention to images.  If
something makes it to "featured article" that's fine, but I'm not going
to be worried about it getting there.  At one per day it will take the
better part of 3000 years to put up 100K.

>And so on. Just let's acknowledge that quality beefs should be prioritised.
>
>
Absolutely.  This put higher priority on things that are potentially
illegal or which represent a questionable POV.  Even there a POV about
current events is more condequential than one about a video game.

Ec


from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] SVN:  [18194] trunk/phase3

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

Raimond Spekking wrote:
> vyznev at svn.wikimedia.org schrieb:
>> Revision: 18194
>> Author:   vyznev
>> Date:     2006-12-06 00:28:44 -0800 (Wed, 06 Dec 2006)
>>
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> (bug 5485) Show number of intervening revisions in diff view.
>
>> Modified: trunk/phase3/includes/DifferenceEngine.php
>> ===================================================================
>> --- trunk/phase3/includes/DifferenceEngine.php	2006-12-06 06:58:50 UTC (rev 18193)
>> +++ trunk/phase3/includes/DifferenceEngine.php	2006-12-06 08:28:44 UTC (rev 18194)
>
>> +
>> +		if ( $n == 1 )
>> +			$msg = wfMsg( 'diff-multi-rev' );
>> +		else
>> +			$msg = wfMsg( 'diff-multi-revs', $n );
>> +
>> +		return wfMsgExt( 'diff-multi', array('parseinline'), $msg );
>
> Isn't it possible to use one message with the PLURAL function only?
>
>
>> Modified: trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php
>> ===================================================================
>> +'diff-multi-rev' => "One intermediate revision",
>> +'diff-multi-revs' => "$1 intermediate revisions",
>
> Could be combined to:
>
> 'diff-multi-revs' => "{{PLURAL:$1|One intermediate revision|$1
> intermediate revision}}",
>
> Raymond.
>

Done.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFduGhqahN/0dU8mcRAp5BAJ9Ppv+GLkYlbDUb2DoeLlL2ZBysLgCbBeoe
DF2WbZA5vD9/FgepxaBdspk=
=o6Kr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Wikitech-l] Case sensitivity in article headings?

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> On 05/12/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I believe Interiot said he stole it from frwiki.
>
> Now, Rory, wiki users don't steal. We don't do "theft" on this mailing
> list. We're nice people. We coerce, and bash people over the head with
> bricks when they don't do what we want...and if they just so happen to
> have something we like, we might lift it from them. But we never
> steal. Don't you know that stealing is wrong?
>
> I reckon we should encourage a *lot* more cross-project collaboration.
> I'm rather pleased to see that we're having a more diverse bunch of
> new committers, who have different regional perspectives on things,
> and the i18n team is growing like there's no tomorrow. I guess it's a
> side-effect of all this wiki stuff, and I don't think there's anything
> wrong with it.
>
> Someone (Brion, I think) once suggested a repository of nifty scripts
> and stuff. If we made it easy to manage the things, then perhaps we
> could encourage people from all over to dump their custom JavaScript
> thingies into it. Another angle could be to look for cute skin
> customisations, turn these into independent skins, and place them in
> MediaWiki (or at least install them as skins for Wikimedia users)...
>
>

The approach on Commons is to stick anything useful in the MediaWiki
namespace, and have people include it rather than copying it.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061206/e3af8e1c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/5/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Stated another way, not only does a poorly-composed fan shot of
> an author at a book signing trump a professionally-photographed
> headshot, an imageless article trumps that headshot, too.

I think this needs the clarification that this might only apply if the
professionally-photographed headshot has not been licensed
appropriately.  I certainly am very in favor of notable individuals
providing us their press photos under a free license.

I don't agree with either extreme proposition here.  I don't think
that an article is automatically better with no image than a fair use
one, but neither do I think that a fair use image is automatically
better than no image.  It is definitely the case, though, that
imageless articles tend to inspire properly-licensed image
contributions much more so than articles with an appropriate but
fair-use image.

I also agree that in the majority of cases, fair use images on
articles on living persons could be replaced with a free image.  There
are some cases where such replacement is extremely unlikely, and in
those cases I would accept an argument for a fair-use image,
particularly if it is one that would be freely available to us under a
Wikipedia-only or noncommercial-only or educational-only license, so
that we are not actually in potential legal difficulties.

What do people think about fair use images of historical things that
no longer exist?  In these cases, nobody can go and photograph the
thing - our only hope of getting a free-licensed image is persuading
someone who owns the copyright to one to donate it.  (Short of waiting
for copyright expiration, if it ever even happens given the continual
raising of copyright periods)

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 12/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect it's often systematic bias, i.e. a deep conviction that
> certain areas of coverage should be killed and anyone disagreeing must
> be clueless or a troll.

Well, there's that, but there's also the 'I've never heard of it, thus
delete' category.  Thus, topics not known by your typical Wikipedian
are more likely to be nominated for deletion.  Most of these will be
saved, but the aggravation of deletion debates is an offputting
factor.

-Matt


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
> Traditional list etiquette encourages that approach, yes, although
> really I think the odds have more to do with how the message is crafted
> than with whether it is delivered publicly or privately. Here it was a
> difficult balancing act. It is evident that at least some people do not
> see much of a problem, perhaps not surprising since bias and
> discrimination often operate in subtle and systemic ways. As a result,
> it is sometimes necessary to publicly call out examples.
>
> However, Snowdog is a valuable part of the community and has a good
> reputation, so I wasn't happy to be so critical. I did try to "play the
> ball, not the man" (sexist idiom, but the right gender in this case) by
> focusing on the comment itself and what was offensive about it. I am
> thankful that he continues to participate, with good grace and in a
> constructive fashion. A "botched joke" may cost John Kerry the chance to
> run for President again, but it shouldn't cost anyone the chance to post
> again to this list.
>
> --Michael Snow

Well, it was clear to me, from the beginning, that the issue of the thread was gender bias and sexist remarks. So basically my "sexist joke" was a field test (I'm not so stupid to make such comments in a place where those comments are in discussion).

Working primarily on the italian Wikipedia, and since this issue has started on en.wiki (on which I do not follow the ongoing discussions), I wanted to realize quickly, and maybe brutally, how this kind of things are felt. So thanks Michael for your public reply, and you all forgive me if I used you as Guinea-pigs.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Ordina subito la scintillante lampada a forma di Renna di Babbo Natale: lascerai i tuoi ospiti... a bocca aperta !
http://click.libero.it/dmail06dic06


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Blocking Open Proxies

body:
I've been looking into the open proxy blocking functionality today and have
found some interesting things. Is this what Wikipedia is using to block open
proxies?

One issue that I found is that since proxy_check.php didn't send some client
and other relevant headers to the proxy, several proxies replied with "301
Moved Permanently" responses and wouldn't load the SpecialBlockme.php page
(which is a really cool idea by the way). I'm not sure why this was - but
adding in some fake firefox header information seemed to fix it.

Some proxies seemed to connect to a 2nd proxy before connecting to the final
server. For example if I set my proxy to 62.75.167.11:8080 ,
my IP ends up being listed as 62.75.136.84 when I edit a page, and this IP
is not accepting connections on 8080. This unfortunately circumvents the
benefits of proxy_checker.php.

SpecialBlockme doesn't have an expiry by default, it might be a good idea to
have a more realistic length of blocking especially for something that's
automated, like a global variable $wgProxyDefaultBlockLength which could be
set to something like "3 months". Also, SpecialBlockme doesn't record log
entries for blockingopen proxies, which admins might find useful, so I added
this to our setup by adding these lines:

        $log = new LogPage( 'block' );
        $log->addEntry( 'block', Title::makeTitle( NS_USER, $ip ), $reason,
$wgProxyDefaultBlockLength) );

I came across this page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:WikiProject_on_open_proxies

Is this project still active? If so, is there any easy way to import updated
versions of this list in an automated fashion? What's the obscure blacklist
that was mentioned in this link, can you tell us more about it Brion?

Travis


from_name: Manchot

subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement

body:
Le mercredi 6 d?cembre 2006 12:36, Lars Aronsson a ?crit?:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6206084.stm
>
> The Swedish traffic sign is popularly named "herr g?rman" (Mr.
> Walker, but also a pun on "here you can walk") and "fru g?rman" is
> simply Mrs. Walker,
> http://images.google.com/images?q=fru%20g%C3%A5rman
>
> You can get similar examples from (East) Germany by searching for
> Ampelfrau, http://images.google.com/images?q=ampelfrau
>
> See also the article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampelfrau
>
> The category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crosswalk
> is clearly gender biased.  I see no women on street signs there.

<joke> Wow, those spanish traffic signs are much more realistics than the old
ones, since most of the time, it's the man who's driving the car, and the
woman who's walking and crossing the road, isn't it ? ;-)


subject: [Foundation-l] For your amusement


subject: [Wikitech-l] Block message

body:
On 12/6/06, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I use the fortnight block as well, and if the person being blocked doesn't
> know what a fortnight is, then I can suggest a certain online encylopedia
> and/or dictionary they can use to read about it!
>
> x
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
> To: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Block message
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:12:41AM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> >> I believe several en:wp admins routinely use odd block times for
> >> repeat vandals so they don't just come back same time next day. e.g.
> >> that's why "31 hours" is one of the listed times on
> >> [[Special:Blockip]] on en:wp. See the other blocks for that IP by
> >> Clown - it's not a routine thing.
> >
> > It's also an easy way to mark your personal blocks, so they can be
> > spotted easily in the list, assuming the list doesn't already show who
> > set the block.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > --
> > Jay R. Ashworth
> > jra at baylink.com
> > Designer                          Baylink
> RFC
> > 2100
> > Ashworth & Associates        The Things I
> Think                        '87
> > e24
> > St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727
> 647
> > 1274
> >
> > (I've been informed that the 'divorce' quote makes me look
> > misogynistic, even though Jennifer Crusie is (pretty obviously)
> > a female romance novelist.  So I've removed it. :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

Has anyone so blocked vandalized the [[Fortnight]] page yet?

8-)

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Kurt Maxwell Weber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletion patrol

body:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:37, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> > From: David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather
> > bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the
> > article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with
> > a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put
> > a {{hangon}}).
> >
> > The article was actually a redirect to T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of
> > Arabia"). Wanting privacy, in later life Lawrence re-enlisted in the
> > RAF as an Aircraftsman (equivalent of Private in the Army), and was
> > given 338171 as his service number. He often signed himself "338171
> > A/C Shaw", prompting Noel Coward to ask him "May I call you 338?".
> >
> > It was quite obvious on reading the article that it was actually a
> > redirect. If the admin had checked the article to which it was
> > redirected he would have found the reason explained there. So while
> > it's legitimate to claim to have been misled by the edit summary,
> > that really doesn't justify mistakenly speedying a perfectly good
> > redirect. I appreciate that speedy deletion patrollers are often
> > overworked but overwork is not an excuse for lack of common sense.
>
> Good intentions are not an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia to
> illustrate a point.

What "disruption"?

That has to be about the most overused term on Wikipedia.

A single instance of an act is not "disruption".

--
Kurt Weber
<kmw at armory.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061206/137202c4/attachment.pgp


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:

> In fact, would you have said "as attacking *you* " if you had thought I
> was a man?
>

I can't really judge it, because the reasons that I used 'you' there are the
same as the reasons why I thought you were a woman. However, changes are I
would have, for the same or similar reason as before: in an environment
where of a large part of people I do not know what gender they have, and
where for the others there's only a nick to make a difference, I'm much less
likely to let gender factor in than in real life where I can see or hear the
gender of the person opposite me. The real danger in a Wikipedia context
would not be to treat men and women differently, but to treat all of them as
men rather than gender neutral.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:

> > >>> From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it
> > >>> would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do
> not
> > >>> have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up
> the
> > >>> bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.
> Please point to where I am being too thin skinned. Where I am, in fact,
> even stating I am hurt or unhappy in any way, valid or not.
>

Well, simply speaking, the way *I* read this, is that you feel that either
you or someone else has been attacked because they brought up the issue. Of
course, I cannot judge whether you are being hurt by it, but if you do not
feel that there have been attacks, I don't see why you would consider such a
worry.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com> wrote:

> I found his statements well considered and well written.

I didn't.

> it can help to shame those who
> participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem
> goes away

So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting
because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree
with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and
shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
Matt R wrote

> So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting
> because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree
> with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and
> shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.

Come now. They can perfectly well disagree. But I haven't seen so many clunky arguments put forward since I was a Fellow of a Cambridge college in the 1980s. I see very little actual sexism to complain about here. I see an almost complete dearth of tact. I see a hell of a lot of divisive language, as per your post. I see an almost total lack of empathy, from the males who are getting on a high horse about this. I see, also, an obvious flaw in the idea that the way technical issues are discussed extrapolates to discussion of social issues. Which is it doesn't: the whole culture of warring over getting your perspective installed as the de facto standard (which is the basic tech riff, no?) fails miserably in avoiding schism.

So, it's a crying shame all right. And, unbelievably, some people are still hammering away, in apparent complete ignorance of the effect they are having. Guys, your rhetoric and tone is not good for this discussion. Try saying 'I agree' or 'I disagree', instead of attempting to blister people's monitors.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information