body:
Jimmy-
> My essential point is that our refusal to have standards is not a
> valid tool in the fight against censorship.  Rather it plays directly
> into the hands of those who argue that censorship is necessary.

This is a very weak argument. Those who want censorship will argue that it
is necessary with or without a Wikipedia article called "List of unusual
sex practices". If they want a poster child for censorship, picking on an
open encyclopedia project is not likely to work very well.

I have said that Wikipedia is important, and that it is true: It is
important the moment it becomes censored entirely by someone, because of
all the clearly useful and educational information that is there. But
before this happens, Wikipedia is just one of millions of websites, very
small parts of which contain small amounts of possibly offensive content
within an encyclopedic framework.

Arguing that because of these small amounts of offensive information in an
open encyclopedia, "we need filters NOW!" is not the kind of argument that
works well in a filtering debate. You could pick many, many other sites
and many, many other equivalent examples for that, from Blogspot to
Livejournal, from Slashdot to Everything2, from Google ("SafeSearch"
notwithstanding) to Yahoo. Let's take a look at a random news.yahoo.com
story. In the comment section we find on the first page:

----
336892	 	Re: Jews killed Jesus. Jesus who?
336891	 	Re: Wilbur05488 dilemma,,,seeker
336890	 	Re: Jews killed Jesus.
336889	 	Re: Why Arabs want Israel.
336888	 	Re: US jews HAVE NO LOYALTY TO AMERICA!!
336887	 	Re: Cretins, jealous of Jewish achieveme
336886	 	Re: Jews killed Juses.
336885	 	Re: If Hillary were President..
336884	 	Re: US jews HAVE NO LOYALTY TO AMERICA!!
336883	 	Cretins sure sound like Arabs/Muslims
336882	 	Re: LET THE KILL EACH OTHER
336881	 	Look at this Sentence
336880	 	Re: Jews killed Juses.
336879	 	Re: LET THE KILL EACH OTHER
...
----

Our unusual sex practice articles pale in comparison to these crude and
vulgar discussions. And you don't even want to know what is on
groups.yahoo.com and the like. Yet even Yahoo! or Google are not used as
examples in the filtering debate. That's not because they offer primitive
"family filters", it's because you don't make the case for filtering by
using subtle arguments. The people who are intelligent enough to
understand them are probably against filtering in the first place.

Here are the likely scenarios. For simplicity's sake I'll leave out the
implementation cost of filtering in each scenario, even though it is
there:

1) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install blacklist
filters regardless because of rotten.com et al. But we're not part of the
filters.

        WE WIN:  pupils can access parts of Wikipedia
        WE LOSE: we have effectively endorsed the filtering of explicit
                 content, other interactive sites will be expected to do
                 the same or get blacklisted.

2) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install keyword
filters for URLs and pages, and exempt Wikipedia from this filter:

        WE WIN: control over what gets filtered
        WE LOSE: see 1)

3) We implement a working filter. Schools and libraries install keyword
filters for URLs and pages, with no exceptions on URLs.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: see 1)

4) We implement a filter that filters too much and is used repressively.
Schools and libraries wholeheartedly endorse it.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: Wikipedia sets an example for hard control and is cited
        as such. Others are asked to follow our model. Legitimate content
        is hidden from minors.

5) We implement a filter that filters too little. Schools and libraries
call for additional measures.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: -

6) We implement no filter at all. Schools and libraries install keyword
filters for URLs and pages, with no exceptions on URLs.

        WE WIN: -
        WE LOSE: -

7) We implement no filter at all. Schools and libraries blacklist
Wikipedia.org because of pussy pictures.

        WE WIN: opportunity to promote open access, highlight the dangers
                of filtering, publicity
        WE LOSE: access by minors

In all of the above scenarios, minors lose access to some pages. We have
little to gain in that area. I personally doubt that we lose reputation
because of a lack of filtering. Both scenario 6) and 7) are not
particularly dangerous to us. Therefore I think that not implementing any
kind of "family filter" is a reasonable choice.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: Advisories and saying goodbye -- long

body:
Julie-

> The initial question/suggestion was to place a visible advisory that the
> wikipedia contains information that some people might find
> objectionable.

The very first sentence of the very first page of Wikipedia reads:

"Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate
open content encyclopedia."

complete
accurate
open
encyclopedia

In my opinion, this is both more honest and more tasteful than any
disclaimer could ever be. Regardless, Some people have created the page

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AContent_disclaimer

which is linked from

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAbout

I don't like this very much, but it is a compromise I can live with.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:

> Jimbo, I'm puzzled. Where is it written that Wikipedia contains
> content that needs filtering? What are these mysterious standards that
> we refuse to implement? Who, exactly, is it that should be choosing
> which content on our site is "objectionable"... and objectionable to
> whom? How are we irresponsible?
>
> I am of the opinion that Wikipedia does NOT contain content that needs
> filtering. Ideas are both MORE dangerous and LESS dangerous than most
> people realize. Of course, the proponents of filtering universally
> want to filter the less dangerous stuff and let the more dangerous
> stuff through. (i.e., sexuality is not dangerous, but ideas like
> freedom/rationality/logic ARE dangerous... at least to people who
> think sexuality IS dangerous....) I am also of the opinion that we DO
> have standards, and that those standards are good ones for an
> encyclopedia.... we try to ensure that our articles are truthful,
> non-biased, and accurate. I am also of the opinion that those people
> who don't like the site should not use it. I also think that those
> people who are unwillingly blocked from using the site need to step up
> and let their voices be heard; should peak to their parents, teachers,
> government officials, clergymen.; tell them why Wikipedia is important
> and how it shouldn't be blocked. Lastly, I find the assertion that
> we're being somehow irresponsible, or refusing to handle the issue
> responsibly insulting. Holding the view that censorship is unnecessary
> or undesirable is not irresponsible.

I don't even see the issue as being about whether Wikipedia contains
objectionable material of any kind, sexual or otherwise.  Being
irresponsible is about ignoring the whole problem and just praying that
it will go away.  It's important to be aware of what we have, and what
its possible effects might be.  We need to be prepared to make changes
where appropriate, but we also need to defend other content when we feel
it's justified.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Do we need a new logo contest?

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

> The flower one says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun".

Yes!

>So
>it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or
>organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.
>
>
>
I rather like the flower logo, in spite of that. I think we do need
another logo contest, even if its result is to re-confirm the old logo.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] close, but no cigar

body:
Julie-
> I think sophistry is the word you're looking for.  Your last on the fact
> that there is a disclaimer - if one knows where to look, and certainly
> not highly visible on the main page

Would you really find it tasteful for our main page to contain a "here
there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that would blow the perceived
problem a little bit out of proportion?

>  - only proves my point and
> objection.   There is a certain mindset that says that doing things that
> are clearly unethical or against the spirit of the law (rule, more,
> code, standard, etc.) are all right as long as they follow the letter of
> the law.  I'm sorry you think that's enough.

I can't follow you here. Which standard are we only following to the
letter, and not to the spirit? And why should that be my standard, if it
is yours?

> Oh - and when did helping people make informed choices stop being a
> courtesy and become a form of censorship?

I'm all for helping people make informed choices. I therefore support
putting double square brackets around the world "encyclopedia" on the main
page, so that anyone who does not know what to expect can read it up.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Cunc-
> I had written a more useful response which I accidentally deleted, about how
> a more useful discussion of the logo question would not center on
> aesthetics, but on what message we want the logo to portray--e.g., the
> current one says "Wikipedia is serious, dense, textual, highminded,
> comprehensive, global, and perhaps arrogant, dull, confusing, and
> Anglocentric."

That's a lot. A lot to disagree with and argue about. And you don't even
talk about Hobbes' message, which, as I said, is certain to be
controversial.

> The flower one says "Wikipedia is fun and involves life/growth/the sun". So
> it's unsurprising it looks like a logo for a biotech/agritech corporation or
> organization, like Monsanto or the EU Eco-label.

Monsanto? These folks would disagree:
http://www.gp.org/
http://www.gruene.de/
http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/
http://www.nhgreens.org/

The Greens have pretty much monopolized the sunflower, that's why I
wouldn't really want to use it, it was just a quick hack.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Brad-
^*cough*

> There's nothing wrong with having a logo that doesn't please everyone, for
> the simple reason that it's impossible to make one that does.

I agree. But it should please as many people as reasonably possible within
our mission. I don't think the Hobbes logo is optimal in that respect. I
do think it served us well for over 2 years.

> Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green Party supports my point about
> its connotations.

Monsanto and the Green Party are very different groups, you know ;-)

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Major new thread: Looking for consensus on content metadata

body:
Jimmy-

all of the requirements you describe would be met nicely by my
[[Category:Foo]] scheme. :-) So far nobody has done any work implementing
it, and I won't do much coding for the next couple of months, but it seems
like a reasonable solution. I would like to add that any category system
should support hierarchies, to avoid unnecessary redundancy. E.g. when you
have [[Category:US president with a beard]], you don't need to flag the
same article with [[Category:US president]], because the former is a child
category of the latter.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.

body:
Zoe-
> Please view my Talk page at
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where
> information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion
> page.  Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying
> "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal
> he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have
> problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are
> attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are
> demanding my syspo status be taken away.

You are mischaracterizing what has been said.

Anthere: "I will not support removing sysop status to Zoe, because she is
making very good work and I globally trust us, and certainly trust to do
what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be honest, I don't trust
very much her on the spot decision of deletions."

Martin: "Personally, I'd have just reinstated the copyvio notice, and
possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than deleting the article.
Others here have suggested additionally protecting the page. I hope that
Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in the future."

GrahamN: "So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without nominating it to be
deleted, and without even discussing it with anybody? Isn't that a blatant
abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she been given some
special dispensation to ignore all the rules she doesn't like, or what?"

I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere &
Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have
some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring
him.

I think that it was a mistake to delete the page and that it should have
been protected instead, and/or that the user should have been warned. I do
not think that your sysop status should be revoked because of a single
mistake. I do believe that you are overreacting.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Brad-
> ^*cough*
>
> > There's nothing wrong with having a logo that
> doesn't please everyone, for
> > the simple reason that it's impossible to make one
> that does.
>
> I agree. But it should please as many people as
> reasonably possible within
> our mission. I don't think the Hobbes logo is
> optimal in that respect. I
> do think it served us well for over 2 years.
>
> > Yeah. That the logo makes sense for the Green
> Party supports my point about
> > its connotations.
>
> Monsanto and the Green Party are very different
> groups, you know ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

I can help you with the point of view of Monsanto,
Bayer, Aventis, and Syngenta if necessary :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Axel-
>
> > -+- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> >> I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not
> >> be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
> >> should flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
>
> > The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and
> > modifiable encyclopedia.
>
> Exactly. *Freely* distributable and modifiable. ;-)

Yes that's pretty funny. You have already made clear that you interpret
"the free encyclopedia" as "free-for-noncommercial-use". The intended
and understood interpretation however has always been "GNU-free".
[[Wikipedia:copyrights]] says "free-as-in-free-software", which by
anybody's definition (FSF, OSI, Debian) does not include mere
free-for-noncommercial-use materials.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Zoe-

I wrote this:

>> I think Graham's comments can be characterized as
>> attacks, but Anthere &
>> Martin seem to be trying to understand what
>> happened. Graham seems to have
>> some personal problems with you, which is
>> unfortunate. I suggest ignoring
>> him.

Then you wrote that:

> GrahamN:
> Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be
> honest, open and straightforward in what they are
> doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act
> like that, they should lose their sysop status

> GrahamN:
> I am astounded at the casual attitude that is
> displayed in so many of the comments that have been
> posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain
> truly free and democratic then it is vital that all
> sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that
> real consensus is always demonstrated before any
> deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia
> Constitution, these two principles should be in big
> capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very
> serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying
> to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would
> point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a
> coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a
> good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind
> of complacency that so many users are demonstrating
> here.

> GrahamN:
> What you are telling me is that there is some terrible
> external threat to us, and the only way to protect
> ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give
> absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This
> argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere

> Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.

I can just repeat what I already said: Ignore GrahamN.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Zoe,

Missing here is what you did that excited them so.

Fred

> From: Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
> To: WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Here I am, under attack again.
>
> Please view my Talk page at
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where
> information has been moved from the Votes for Deletion
> page.  Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as saying
> "I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a vandal
> he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have
> problems with users on every Wiki she works on) are
> attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they are
> demanding my syspo status be taken away.
>
> Hey, it seems like whatever I do is wrong.  If
> something gets done by any other sysop, it's perfectly
> fine, but if it's me, I'm being considered a vandal
> and someone who's plotting a coup to take over
> Wikipedia (I'm not exagerrating--that's what's being
> said on my talk page.)
>
> Well, so, if you want to remove my sysop status,
> please do.  Apparently I'm not a trustworthy person
> who gives nothing of use to the Wikipedia.  It seems
> like all I do is go around making these outrageous
> decisions.  We might want to question some of the
> people making these accusations, but then, why should
> I do that, since I'm so untrustworthy.
>
> Well, you know what, Martin, Graham, and anthere?  I
> don't like you, either.  And if anyone proposes you
> for sysophood, I will vote no.
>
> Zoe
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
I think you have it right Julie. She's an engaging writer but you have the
problem pegged pretty well, in short, a set of blinders.

Fred

From: "Julie Kemp" <juleskemp at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:03:17 -0700
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand with text

Sorry about that Jimbo ? I clearly have not made a study of Ayn Rand, and my
analysis was based entirely on my reading of Atlas Shrugged in college.  If
I?ve got her entirely wrong, I?m sorry, but I don?t think that I am the only
one who sees her writing being used to support  a  social construct that,
while certainly forcing people to take the blame for their own actions, it
also seemed that there was a lot of ?not my problem? in it.   Maybe I?ll
give it another try.

JHK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030617/ca03a442/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:

> One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
> everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free
> food and free speech. If we want to get it to
> everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I
> think optional censorship (necessary at some domain
> names) is the easiest way to do this.

Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely
hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to
action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point
some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a
nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a
matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Looking for consensus on content metadata

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> And then in a while, we can revisit the issue, and see what we think
> could be done with these categories.

Whatever you do please avoid cluttering the user interface -- there is
already much too much meta info and too many links on every page...

--
                                                         |      ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |    _-\_<,
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home)               |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Stevertigo

body:
Re: [WikiEN-l] apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand with text>>Fred: I think you have it right Julie. She's an engaging writer but you have the >>problem pegged pretty well, in short, a set of blinders.

Such is philosphy. Rand, as I understand her -- and the way her name has since been used (exploited) by a former partner of hers who does not share her... depth -- is that she was held up as emblematic of a former Soviet Block turned Capitalist American success story -- and this was her access to American culture at the time.  Kinda like listening to Arnold Schwarzeneggers 'deep thoughts' on American poltics, etc. For an immigrant *not to renounce their socialist, communist, whatever... roots and embrace fully the 'conservative' American ethic -- would mean that you were'nt paying your political dues like all good immigrants should.  Hence the 'conservatism' among Hispanics, Asians, etc... Freedom... woohoo! This is the general context that I think of Rand -- as sincere as she sounded -- she was still just a woman trying to make a life in conformist-era USA.

But more importantly, as all who wax philosophical should be taken with a grain of salt -- the size of that grain often depends on what the feeling is -- based on what some of the people who adhere to that 'philosophy' -- hence, when I take a look at the Ayn Rand Institutes' website and see a bunch of nonsense on there, my grain of salt reminds me that what these people -- supposed loyalists to Ayn Rand -- write, isn't necessarily what she, herself would have said.  In fact, understanding the controversy within her following about who exactly is running her foundation -- who's bearing the torch, and is he doing a good job -- it seems as if this is really a tragic case where people are using her name and her much-lauded intellect to justify anything from welfare gutting to deportation and so on.

The *real message that I get from what little I've read of her -- is a kind of silent thread -- (A silent theme, perhaps, because of where she writing all of this ) -- that despite how terrible it was where she came from, its not really ideological differences that lead to that -- rather the unyielding adherence to an ideology that makes people blind.   Her intuitive navigating, despite having the old blinders on (as mentioned by Fred) is what resonates with people. We all live with our own respective blinders on. To communicate from the point of view of absolute clarity doesnt always resonate well.
Thats my limited sense of it.

-SM

    "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you     say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."  Noam Chomsky

    Sorry about that Jimbo ? I clearly have not made a study of Ayn Rand, and my analysis was based entirely on my reading of Atlas Shrugged in college. If I?ve got her entirely wrong, I?m sorry, but I don?t think that I am the only one who sees her writing being used to support  a social construct that, while certainly forcing people to take the blame for their own actions, it also seemed that there was a lot of ?not my problem? in it.   Maybe I?ll give it another try.

    JHK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030617/8f52e567/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sorting business - was filtering etc...

body:
Mav's idea is to call the discussion "sorting" rather than filtering.
Filtering has a negative sorta connotation - and theres a reason for it, as
has been stated.

And sorting is sorta different, wouldnt we say?  There are sorting features
in WP now -- recent changes, news articles, - any search you do is a
sorting, of sorts.

So as a separate discussion, we can discuss sorting, -- but with the clear
understanding that *"sorting" means "sorting articles" - *not "sorting
people" for the appropriate article for them.

'Spectfully,
-Steve

> Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely
> hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to
> action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point
> some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a
> nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a
> matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
>
> Axel


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Hunter Peress

subject: [Wikitech-l] jimbo: re: upgrading mailman

body:
a month ago, japanese user Tomos came to the list citing japanese problems with mailman. i helped
him out, and we determined that mailman 2.1 (as opposed to 2.0) has lots of good i18n fixes.
shouldnt you get to this ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Always make articles as complete as possible

body:
--- "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz"
<living_english_structure at go2.pl> wrote:
>  From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete
> as possible]]
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and
> guidelines|rules to consider]]:
>
> Whenever you write a page, always make it as
> complete and comprehensive as
> possible.
> <br>Don't create an article until it is in form
> ready for publication.  If you feel that your
> article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to
> publish it please insert boilerplate text from
> [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
>
> This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always
> leave something undone|
> "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is
> regarded obsolete.
>
> This rule is open for debate.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Articles happen to be reviewed almost
> instantaneously (as they appear on RC)
> or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors
> for months (years?).
>
> Cooperation and collective authorship that are
> behind the
> "Always leave something undone" rule were great in
> the old days when there
> were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
>
> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
> slip form the RC and
> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>
> This is an observation from perusing the ancient
> pages list.
>
> Regards,
> Kpjas.

I think both rules are horrible. Just do the best you
can do. If you make an obvious typo, someone might fix
it without doing anything else. And if you insist that
everything that is written must me
encyclopedia-quality, nothing will get done. I think
we should each write as much as possible in each
article, but not more than that.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
> > everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses,
> free
> > food and free speech. If we want to get it to
> > everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and
> I
> > think optional censorship (necessary at some
> domain
> > names) is the easiest way to do this.
>
> Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the
> threat is completely
> hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia.
> Maybe, before rushing to
> action, we should give schools more credit. If
> indeed at some point
> some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping
> the benefits of a
> nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up
> your edupedia in a
> matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in
> place.
>
> Axel
>

But the sifter code is too exclusive. It would be
better if we had a ''white''list, not a blacklist, and
if certain articles were forked. But I guess I do
agree with your point.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand

body:
--- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
> -Stevertigo
>
> P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.

It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in
objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is
there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia?
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand

body:
> It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in
> objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is
> there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia?
> --LDan

Maybe you mean "objectivity." Or "Scientology"... I'm not entirely sure this
is the place to discuss "objectivism" -- its merits, or its nonsense.
-Stevertigo


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Good and Bad Fair use examples

body:
/Modern maps. Map producers directly compete with us, and it is generally
hard to see why we should be allowed to take their work for free, just
like we could not simply take the articles from the Encyclopaedia
Britannica.

/Not like we'd want the encyclopedia britanica articles :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] still not recieving posts

body:
I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't recieved one since I
signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always look at the archive...

Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP (very annoying) if this
persists!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] still not recieving posts


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
>>everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free
>>food and free speech. If we want to get it to
>>everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I
>>think optional censorship (necessary at some domain
>>names) is the easiest way to do this.
>>
>
>Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely
>hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to
>action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point
>some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a
>nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a
>matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
>
Agreed.  A lot of debate occurs over fighting phantom lawsuits, whether
over this or over copyright issues.  This kind of self-censorship tends
to cut out a lot more material than might ever be demanded by the courts.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand with text

body:
Stevertigo wrote:

> But more importantly, as all who wax philosophical should be taken
> with a grain of salt -- the size of that grain often depends on what
> the feeling is -- based on what some of the people who adhere to that
> 'philosophy' -- hence, when I take a look at the Ayn Rand Institutes'
> website and see a bunch of nonsense on there, my grain of salt reminds
> me that what these people -- supposed loyalists to Ayn Rand -- write,
> isn't necessarily what she, herself would have said.  In fact,
> understanding the controversy within her following about who exactly
> is running her foundation -- who's bearing the torch, and is he doing
> a good job -- it seems as if this is really a tragic case where people
> are using her name and her much-lauded intellect to justify anything
> from welfare gutting to deportation and so on.
>
This is typical of disciples.  One of my favorite Nietzche quotes has
always been, "There are no Christians alive today, the last one died on
the cross."  Just wait until Jimbo's disciples start quoting him after
he's gone.  He may never recognize himself when he resurrects. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] still not recieving posts

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't
> recieved one since I
> signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always
> look at the archive...
>
> Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP
> (very annoying) if this
> persists!

your account was set to receive plain posts. I added
you to receive digests as well.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
> 2.  Categories should be infinitely wiki-editable, especially in the
> beginning, because "a priori" categorization is impossible and likely
> to lead to a lot of problems.  Ideas that only sysops can create new
> categories should be avoided until we actually determine empirically
> that it's necessary.  (One thing we know from our wiki experience is
> that something as obviously insane as letting anyone in the world edit
> works amazingly well!)

Whose idea might you be refering to? ;-)
Well, it was not meant as a policy, but rather as a practical method, as I don't have a "history" function implemented.
But, now that this is no longer an option, how about this (technically):
* Operations on categories that are open to everyone:
** Creating a new category
** Renaming a category
** Merging two categories into one
* Deleting is (as with articles) "sysops only".

> 5.  Especially initially, website impacts of categories should be very
> minimal... i.e. we don't try anything radical regarding filtered
> searches or automatic index pages or anything too exciting like that.

Great - some work saved for now :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand

body:
Yes, love of excellence.

Fred

> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand
>
> --- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
>> -Stevertigo
>>
>> P.S. Dont mess with Ayn Rand.
>
> It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in
> objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is
> there something about it that pertains to Wikipedia?
> --LDan
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
This is no good. A good article can start with a good sentence or two, or
even a reference to further reading. Expecting folks to work and work (when
they probably have something else to do) is discouraging. Best to take the
little bit they are willing to do and when the time comes make something
better out of it.

Fred

> From: "Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz" <living_english_structure at go2.pl>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:36:26 +0200
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Cc: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Always make articles as complete as possible
>
> From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
>
> Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as
> possible.
> <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication.  If you
> feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it
> please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
>
> This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone|
> "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
>
> This rule is open for debate.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC)
> or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
>
> Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the
> "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there
> were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
>
> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>
> This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>
> Regards,
> Kpjas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Geoffrey Burling

body:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:

> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>
> This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>
Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or
pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could
call them ``ancient"?

I've been working on the Ancient History content, so if you've found
any problems there, I'd be more than happy to know about them &
add them to my to-do list. (Although I came to Wikipedia to work
on the Late Ancient/Early Medieval History content -- I ended up getting
pulled into that area because it needed work.)

I'd be happy to hear more about this offline.

Geoff


body:
> This is typical of disciples.  One of my favorite Nietzche quotes has
> always been, "There are no Christians alive today, the last one died on
> the cross."  Just wait until Jimbo's disciples start quoting him after
> he's gone.  He may never recognize himself when he resurrects. :-)
>
> Ec

I swear, the whole Dalai Lama idea makes sense to me now... If the messenger
reincarnates -- there is no post-mortem distortion of their words... noone
can get up with a new interpretation of a dead man's words... the man is
alive in front of you -- in the form of a child.

But, I always speak from ignorance, of course. ;)

-SM


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>
>
>>There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
>>plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>>
>>This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>>
>>
>Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or
>pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could
>call them ``ancient"?
>
I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a
long time.

Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient
history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael
to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes
contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database
crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican
Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit
errors to be relied upon.")

:-)

Stan


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Stallman on fair use

body:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:11:49PM -0700, Zoe wrote:
>
> --- Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
> > Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it
> > comes to copyrights ?
> > If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something
> > that looks suspitious, and doesn't
> > answer questions about that in about a week, then
> > it's best to remove it.
>
> Hardly.  Please see my talk page at
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe where I am
> currently being excoriated for doing just that.  But
> then it seems that, whatever *I* do is wrong, when in
> other users, it is not only acceptable, but applauded.

Nothing personal, but I also think that these images that
you claim to be under "fair use" are clearly not and should
immediately be deleted.


from_name: Oliver Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] my own wikipedia...

body:
I have a local music project I want to convert into a wiki-site so musicians
can update their own information. I've poked around at different wikis, and
the wikipedia syntax is by far the best. So I want to use the
wikipedia-software, the wikipedia help pages, but none of the encyclopedia
content, on some server-space that I pay for. Is such a thing plausible? Can
someone talk me through this?
-oliver


body:
--- Geoffrey Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>
> > There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
> slip form the RC and
> > plunge into the Wikipedia's great information
> soup.
> >
> > This is an observation from perusing the ancient
> pages list.
> >
> Are you talking about pages with content about
> Ancient History, or
> pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long
> that one could
> call them ``ancient"?

No, pages from [[Special:Ancientpages]].
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I completely agree. Unless there is blatant
> copyright violation (which can
> be
> reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use
> Wikipedia to define
> what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as
> it is too much self
> policing
> may just be unwarranted self censorship.
>
> Alex756

So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and
desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?

I still think it would be best of us to take our own
pictures for as much as possible.

Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a
place for internet piracy disguised as an
encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5  companies own
90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This is typical of disciples.  One of my favorite
> Nietzche quotes has
> always been, "There are no Christians alive today,
> the last one died on
> the cross."
>
> Ec

Jesus was Jewish. There never were any good
christians, only Jews.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand

body:
--- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems like a lot of us here believe strongly in
> > objectivism (or atleast parts of it, like me). Is
> > there something about it that pertains to
> Wikipedia?
> > --LDan
>
> Maybe you mean "objectivity." Or "Scientology"...
> I'm not entirely sure this
> is the place to discuss "objectivism" -- its merits,
> or its nonsense.
> -Stevertigo

See [[Objectivist philosophy]], and let's go to [[m:objectivism]]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Matthias Jordan

subject: [Wikitech-l] Admin questions (a few)

body:
Hi, folks!

I'm maintaining a private Phase-III installation and managed to set the
whole thing up at last (with a customized language file, skin and some
added functionality), but I still have some questions:

+ Is there /any/ documentation that covers admin issues besides of the
source code? If so: where? I searched Wikipedia, the Meta-Wikipedia and
this mailing list but didn't find anything that answers my questions.

In particular, I'd like to know:

+ Is there a way to put the Wiki into a
"write-only-if-you-are-logged-in"-mode?

+ Is there a way to put the Wiki into a whitelist mode (i.e. disabling
users from getting an account without the agreement of the admin)?

+ What privilege concept does Phase-III have? What is the difference
between a plain user, a sysop and a developer in terms of user_rights?

+ I have some ideas of features that would be nice to add. One of these
is a user configurable default set of namespaces to search for. In Wikis
for small communities that are only just evolving many users will want
to search for some documentation which can only be found by searching
for the keyword, failing and then selecting the proper namespace (which
the user probably doesn't know). I hardcoded this mechanism into my
setup but this is far from being a Good Idea (TM). What's the procedure
to become a developer with write access to the CVS repository and to
convince the other developers to be allowed to include certain features?

Thanks in advance and bye!

Matthias


from_name: Alex T.

subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Axel Boldt wrote:
>
> >--- Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>One of Wikipedia's main goals is to get it to
> >>everyone. That's why it is free, in both senses, free
> >>food and free speech. If we want to get it to
> >>everyone, we have to make some accomidations, and I
> >>think optional censorship (necessary at some domain
> >>names) is the easiest way to do this.
> >>
> >
> >Wikipedia is available to everyone. So far, the threat is completely
> >hypothetical: no school has blocked Wikipedia. Maybe, before rushing to
> >action, we should give schools more credit. If indeed at some point
> >some school blocks Wikipedia, we can, after reaping the benefits of a
> >nice New York Times article and ACLU lawsuit, set up your edupedia in a
> >matter of weeks - the sifter code is already in place.
> >
> Agreed.  A lot of debate occurs over fighting phantom lawsuits, whether
> over this or over copyright issues.  This kind of self-censorship tends
> to cut out a lot more material than might ever be demanded by the courts.
>
> Ec
I completely agree. Unless there is blatant copyright violation (which can
be
reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use Wikipedia to define
what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as it is too much self
policing
may just be unwarranted self censorship.

Alex756


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> Geoffrey Burling wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>>
>>> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
>>> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>>>
>>> This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>>
>> Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or
>> pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could
>> call them ``ancient"?
>
> I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a
> long time.
>
> Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient
> history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael
> to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes
> contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database
> crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican
> Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit
> errors to be relied upon.")
>
> :-)

See also Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz" which established that
fallout shelters were built as places where the fallouts could seek
refuge during the collapse of civilization.
Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>--- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I completely agree. Unless there is blatant
>>copyright violation (which can be
>>reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use
>>Wikipedia to define
>>what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as
>>it is too much self policing
>>may just be unwarranted self censorship.
>>
>
>So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and
>desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
>
That can be a reasonable approach.  A "cease and desist notice" is just
that, a notice.  If you think that the person issuing the notice has a
point, you simply cease and desist, and that's the end of the story.
 Safe harbor provisions are there to give you time to act upon the
notice.  If you disagree with the notice then you're in a different
ballgame.

Most individuals live in absolute dread of any kind of legal notices.
 They're so blinded by the vision of being law-abiding that they ignore
all the protections that the law affords them.  Lawyers know how that
game works.  They use it all the time to bully and intimidate.  They're
playing poker against opponents who believe that bluffing is dishonest.

In the corporate world lawsuits about anything and everything are just
routine business.

>I still think it would be best of us to take our own
>pictures for as much as possible.
>
Certainly

>Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a
>place for internet piracy disguised as an
>encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5  companies own
>90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
>
Does that picture really look right to you?  What ever happened to the
Jeffersonian ideal that the purpose of education was to know your rights
and be able to defend them?  Is media concentration an argument to
support the principle that "might.is right"?  Freedom and democracy do
not depend just on laws and constitutions, but on the DUTY to defend
one's rights.  Caving in to intimidation does not make you part of the
solution, but part of the problem.

Ec


body:
> Jesus was Jewish. There never were any good
> christians, only Jews.
> -LDan

Say what young man?  Surely you mispeak in haste.

-St. Stephen


subject: [WikiEN-l] *sigh*

body:
Ah impatience. The sign of a true musketeer.

-SM

> Apparently, I'm not known enough to become a sysop. I can tell you that
> I am to be trusted. Even LDan got sysophood after a month, and I will
> tell you that with my month of membership at wikipedia, I have many good
> edits that were *useful* to the wikipedia. So I want to know why nobody
> has even said anything!
>
>
> The reason I want to have sysophood is so that I can help out more than
> a regular user can. A regular user can't help out on the front page! A
> regular user can't help solve edit disputes. Heck, a regular user can't
> even delete their own user subpages.
>
> IS this not yet a convincing enough case?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Good and bad fair use examples

body:
If we allow fair use of images, which we currently do, we may want to
develop guidelines for what is and what is not a good example for fair
use. Some thoughts:

Good fair use:

- Press/publicity photos. These are typically intended for republication
and it is unlikely that anyone will get in trouble for using them in any
way. Exceptions: Press/publicity photos which have explicit restrictions
on use.
- Screenshots and screen captures: A screenshot, especially one done by
yourself, is usually such a small excerpt from the entire work that fair
use is perfectly applicable. Companies don't make money selling
screenshots. Exceptions: Shots of programs whose primary value is their
graphical content (e.g. clipboard collections) or shots containing clearly
copyrighted commercial artwork.
- Important historical photos: Leader meets leader, building explodes, war
crimes etc. Here the educational purpose is prevalent. Exceptions: Photos
of which we know that their copyright is rigidly enforced.
- Sound/music snippets: There exists a lot of precedent law regarding
this, and many large websites offer short (10-second) snippets of popular
music

Gray area:

- General portrait/celberity photos. Here it is important to at least try
to obtain permission and figure out what the copyright situation is.
- Current news photos. Depends on the importance of the news and the
photo. Again, it should be attempted to obtain permission first.
- Album covers, movie posters. Rule of thumb: If it looks really cool
(nice high resolution photo), it's probably not OK (there are actually
companies that sell these things).

Black area:

- Modern maps. Map producers directly compete with us, and it is generally
hard to see why we should be allowed to take their work for free, just
like we could not simply take the articles from the Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
- Textbook illustrations. See above - this is an active market, and we can
be expected to create our own.
- Photos of famous, non-historical buildings, places etc. - we can shoot
these ourselves.

Of course, pictures in the "black area" can be used if permission can be
obtained.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ilya

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: still not recieving posts

body:
I've temporarily switched to NNTP, but I want to know why I'm not
recieving the posts

Ilya N. wrote:
> I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't recieved one since I
> signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always look at the archive...
>
> Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP (very annoying) if this
> persists!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: still not recieving posts


body:
I wasn't recieving posts or digests, no matter what...actually I want
plain posts

but I'm not getting any posts whatsoever, and delivery is on...

Anthere wrote:
> --- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't
>>recieved one since I
>>signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always
>>look at the archive...
>>
>>Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP
>>(very annoying) if this
>>persists!
>
>
> your account was set to receive plain posts. I added
> you to receive digests as well.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Menchi Zh-En WP

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reason (was: Re: still not recieving posts)

body:
Ilya

Yahoo & Hotmail's ineffective and inferior filtering systems block all
mailing lists (but apparently not those penis enlargement or see a pussy
craps). You need to justify your setting in the Options.

By the way, how come you don't have the standard Yahoo advertisement below
your mails? I just self-sent a Yahoo, and it still has that crap.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Always make articles as complete as possible

body:
actually, I make articles as best I can, which isn't so good, and then I
  have people all over always reformatting, and eventually the article
turns out ok, but most of them are still stubs like [[Microsoft
Passport]] or [[Turn-based gaming]] or [[Goldtoken.com]]

Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>  From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:
>
> Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as
> possible.
> <br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication.  If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.
>
> This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone|
> "Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.
>
> This rule is open for debate.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC)
> or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).
>
> Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the
> "Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there
> were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.
>
> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>
> This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>
> Regards,
> Kpjas.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Etiquette

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Dante Alighieri wrote:
>
>>I'd just like to say that I am extremely surprised by some of
>>the harsh tone and language used by a number of users on
>>the mailing list in the past  24 hours. I will not name names,
>>but a number of people, on different  topics, have been being
>>downright rude. I understand that everyone get's a bit huffy
>>now and again, but I don't think that it serves anyone's best
>>interest if we start insulting each other. Let's reserve invective
>>for vandals and trolls, not for people who care about the
>>Wikipedia and Wikipedians....
>
>
> I agree. Can we all just get along?
>
> --- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

I sure hope so!


from_name: Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

body:
 From [[Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|rules to consider]]:

Whenever you write a page, always make it as complete and comprehensive as
possible.
<br>Don't create an article until it is in form ready for publication.  If you feel that your article is seriously incomplete and you are urged to publish it please insert boilerplate text from [[Wikipedia:Stub]] into the article.

This rule is meant to supersede [[Wikipedia:Always leave something undone|
"Always leave something undone" rule]] that is regarded obsolete.

This rule is open for debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles happen to be reviewed almost instantaneously (as they appear on RC)
or they can stay unreviewed with embarrassing errors for months (years?).

Cooperation and collective authorship that are behind the
"Always leave something undone" rule were great in the old days when there
were 50-100 edits daily not 3000+.

There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.

This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.

Regards,
Kpjas.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Always make articles as complete as possible


body:
> They are able to do so now. It's called "free will"
> and "choice". Anyone
> who doesn't want to look at an article on anal sex
> probably shouldn't click
> on a link to it. I wasn't aware that people ran into
> objectionable content
> accidently. Call me crazy, but I don't see how
> people are going to be
> blindsided by the felching article. No one is going
> to go there unless they
> either know what it is and want to read about it, or
> DON'T know what it is
> and want to know what it is... and they shortly WILL
> know when they read
> the article.

What if they press 'random page'?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] *sigh*

body:
Apparently, I'm not known enough to become a sysop. I can tell you that
I am to be trusted. Even LDan got sysophood after a month, and I will
tell you that with my month of membership at wikipedia, I have many good
edits that were *useful* to the wikipedia. So I want to know why nobody
has even said anything!

The reason I want to have sysophood is so that I can help out more than
a regular user can. A regular user can't help out on the front page! A
regular user can't help solve edit disputes. Heck, a regular user can't
even delete their own user subpages.

IS this not yet a convincing enough case?


from_name: Anthere

body:
Sorry Ilya.

However, I don't understand why your mails appear as
Re: in the archive. You can't answer them, since you
don't receive them directly.

Ant

--- Ilya <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wasn't recieving posts or digests, no matter
> what...actually I want
> plain posts
>
> but I'm not getting any posts whatsoever, and
> delivery is on...
>
> Anthere wrote:
> > --- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't
> >>recieved one since I
> >>signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always
> >>look at the archive...
> >>
> >>Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP
> >>(very annoying) if this
> >>persists!
> >
> >
> > your account was set to receive plain posts. I
> added
> > you to receive digests as well.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> Geoffrey Burling wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles slip form the RC and
>>>> plunge into the Wikipedia's great information soup.
>>>>
>>>> This is an observation from perusing the ancient pages list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking about pages with content about Ancient History, or
>>> pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long that one could
>>> call them ``ancient"?
>>
>>
>> I think he means the pages that haven't been touched for a
>> long time.
>>
>> Leave them alone long enough and they *could* become ancient
>> history in the other sense ("Many scholars consider Lir and Michael
>> to be the same person; although the internal evidence is sometimes
>> contradictory, much of the change history was lost in the database
>> crash of 2043, and the one surviving backup on CD (in the Vatican
>> Library, #3483334) is partially oxidized and has too many bit
>> errors to be relied upon.")
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> See also Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz" which established that
> fallout shelters were built as places where the fallouts could seek
> refuge during the collapse of civilization.
> Ec

hmmmm :P


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: my own wikipedia...

body:
cprompt wrote:
> Oliver Brown wrote:
>
>> I have a local music project I want to convert into a wiki-site so
>> musicians
>> can update their own information. I've poked around at different
>> wikis, and
>> the wikipedia syntax is by far the best. So I want to use the
>> wikipedia-software, the wikipedia help pages, but none of the
>> encyclopedia
>> content, on some server-space that I pay for. Is such a thing
>> plausible? Can
>> someone talk me through this?
>> -oliver
>>
>>
> Here you go, good luck! http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software
>

IS it possible to run the software on a non-wikipedia server and a
non-wikipedia domain name?


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
"Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>wrote:

> --- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I completely agree. Unless there is blatant
> > copyright violation (which can
> > be
> > reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use
> > Wikipedia to define
> > what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as
> > it is too much self
> > policing
> > may just be unwarranted self censorship.
> >
> > Alex756
>
> So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and
> desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
>
> I still think it would be best of us to take our own
> pictures for as much as possible.
>
> Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a
> place for internet piracy disguised as an
> encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5  companies own
> 90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
>
> -LDan
Just because these big companies are behind it does not mean
it is bad.  I am just saying that it is easy to overreach (look at the
Patriot Act) and then make policing too strict which can cause
suffering. The DMCA provisions give all ISPs big and small a
safe harbor from liability, why not use it if it is there. If there is
a blatant copyright infringement there are plenty of people looking
out for such things and they get removed quickly, for those cases
that might not be so clear shouldn't the party that might beleive it
is damaged have the chance to weigh in and give its input?  Isn't
that the idea behind due process (or the similar fundamental justice as the
Canadians call it)?  Is there a reason that only Wikipedians can point
fingers at potential copyright violators rather than letting the copyright
owners do it in cases where fair use might protect the usage? The whole
point about the DMCA ISP provisions is that it protects the ISP without
resort to the courts, it gives ISPs big and small significant power.

BTW why would someone sue a non profit association that is open
content when a DMCA notice will probably do the trick? Most copyright
owners are not rich or in the mood to get trigger happy copyright litigators
involved when there may be a simple solution to innocent infringement.  The
damages they will be rewarded are probably just nominal as Wikipedia is
not using anything anyone posts on it for financial gain and there is even
case law out there that says it will not be held liable for the acts of
third parties
(after all that is what we are, Wikipedia is just an unincorporated
membership
association IMHO).

Regarding litigation, Little Dan, this is America, land of the lawsuit, all
you
have to do is draft a pleading and pay the filing fee and you have a
lawsuit.
Nothing you or I do will stop people from filing such suits.
Alex756


body:
--- Menchi Zh-En WP <ebeins at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ilya
>
> Yahoo & Hotmail's ineffective and inferior filtering
> systems block all
> mailing lists (but apparently not those penis
> enlargement or see a pussy
> craps). You need to justify your setting in the
> Options.
>
> By the way, how come you don't have the standard
> Yahoo advertisement below
> your mails? I just self-sent a Yahoo, and it still
> has that crap.
>
> Menchi Zh-En

It was never filtered for me, and I use yahoo.
--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> We had a long discussion on wikipedia-l about how
> and when articles should
> be merged. I believe now that we have more articles
> than most paper
> encyclopedias (technically) we need to enter "phase
> 2" of (En-)Wikipedia's
> development, which is structuring, merging,
> improving etc. the existing
> material. Maybe even removing links to non-existent
> articles in some cases
> (e.g. album titles) to discourage creation of
> database-like stubs. Of
> course there are still huge gaps in our coverage (as
> is, the article about
> Catholicism doesn't even mention the Vatican), but
> many if not most of the
> essential topics have at least stub articles.
>
> There should be a WikiProject for this phase 2
> effort with clear
> guidelines and goals. I encourage you to start this
> WikiProject if you
> have the time and motivation to do so. I suggest the
> name "WikiProject
> Patchwork".
>
> Erik

Sounds good, but it shouldn't be called "phase 2".
Much of our content development is still incomplete.
We should focus on content development, and do
WikiProject Patchwork as a side project.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
--- Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> wrote:
> > Jesus was Jewish. There never were any good
> > christians, only Jews.
> > -LDan
>
> Say what young man?  Surely you mispeak in haste.
>
> -St. Stephen

It's true. I consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Jesus was a terrible jew at that. He was always going
around claiming he was god, and stealing sayings (as
well as fables about accomplishments) from past Jews
like Hillel.

For hundreds of years, Christianity was merely a sect
of Judiasm.

--LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: my own wikipedia...

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> IS it possible to run the software on a
> non-wikipedia server and a
> non-wikipedia domain name?

Yes, and there are several projects runing Wikipedia
software. I believe there is even an install script.
But Wikipedia uses up a lot of system resources, so
most people choose UseMod.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
> >--- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I completely agree. Unless there is blatant
> >>copyright violation (which can be
> >>reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use
> >>Wikipedia to define
> >>what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous
> as
> >>it is too much self policing
> >>may just be unwarranted self censorship.
> >>
> >
> >So we should just wait for those horrible "cease
> and
> >desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue
> us?
> >
> That can be a reasonable approach.  A "cease and
> desist notice" is just
> that, a notice.  If you think that the person
> issuing the notice has a
> point, you simply cease and desist, and that's the
> end of the story.
>  Safe harbor provisions are there to give you time
> to act upon the
> notice.  If you disagree with the notice then you're
> in a different
> ballgame.
>
> Most individuals live in absolute dread of any kind
> of legal notices.
>  They're so blinded by the vision of being
> law-abiding that they ignore
> all the protections that the law affords them.
> Lawyers know how that
> game works.  They use it all the time to bully and
> intimidate.  They're
> playing poker against opponents who believe that
> bluffing is dishonest.
>
> In the corporate world lawsuits about anything and
> everything are just
> routine business.

OK, I guess I agree with that.
>
> >I still think it would be best of us to take our
> own
> >pictures for as much as possible.
> >
> Certainly
>
> >Besides, we don't want to be branded something like
> "a
> >place for internet piracy disguised as an
> >encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5  companies
> own
> >90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
> >
> Does that picture really look right to you?  What
> ever happened to the
> Jeffersonian ideal that the purpose of education was
> to know your rights
> and be able to defend them?  Is media concentration
> an argument to
> support the principle that "might.is right"?
> Freedom and democracy do
> not depend just on laws and constitutions, but on
> the DUTY to defend
> one's rights.  Caving in to intimidation does not
> make you part of the
> solution, but part of the problem.
>
> Ec
>

Most Jefforsonian ideals have depreciated in today's
increacingly conservative government. Right now, the
legal argument for compulsory education is so students
can serve in the army. That's just sad.

-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] *sigh*

body:
--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Apparently, I'm not known enough to become a sysop.
> I can tell you that
> I am to be trusted. Even LDan got sysophood after a
> month, and I will
> tell you that with my month of membership at
> wikipedia, I have many good
> edits that were *useful* to the wikipedia. So I want
> to know why nobody
> has even said anything!

Are you implying that I was a bad contributer early
on?
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] my own wikipedia...

body:
Oliver Brown wrote:

>I have a local music project I want to convert into a wiki-site so musicians
>can update their own information. I've poked around at different wikis, and
>the wikipedia syntax is by far the best. So I want to use the
>wikipedia-software, the wikipedia help pages, but none of the encyclopedia
>content, on some server-space that I pay for. Is such a thing plausible? Can
>someone talk me through this?
>-oliver
>
>
Here you go, good luck! http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software

--

--cprompt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Reason (was: Re: still not recieving posts)

body:
the counter to your first point and response to second is the same. SBC
is my service provider, so I get yahoo! POP3 forwarding free, and if I
understand correctly, free of their inferior 'filtering'

Menchi Zh-En WP wrote:
> Ilya
>
> Yahoo & Hotmail's ineffective and inferior filtering systems block all
> mailing lists (but apparently not those penis enlargement or see a pussy
> craps). You need to justify your setting in the Options.
>
> By the way, how come you don't have the standard Yahoo advertisement
> below your mails? I just self-sent a Yahoo, and it still has that crap.
>
> Menchi Zh-En
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: *sigh*

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
> Ah impatience. The sign of a true musketeer.
>
> -SM
>
>
>
>>Apparently, I'm not known enough to become a sysop. I can tell you that
>>I am to be trusted. Even LDan got sysophood after a month, and I will
>>tell you that with my month of membership at wikipedia, I have many good
>>edits that were *useful* to the wikipedia. So I want to know why nobody
>>has even said anything!
>>
>>
>>The reason I want to have sysophood is so that I can help out more than
>>a regular user can. A regular user can't help out on the front page! A
>>regular user can't help solve edit disputes. Heck, a regular user can't
>>even delete their own user subpages.
>>
>>IS this not yet a convincing enough case?
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

lol


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: apologies to Jimbo re Ms. Rand with text

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
>>Jesus was Jewish. There never were any good
>>christians, only Jews.
>>-LDan
>
>
> Say what young man?  Surely you mispeak in haste.
>
> -St. Stephen

He speaks the truth


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Sorry Ilya.
>
> However, I don't understand why your mails appear as
> Re: in the archive. You can't answer them, since you
> don't receive them directly.
>
> Ant
>
> --- Ilya <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I wasn't recieving posts or digests, no matter
>>what...actually I want
>>plain posts
>>
>>but I'm not getting any posts whatsoever, and
>>delivery is on...
>>
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>--- "Ilya N." <ilyanep at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not recieving posts or digests, I haven't
>>>>recieved one since I
>>>>signed up (3 days ago), and I am forced to always
>>>>look at the archive...
>>>>
>>>>Seriously, I'm gonna be forced to switch to NNTP
>>>>(very annoying) if this
>>>>persists!
>>>
>>>
>>>your account was set to receive plain posts. I
>>
>>added
>>
>>>you to receive digests as well.
>>>
>>>__________________________________
>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>>>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

like I said, I'm using NNTP temporarily, and actually, I think it's
better :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: *sigh*

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
> Ah impatience. The sign of a true musketeer.
>
> -SM
>
>
>
>>Apparently, I'm not known enough to become a sysop. I can tell you that
>>I am to be trusted. Even LDan got sysophood after a month, and I will
>>tell you that with my month of membership at wikipedia, I have many good
>>edits that were *useful* to the wikipedia. So I want to know why nobody
>>has even said anything!
>>
>>
>>The reason I want to have sysophood is so that I can help out more than
>>a regular user can. A regular user can't help out on the front page! A
>>regular user can't help solve edit disputes. Heck, a regular user can't
>>even delete their own user subpages.
>>
>>IS this not yet a convincing enough case?
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

lol. UPDATE: I was officially made a sysop as of 23:04 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

body:
At 03:36 PM 6/17/2003, you wrote:

> > They are able to do so now. It's called "free will"
> > and "choice". Anyone
> > who doesn't want to look at an article on anal sex
> > probably shouldn't click
> > on a link to it. I wasn't aware that people ran into
> > objectionable content
> > accidently. Call me crazy, but I don't see how
> > people are going to be
> > blindsided by the felching article. No one is going
> > to go there unless they
> > either know what it is and want to read about it, or
> > DON'T know what it is
> > and want to know what it is... and they shortly WILL
> > know when they read
> > the article.
>
>What if they press 'random page'?

Yeah, so, when I was reading Jimbo's message and formulating a response in
my head, I had more ideas than I could recall when it came time to write my
response. Damn you for noticing one of the things I forgot to include. ;)

Well, the statistical likelihood is small (odds are that they'll get a
rambot page) but hey, that's the whole point of random.

Even if they do manage to "random" onto the felching page, there's no
reason they have to read past the point where they realize that it's a
topic that might offend them. Are we really becoming so skittish as a
society that it would be an unimaginable catastrophe if some prude has to
read something that they found offensive for five seconds?

Let's say I find televangelists offensive. If I'm channel surfing and
happen to catch a few seconds of a sermon before I realize what it is and
click the channel change button, am I going to get all bent out of shape?
No. You know why? Cause I'm not a goddamn idiot.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [Wikitech-l] Admin questions (a few)

body:
Matthias Jordan wrote:
> + Is there a way to put the Wiki into a
> "write-only-if-you-are-logged-in"-mode?

No. At least, not yet. I am working on some things, user management
amongst them.
You can use the "isloggedin" function (or something like that) prior to
editing/saving.

> + Is there a way to put the Wiki into a whitelist mode (i.e. disabling
> users from getting an account without the agreement of the admin)?

No. The user management I'm working on (for a so-called "sifter" version
of wikipedia) would roughly work like that:
1. You become a "logged-in" user, with no editing rights in the article
namespace (same for not-logged-in)
2. You apply for an "editors" access
3. Some sysop grants that so you can work in article namespace

> + What privilege concept does Phase-III have? What is the difference
> between a plain user, a sysop and a developer in terms of user_rights?

Logged-in: Uploading of files, some personal settings and watchlist gimmicks
Sysop: Can delete (and undelete) articles, use "SELECT" SQL queries
Developer: Unlimited queries to the database, make sysops, other
developers (similar to "root")

> + I have some ideas of features that would be nice to add. One of these
> is a user configurable default set of namespaces to search for. In Wikis
> for small communities that are only just evolving many users will want
> to search for some documentation which can only be found by searching
> for the keyword, failing and then selecting the proper namespace (which
> the user probably doesn't know). I hardcoded this mechanism into my
> setup but this is far from being a Good Idea (TM). What's the procedure
> to become a developer with write access to the CVS repository and to
> convince the other developers to be allowed to include certain features?

Well, major changes should not be implemented in the CVS without
consensus (yes, you just read "consensus"!;-) of the wikipedia-l list.

I (and others) can give you access to the CVS, if you give me your
SourceForge user name; it might be nice to have an example of what you'd
like to do on the web, that can be tried out by the wikipedia-l crowd
(they can react quite annoyed about sudden changes, as I had the
pleasure to experience myself :-)

New coders (especially those with time to spare) are always welcome!

Magnus


from_name: Graham Burnett

body:
> I think both rules are horrible. Just do the best you
> can do.

I think that says it all :-)

Graham


from_name: Ilya N.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> --- Menchi Zh-En WP <ebeins at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ilya
>>
>>Yahoo & Hotmail's ineffective and inferior filtering
>>systems block all
>>mailing lists (but apparently not those penis
>>enlargement or see a pussy
>>craps). You need to justify your setting in the
>>Options.
>>
>>By the way, how come you don't have the standard
>>Yahoo advertisement below
>>your mails? I just self-sent a Yahoo, and it still
>>has that crap.
>>
>>Menchi Zh-En
>
>
> It was never filtered for me, and I use yahoo.
> --LDan
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

I don't use the webmail interface, nothing is filtered for me


from_name: Stevertigo

body:
> It's true. I consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia.
>
> Jesus was a terrible jew at that. He was always going
> around claiming he was god, and stealing sayings (as
> well as fables about accomplishments) from past Jews
> like Hillel.
>
> For hundreds of years, Christianity was merely a sect
> of Judiasm.
>
> --LDan

Ah, I shall have to "turn the other cheek" to you on that one, Dan.
You speak either from haste, youth, ignorance or all three - Ill let Hanlons
Razor deal with you.

Speak of religion no more, YoungDan - until you ever actually have a
religious experience. Your traditions may call you a man at 13, but most
women wont call you one till youre 30.

All this is just a very nice and tender way of suggesting that you offer at
least some humour in your insults -- otherwise they will be interpreted as
"merely" insults.

-Shalom, child
-Steven


body:
On 17-06-2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote thusly :
>
> --- Geoffrey Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
> >
> > > There's no guarantee that a proportion of articles
> > slip form the RC and
> > > plunge into the Wikipedia's great information
> > soup.
> > >
> > > This is an observation from perusing the ancient
> > pages list.
> > >
> > Are you talking about pages with content about
> > Ancient History, or
> > pages that have been part of Wikipedia for so long
> > that one could
> > call them ``ancient"?
>
> No, pages from [[Special:Ancientpages]].
Rather [[Special: Oldest articles]] which shows how few Wikipedians
use this feature and may be unaware how many articles are "left behind".
We seem to look back a few days back on the RC.

I have just looked at last 1000 new articles and I have found not
only one sentence articles but also 3 word articles.

I agree that the name of the article Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible is not the best one.
But it tries to illustrate that probability that 3-word article will be
taken over and made into superb one has fallen.
We have 130,000+ articles and I feel disproportionately few people on the editorial board to look after the growing number. I suppose more people are inclined to add new articles than review and expand the existing ones. Besides it takes much more time to review and expand an article than to create one.

The majority that was disgusted with my Wikipedia:Always make articles as complete as possible article view it as something that undermines the very nature of Wikipedia. And my intention was well-meant.

I think some new kind of statistics might shed light on the current and
future trends in Wikipedia growth.

"Content can only get better" paradigm - I believe in it and see it happen
every day but will it be true with, say,  260,000 articles ? Do we care
about overall quality of articles or say let's have 10% the best ones
and the rest be mediocre or only touched on ones.

Regards,
Kpjas.

P.S please move the offending article to a new better name


subject: [WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>Most Jefforsonian ideals have depreciated in today's
>increacingly conservative government. Right now, the
>legal argument for compulsory education is so students
>can serve in the army. That's just sad.
>
The child soldiers (8yrs. plus) now shooting at the French in the Congo
must have received an accelerated education. :-\

Ec


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
>>I think a built-in category system would be very
>>useful for other purposes, too. But I still think that
>>we would benefit from having a seperate domain where
>>certain things were by-default blocked.
>
> I'm starting to come around to this conclusion, too.

Well, I remember someone starting a free, peer-reviewed encyclopedia.
The same guy started an "all-you-can-edit"-encyclopedia just for fun,
just to see how it turns out.

In the same spirit, the same guy could start a peer-reviewed sifter copy
of that latter encyclopedia that was successful beyond belief. You know,
just for fun. Might turn out to be the answer to all the problems that
flooded the mailing lists for the past weeks. Might turn out to be a
complete waste of time. Who knows.

Also, there could be categories added to that existing encyclopedia.
Emphasis on *added*. You would like to categorize all mathematical
topics? Go right ahead. You don't care? Just as well. Want to filter all
articles that say "no-no" in your belief system? It's just a few clicks
away. Otherwise, things will continue exactly as they are for you. Maybe
you'll find a "categories" link on the article pages. I hope that
doesn't scare you away.

What I'm trying to say here is: Upgrade the software so it *can* offer a
category system, and a sifter "user rights management". Turn it on and
see what happens. If it works (=acceptance, usability, etc), great,
we'll keep it. If not, we'll change it. Or turn it off right away.

We'll never know for sure unless we try. And there's nothing we could
lose trying. Maybe a little of our time.

But we're wikipedians. We're used to that...

Magnus


from_name: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Stalking

body:
> From: "Menchi Zh-En WP" <ebeins at hotmail.com>
> Never mind me.
> It only shows in Hotmail to subscribers. Great, now I can starting stalk
> you.

Feel free. I haven't had an interesting stalker since university. :)

- Stephen
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org


from_name: Zoe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sigh

body:
Please see [[Talk:List of British English words not
used in American English]].

Will someone please explain just what it is that I'm
doing that is so awful?

Zoe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sigh

body:
Zoe wrote:

>Please see [[Talk:List of British English words not
>used in American English]].
>
>Will someone please explain just what it is that I'm
>doing that is so awful?
>
Nothing.  From what I can see, your attackers are basically all
losers, and it's no loss to be hated by them.  PML for instance
gets zero respect from me - when challenged on a dubious claim,
he made lame excuses and has yet to come up with the evidence to
back up his claim, but wanted it to be left in anyway(!).  Hey,
editing Wikipedia would be so much easier and faster if we
could just make up stuff and never have to fact-check!

You might find it amusing to create a male-sounding user name
and see if the reactions to edits under that name are any
different.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of chauvinists
who are emboldened by the cloak of Internet anonymity.

Stan


body:
Krzysztof-
> I have just looked at last 1000 new articles and I have found not
> only one sentence articles but also 3 word articles.

We had a long discussion on wikipedia-l about how and when articles should
be merged. I believe now that we have more articles than most paper
encyclopedias (technically) we need to enter "phase 2" of (En-)Wikipedia's
development, which is structuring, merging, improving etc. the existing
material. Maybe even removing links to non-existent articles in some cases
(e.g. album titles) to discourage creation of database-like stubs. Of
course there are still huge gaps in our coverage (as is, the article about
Catholicism doesn't even mention the Vatican), but many if not most of the
essential topics have at least stub articles.

There should be a WikiProject for this phase 2 effort with clear
guidelines and goals. I encourage you to start this WikiProject if you
have the time and motivation to do so. I suggest the name "WikiProject
Patchwork".

> The majority that was disgusted with my Wikipedia:Always make articles as
> complete as possible article view it as something that undermines the very
> nature of Wikipedia. And my intention was well-meant.

I agree with you. That's why I hacked Special:Ancientpages together in the
first place. I hope it will help in improving our existing material.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Isn't that odd...

body:
I'd just like to point out that when you search for "Jimmy Wales" on
google, the number 3 (or 2, depending on how you look at it) hit is for
[[Jimmy Wales]].... even though that article does not exist. ;)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


body:
Daniel-
> It's true. I consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Man, you're too damn quotable.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] a spot for WP textbook devel

body:
Hey guys I think this is important so I'm forwarding
this to this list. Does anybody besides Brion know
how/have enough access to set up a blank wiki at a
"sub"-domain?

This is definitely something we want in the Wikimedia
family so why not let somebody start working on it
now?
-------

Hi, I'd like to ask a developer to open up a spot on
Wikipedia to start developing Wiki textbooks. I have a
physics book that is part written and bits of an
organic textbook that I started on Wikipedia before it
was deleted ("Wikipedia is not the place for
textbooks"). Maveric149 suggested I write to the
developers asking for a blank spot to be opened at
http://textbook.wikipedia.org until a permanant name
for the planned Wiki textbook site could be arranged.

I would be honored and grateful if you could fulfill
my request. Thanks!

Karl Wick (User name:Karlwick)

>When I came accross Wikipedia I thought that its
underlying software and concept would be great for
putting my physics book on the web. If other people
have a similar idea I'd rather be part of the larger
effort. Maybe my organizational or "visionary" ideas
are not of use to you right now but if you can help me
have a place to start getting stuff on the web, I'll
do it, and it wont be bad stuff. (I dont have much IT
background so it would probably take me a real long
time to figure out how to do all of the
technical part anyway). BTW I think that hypertext
textbooks will eventually be even better learning
tools than the traditional ones ... and am eager to
start proving it. ---Karlwick

>If you are eager to get to work then ask a developer
via the mailing list to set-up
http://textbook.wikipedia.org with a blank Wiki. We
can use what you have already to work out
organizational issues and hopefully in time we can
think of a snappy name that will help draw-in
contributors.

The worst thing that would happen is that nobody will
be very interested in the idea and that wiki will be a
lonely place (like our Sep11wiki). --Maveric149

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Restore Deleted Images

body:
Deleted images can't be restored, only their descriptions can, right?
Because this is what Lorenzarius of the Zh WP discovered.

Menchi Zh-En

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
Brion est absent pendant une semaine Guillaume...

--- Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp>
wrote:
> I send you again this message.
> PLEASE UPDATE OUR INTERFACE.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guillaume Blanchard" <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp>
> To: <wikitech-l at wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:24 PM
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php
>
>
> > Bonjour,
> > Here the new version of LanguageFr.php.
> > The main change is the correction of the date form
> (removed odd
> character).
> > It's not critical, but all static date (with 4 ~)
> will be wrote
> incorrectly
> > until you update the french interface.
> > If you need to make some change before updating,
> please do it directly at
> >
>
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip?dia:LanguageFr.php
> then you will not
> have
> > to do it each time.
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Aoineko
> >
>

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/octet-stream
name=LanguageFr.php

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Isn't that odd...

body:
--- Dante Alighieri <dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>
wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that when you search for
> "Jimmy Wales" on
> google, the number 3 (or 2, depending on how you
> look at it) hit is for
> [[Jimmy Wales]].... even though that article does
> not exist. ;)
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Jimmy+Wales%22
>
> -----
> Dante Alighieri

Something must link there. That's how spiders work,
like it or not.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sigh

body:
--- Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Zoe wrote:
>
> >Please see [[Talk:List of British English words not
> >used in American English]].
> >
> >Will someone please explain just what it is that
> I'm
> >doing that is so awful?
> >
> Nothing.  From what I can see, your attackers are
> basically all
> losers, and it's no loss to be hated by them.  PML
> for instance
> gets zero respect from me - when challenged on a
> dubious claim,
> he made lame excuses and has yet to come up with the
> evidence to
> back up his claim, but wanted it to be left in
> anyway(!).  Hey,
> editing Wikipedia would be so much easier and faster
> if we
> could just make up stuff and never have to
> fact-check!
>
> You might find it amusing to create a male-sounding
> user name
> and see if the reactions to edits under that name
> are any
> different.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of
> chauvinists
> who are emboldened by the cloak of Internet
> anonymity.
>
> Stan

I don't think anyone should make an other username for
the purpose of anonymity or changing identity on
Wikipedia. That's only for vandals like Lir.
-LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Richard Grevers

body:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:00:47 -0700, Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> gave
utterance to the following:

> Mav's idea is to call the discussion "sorting" rather than filtering.
> Filtering has a negative sorta connotation - and theres a reason for it,
> as
> has been stated.
>
Why should we? After all, a filter simply limits the view of 130,000
articles to something managable, and we already use them extensively on
Wikipedia. After all, what is search if not a filter? We just happen to be
discussing exclusive filters rather than inclusive ones.
--
Richard Grevers
A sadist is someone who's kind to a masochist