body:
daniwo59-
> However, one candidate brought up the issue that certain candidates had
> exceeded the 500 word limit on the Candidates Page and there only. In
> fairness, and since that was a request by a candidate, I asked the
> candidates who had exceeded that amount to try and trim their statements.
> This was done via personal email precisely because I wanted to avoid this
> kind of ruckus. They were asked to cut out some words and redirect to their
> user pages. Nowhere was there any talk of disqualifying anyone.

Danny, you are confused. First you talk about a 500 character limit, then
you talk about a 500 word limit, then you talk about "15 words" over the
limit. All of this is inaccurate.

The limit as defined on the candidate page is 1000 characters total. Some
candidates are at more than twice that length. Please see the table at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Election_Candidates

This includes some candidates' use of the "contributions" space for an
additional 600+ characters of personal introduction.

This issue can be resolved simply by
1) moving the "contributions lists" to the respective candidate user pages
2) asking the ones who are still substantially over the limit to shorten
their statements.

Please address this issue ASAP.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Fairness and the elections


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
"That is not an argument. If the medium is indeed different, you will have
to show how it is so different that the above logic does not apply."

At a meeting time limits are often enforced because time moves equally fast
for everyone, people either have to listen to lengthy boring speeches or
leave the room. On a web page people have the choice to skip stuff that they
don't want to read.

Danny wrote:
"I hope that no one intends to drop out of the race because of this request.
I hope all the candidates understand my position on this and will not use
this to contest the election, that has been proceeding smoothly so far."

Agree, I won't post on this issue again.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

body:
daniwo59-
> The intention was for 500 characters (words in the previous response was my
> error) to respond to each of the two questions. As I stated earlier, we did
> not specify whether blank spaces between words are characters or whether
> links are characters.

This doesn't make much of a difference, I don't care about 100 chars extra
here or there, I care about 1000 characters here or there.

Since you don't want to do anything else about this, I will change the
candidate page to reflect the current practice.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] (no subject)


list: wikien-l

from_name: Dan Drake

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: bans and vandalism (was Wik)

body:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:08:11 UTC, "Martin Harper"
<martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> > Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned?
>
> Note that, in the unlikely event that Wik returns after his ban expires, the other
> components of the arbitration ruling will still apply. However, there is a broader point.
> There are roughly three schools of thought:
>
> A) A ban of one month lasts one month, regardless of attempts at evasion.
> B) A ban of one month requires one month of uninterrupted absence from Wikipedia -
> any attempt to evade that ban automatically resets the ban timer. Banned users with
> poor self-control may end up banning themselves indefinately.
> C) Evading a ban is itself a bannable offence - doing so automatically triples the ban
> length (after which, (B) applies).

Thanks, that explains it nicely. I was concerned that (C) might require
yet another long process -- in fact, it still looks as if it might -- but
Wik is now extending his ban one day at a time under (B), so the simple
answer to my question is a solid No.

Reservation: The No is as solid as the consensus behind it.  But the
precedent looks good.

But I just re-read what you say.  The "automatically" and "after which"
imply that the ban is now 3 weeks, not 1, starting on whatever day he
begins to comply.  If I've got that right, I'll shut up, because the
system is _not_ hopelessly tangled in unnecessarily long procedures.

--
Dan Drake
dd at dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> schrieb:
> Andre-
> > I think the effect will rather be opposite. By introducing many things
> > at once, it is likely that some will not be used that would be if
> > presented separately.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that we would generate a lot of interest
> with an announcement that we have now a shared media repository, but that
> it isn't possible to use images from there anywhere without re-uploading
> them, that there is no improved upload form, no transparent inclusion of
> images, etc. I think it would generate about the same interest that
> Wikisource did, with a few people like yourself starting to put up what
> they've been wanting to put somewhere for a long time and creating the
> basic structure (with the associated problems I have described below).

Perhaps. I'd say it's worth the try. And I don't think that waiting until
we have all that will make the enthousiasm any larger. At least when we
put it up, _something_ will be made. And in a few month's time, it may
well be something useful. The alternative is to wait a few months, then
set something, and a few month's time from _then_ have something useful.

> On the other hand, when we launch the Commons in one fell swoop, with all
> the changes - the brandnew upload form, the single login, the transparent
> inclusion if images, perhaps a "Move to commons" button on image pages -
> that will certainly generate a lot of interest in "What's going on over
> there?" and thanks to single sign-on, people can try it out immediately
> without having to set up yet another account.

And what do they find? Another wiki where they can login and upload images
to. Hurray! That's going to generate a lot of interest! Now when I push
this button it does not go to wikipedia but to wikicommons. Let's see
what it is. Hey! An image description page! Wow! Now my image description
page is on another Wiki!

That's not what is going to interest people for this. What gets people
interested is _content_. Thousands of pictures, and a method to easily
find one that you need to complete your article.

> > Also, I think we can diide the users of Wikicommons in two groups - those
> > directly interested, and those who are interested because it helps them
> > with another project. The first group can be got without extra features.
> > The second group will more likely be caught with content than with
> > features.
>
> I think the first group is very small, and I think the second group will
> be initially interested, but turned away by the samll things like having
> to create a new account, having to re-upload files, etc. Most people have
> a very low tolerance of frustration, especially when working on hobby
> projects. That's why usability is so essential, and the features we want
> are really usability features. For example, I also think that
> participation on Meta would be much greater if we had single sign-on.

They will not get turned away by those things. They will get turned away
by lack of content, by lack of usefulness of the WikiCommons for their
own projects, like a Wikipedia article series. And the solution for that
is not to make things easier, but to make them more useful.

> >> - The initial edits on a wiki lay the foundation of what that wiki will
> >> become. If just a few people get involved in this project, because it
> >> offers no really cool, exciting possibilities, then the project foundation
> >> may well not be as solid as it could be. For example, people may decide to
> >> create image categories and upload requirements in the first two weeks.
> >> This structure will then become harder and harder to change as it seeps
> >> in, and when we add all the new cool features which attract more people --
> >> a better upload form, transparent use of commons media from all wikis,
> >> single sign-on -- it may already be too late to quickly and effectively
> >> fix certain problems. Too much may have grown into the structure already.
>
> > Again, the cool, exciting features are I think not what draws people to the
> > project. Their own wish for a project like this, and the content of the
> > project are the more likely elements.
>
> See above.

See above.

> > Problems like you describe will definitely happen, but I think they will
> > happen just as much if we wait as when we don't.
>
> Why do you think that?

Why do you think they will not? Are people going to make a better site
structure because they don't need to login? Are people going to make
better descriptions of their pictures because they can use them without
re-uploading? That's ridiculous!

There's one thing I'm certain of, though. There is one way to be certain
that noone is going to be interested in something, and that is by not
offering it in the first place. And three months of having the thing
with little interest will still create more useful content than three
months of not having it at all.

Andre Engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RE: Wik's vandalism and threats

body:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:23:57 UTC, Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- Dan Drake <dd at dandrake.com> wrote:
>...
> > Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned?  I
> > find that completely incredible, if true(*)....
>
> Absent a 142.177/EoT/24-type range block directed at the ISP and city a person
> edits from, it is not possible to prevent somebody from editing (even then they
> could edit from another computer or switch their ISP). So all we can do is
> block reincarnations as they come up. The AC ruling also has provisions for
> what to do in case of violations. However, the AC is not a police force - it is
> up the the Admins to enforce the ruling and for the users to inform the Admins.

No problem.  Sorry if I gave the impression I was complaining about the
enforcement; I realize that enfore\cement must be a PITA for the admins.
I was just concerned with what happens when he has had 7 days of putting
everyone through this; and I've no problems with Martin's answer on that
point.

--
Dan Drake
dd at dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Problem with Klingon Wikipedia

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Given that your action was based on a false premise, please disable the
> wiki now.

OK, done.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] bildereinbindung kaputt (Re: Hauptseite kaputt!)

body:
Daniel Herding <DHerding at gmx.de> writes:

> Anscheinend ein Softwarefehler; {{CURRENTDAY}} und {{CURRENTMONTH}} werden
> beim Speichern gel?scht. Ich habe das Datum erstmal fest eingetragen, bis das
> gekl?rt ist. Die Hauptseite muss solange t?glich von einem Admin umgestellt
> werden.
>
> Was noch kaputt ist, sind die ?berschriften z.B. bei 'Fehlende Artikel'.

kaputt ist auch die art, wie jetzt bilder eingebunden werden; das
elegante grau mu?te nun einem neon-blauen rahmen weichen und die
bildunterschriften haben keinen hintergrund mehr.  und der text flie?t
nicht mehr um die bilder 'rum.

ich bin jedes mal wieder sehr erfreut, wenn uns die entwickler mit
einem solchen update mal eben begl?cken.  eine ank?ndigung auf der
mailingliste ist selbst verst?ndlich auch nicht notwendig.

keep on playing - I take a break.

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


from_name: Meir Mendelovich

subject: [Wikitech-l] Irresponsible version upgrade on several Wikipedias

body:
Surprisingly, some of the Wikipedias where upgraded to Version 1.3 beta 1
with the new skin. As I suspected, this skin does not support right-to-left
(RTL) languages correctly. Though I kept warning on this issue, it was
disregarded.

The result is that currently the Hebrew (http://he.wikipedia.org) and Arabic
(http://ar.wikipedia.org) Wikipedias are not usesable! The version should be
reversed ASAP !!!

Both me and the other Hebrew and Arabic wikipedians would be happy to help
debuging the new skin and version but it is not acceptable to update the
live site version without ANY proper tests!

We have long list of bugs that I would be happy to translate to English when
it will be needed. But, for now, install the old version that worked fine.

        Meir :-(


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Klingon Wikipedia

body:
Ray-
> I don't see what a vote there would accomplish.  The criterion for
> acceptance should be the presence of a significant minority in support.

We are not a wiki hosting provider.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Greetings

body:
 --- Steve.Parsons at inveresk.com wrote:
> Hi all, new user here.  I hope to get the lay of the
> land here soon and
> contribute some articles and edits on Egyptology...

Hi Steve, welcome to Wikipedia. You might be
interested in the international Egyptology project
being co-ordinated on our meta site at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptopedia.

The new version of our software, being launched over
the course of this week will support hieroglyphs. See
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiHiero

If you have any problems, the Help Desk at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk is a
good place to ask.

Angela.

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] proposed policy change - allow
	*certain* CC-licensed images on Wikipedia...

body:
--- Robert Graham Merkel <robert.merkel at benambra.org> wrote:
> I wish to propose that images available under *some* of the Creative
> Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even more permissive) use
> than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in Wikipedia.
>
> The licenses are the:
>
>
> By-attribution license:
> * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
>
> The only requirement to use works create by this license is that you
> must give the author credit.
>
>
> The Attribution-ShareAlike license:
> * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

IANAL but I don't see a problem with that. Many people, such as myself, dual
license our images under both the GNU FDL and CC by-sa. And as you mention the
FDL provides for aggregate works. So if the images are free content and used as
aggregate works, then everything should be OK.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Klingon Wikipedia

body:
 --- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote: >
> However, given that all notable arguments have
> already been exchanged, I
> think the best way to go about this is to simply
> start a vote on Meta on
> whether we want a Klingon Wikipedia. I suggest you
> do it.

I think the users not on the mailing lists should have
a chance to discuss this as well before a vote is
started. There is an ongoing discussion at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages,
formerly at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump.

Angela.

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> schrieb:

> Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build
> upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow
> into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument.

And with a single login and uploading this suddenly will work? Don't be
ridiculous.

It will be easy to build upon. It's all there - content, functionality,
structure, policies. We cann build them now, or we can build them later.
Your proposal is to build until we have good functionality, and then start
making some content and structure. My proposal is to get all of them at
the same time and develop all.

It's NOT easier to make content from nothing than to make it from content.

We have some splendid Wiki software now, don't we? Ain't it a shame that
we already made an encyclopedia and policies for it? With this software
we would do a lot better, no? Why don't you go and start your own
Wikipedia?

> If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set
> up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless
> of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my
> position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of
> features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to
> make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the
> greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content
> development.

I'm sick of this.

andre


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
I'm sorry about this. I made the mistake of writing email while angry
again. It's just... I don't see what the big problems are. Sure, there
is a chance that the project would start slower than it would when
everything was ready at once, but for that it would start earlier. And
the swing it will get when the features are ready anyhow.

The other problems - if the way the wiki is working really makes
development much harder, you might have to think again about how
to do this. Just like the other aspects, the software is there to
support the project, not the project to implement the software.

The other problems will be encountered whichever way is chosen.
We now realize the GNU/FDL was not the best licence to put Wikipedia
under. But we would not have found out by just waiting. We found out
by having Wikipedia under the license, and meeting its limits.
Likewise, there will undoubtedly be good and not-so-good ways of
setting up a structure for the information on WikiCommons. We will
choose one (or a few) of them, and develop those, maybe even decide
to switch. But that will happen whether we start now or later.

Wikipedia wasn't build in one day. But it was built.

And finally, once more I apologize for getting so angry. Especially
because, as you said, in the end we want the same.

We don't have a risk of making mistakes. We have a certainty of it.
But delaying our decisions will not help us make better ones. Better
to make our mistakes now, the earlier we make them, the earlier we
can correct them.

Andre Engels

"Andre Engels" <engelsAG at t-online.de> schrieb:
> "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> schrieb:
>
> > Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build
> > upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow
> > into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument.
>
> And with a single login and uploading this suddenly will work? Don't be
> ridiculous.
>
> It will be easy to build upon. It's all there - content, functionality,
> structure, policies. We cann build them now, or we can build them later.
> Your proposal is to build until we have good functionality, and then start
> making some content and structure. My proposal is to get all of them at
> the same time and develop all.
>
> It's NOT easier to make content from nothing than to make it from content.
>
> We have some splendid Wiki software now, don't we? Ain't it a shame that
> we already made an encyclopedia and policies for it? With this software
> we would do a lot better, no? Why don't you go and start your own
> Wikipedia?
>
> > If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set
> > up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless
> > of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my
> > position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of
> > features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to
> > make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the
> > greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content
> > development.
>
> I'm sick of this.
>
> andre
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Irresponsible version upgrade on several
	Wikipedias

body:
 --- Karl Eichwalder <ke at gnu.franken.de> wrote: >
> I didn't saw an announcement on wikide-l.

I'm sorry you missed the announcement. It was made on
May 21st on meta
(http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_news) and on
Foundation-l
(http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000134.html)

The language specific lists are rarely used for
project-wide announcements. If you do not want to
subscribe to the project-wide list as well, perhaps
you could talk the members of the German embassy
(Head, Fantasy and Fire) into relaying these messages
to Wikide-l.

Angela.

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
Andre-
> Perhaps. I'd say it's worth the try. And I don't think that waiting until
> we have all that will make the enthousiasm any larger. At least when we
> put it up, _something_ will be made.

Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build
upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow
into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument.

If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set
up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless
of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my
position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of
features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to
make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the
greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content
development.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Irresponsible version upgrade on several Wikipedias

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

> We've been testing it in public for weeks (eg,
> http://rtl.wikidev.net/).

I didn't saw an announcement on wikide-l.

> Please, *please* provide specific information about what is wrong
> (preferably including screenshots) and please *please* say which web
> browser and what version you are using.

No.  Firstly, switch back to the previous version.  Secondly, announce
to the writers list, a software upgrade/update is file for 2004-06-15
(or something like that).  Then I would happily report bug and problems.

> Sorry, no. Then we'll be back to the previous state where nobody's
> interested in working out the bugs.

The switch to xhtml I appreciate a lot!  But why on earth did someone
change existing CSS stylesheets?  Even if they were buggy we were used
to them!

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


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
Karl Eichwalder schrieb:

>>Please, *please* provide specific information about what is wrong
>>(preferably including screenshots) and please *please* say which web
>>browser and what version you are using.
>
>
> No.  Firstly, switch back to the previous version.  Secondly, announce
> to the writers list, a software upgrade/update is file for 2004-06-15

I think we are beyond a reasonable point of return. The system has
improved much since the first minutes after the updates and I'm now
finished with getting used to it.

It was hard to neglect the change on meta and all the test cases during
the last weeks, including gwickes great work on monobook so I think
there was enough time to justify changing a slightly bigger wikipedia
installation, such as de. or en.. The latter should be used as
guinea-pigs^w^wfeedback-providing crowd of volunteers as well :)

Mathias
--
nach uns der synflood.


body:
Angela <sloog77 at yahoo.co.uk> writes:

thanks for the answer.  you raised some valid points.

> The language specific lists are rarely used for
> project-wide announcements.

If it's just me it would be enough to announce things like this to
wikipedia-l.

My fault was blaming developers for project management issues; I should
have known better.

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


from_name: Tomos at Wikipedia

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL
	source?

body:
Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot
retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the
effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would
do just as Electicology suggested:

>If "new" licence is chosen, then it could be noted that all contributions
>after a decided year would come under the new licence.  If a contributor
>was also active before that date any contribution that he makes after that
>date will carry a retroactive application of the licence to his previous
>edits.  We can deal with the others later.

If you think about the fact that village pump is used daily, for example,
the introduction of such license would prevent further violation quite
effectively. So are the increasing amount of Template: texts and wikiproject
templates that will be developed in the future. Some materials are sent to
meta. And many language-wikipedias perhaps translate some of key policies
from English Wikipedia first.

(Besides, Japanese Wiktionary has just started, making it even more
reasonable to dual license it.)

While I am not intended to push the idea at this point, it should happen
sooner than later, and being late is better than never, it seems.

(Disclaimer:I am not a lawyer.)

Regards,

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/


body:
Regarding the legal risk of violating GFDL (and thereby someone's copyright)
on en. Wikipedia:

American Wikipedians are reasonably safe, I suppose. I am not sure about
non-American en. Wikipedians, since that may entail implications on
international jurisdiction and choice of law.

Whenever we speak of legal risks associated with GFDL, we have to face the
issue that at least in English Wikipedia, there seems to be no official,
agreeed-upon interpretation of the GFDL (what is "work"? who are the
copyright holders? are images under GFDL? is Page history the history as in
GFDL? etc.)

But that aside, here are the defenses that I find quite significant:

1) We only need substantial, reasonable compliance rather than a strict,
literal compliance.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000084.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Michael_Snow/Candidate_statement_and_discussion&diff=3741153&oldid=3739719)

2) One has to register his copyright work. Unless otherwise, he may not be
able to sue the violator in a Federal Court.

(http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F&diff=26058&oldid=26049
* and
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)

* A sidenote - Although Alex's remark there is a bit agressive, the matter
is now solved between the involved parties, as I understand.

3) Coauthors of a work cannot sue each other regarding copyright violation.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)

4) The moral rights are not protected under the U.S. copyright law much, so
that even if a lawsuit is brought up, there won't be much of a damage to be
found.
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014275.html)

5) In addition, if Terms of Use becomes effective sometime in the future, as
proposed in the expanded version, it may prevent any lawsuit between two
Wikipedians. See the arbitration clause in the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terms_of_use_(proposal)

All combined, it seems that current practice is reasonably safe for American
Wikipedians. Yet it seems quite possible, for example, a troll registers a
work and tries to sue someone who strip attribution from his contribution by
moving it to meta or a talk page from village pump.

Also, some features of the U.S. courts are said to be riskier or a bit
unpredictable in comparison to Japanese courts. (See:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.legal/263)

And last, but not the least, I am not sure if it is okay to just say that we
should keep violating GFDL just because it cannot be held accountable in
court.

So again, it is better to have something like the PD license in palce even
from at this point, I am inclined to think.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. And the citations I provided above are not
legal opinions, either.)

Best,

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life from
MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx


subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"

body:
 --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> It is very poor form, at the very least,
> for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
> They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
> but they are not "A Wikipedia".

I have some excellent news. After contacting the
Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
page.

Angela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela
------------------------------------------------

>From:	"Diagonal Media Group Service Desk"
<service at diagonalmediagroup.com>
>Subject: Trademark violation
>Date:	Thu, 27 May 2004 21:00:54 -0400

>Thank you Angela.

>I'm forwarding this to my engineer.

>The wording on the top of the pages was to have
>changed. I'm sure he can make this change.

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
Andre-
> And finally, once more I apologize for getting so angry. Especially
> because, as you said, in the end we want the same.

No problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the best approach to
get this started. As I said, if you can establish a general consensus for
starting with a blank, basic wiki in spite of my objections I will of
course work with you. If you don't want to campaign for this I ask you for
just a little more patience. We *will* make this happen, one way or
another.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"

body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment.htm


body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment-0002.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"

body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment.htm


body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment.html>


body:
Angela wrote:

> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>>
>>
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>page.
>
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040529/cb6adb8a/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"

body:
Angela wrote:
>
> I have some excellent news. After contacting the
> Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
> PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
> are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
> their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
> are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
> page.

I'm still not happy with their site. Straight after the article, they
display this text:

> All content Copyright 2003 - PhatNav   and   Diagonal Media Group Inc.

Admittedly, there's a parenthesis after that:

> (Except as noted on pages containing separately licensed content.)

but it's not noted anywhere that the particular page I'm looking at is
"separately licensed content". At the bottom it says that "The Wikipedia
is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc.", and still at that point
the reader still doesn't know that the article is from Wikipedia or even
what Wikipedia is. Only the very last line gives the final information.
Am I the only one who thinks this is almost deliberately obfuscated?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Greetings

body:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:

> You will butt heads with other editors. You will have your writing changed,
> sometimes not for the better. You will discover that someone knows things you
> don't. You will sometimes feel that Wikipedia's not worth it, & want to abandon
> it to the trolls, fools & wackos who keep appearing here.

I keep hearing this from a lot of people. Why has this never happened to
me? I seriously wonder.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

body:
I guess this is my last attempt to talk about
copyright issues in this place before deciding that

- copyright discussions are obviously not interesting
*anyone* here, so are not worth trying to be discussed
since it raises absolutely no interest whatsoever

- or that are not to be discussed in any other place
than on the english wikipedia list (see Tomos
discussion about changing our copyright license,
discussion that is occuring in another place, with the
idea that all wikipedias would follow the english
rules afterwards)

So, I'll ask just another time to be certain.

I must say that I am currently very disappointed by
lack of cooperation on the matter, because I do not
think my question is very difficult for those working
in the wikimedia projects other than wikipedia.

We are setting the foundation status. The current
status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS
(wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the
gfdl license.

Should we do that or not ? Should we be less specific
in case some of wikimedia projects are not or wont be
under the GFDL licence, or are we sure that all
content will be under that license or not ?

If this is not the place to discuss this, where is it
please ? Or who should I ask to ???

-------

2 ARTICLE 2 : Buts

Il importe de r?diger un objet large qui mette
l?accent sur le caract?re d?sint?ress?, international,
?ducatif et scientifique de l?association pour
permettre le b?n?fice des dispositions de l?article
200 du code g?n?ral des imp?ts.

Pour contribuer activement ? la diffusion, ?
l?am?lioration et ? l?avancement du savoir et de la
culture francophone internationale, WIKIM?DIA
FRAN?AISE a pour objet le d?veloppement
d?encyclop?dies, de recueil de citations, de livres
?ducatifs et d?autres compilations de documents,
d?information et de diverses bases de donn?es
informatives en langue fran?aise qui ont pour
caract?ristiques :

* d??tre enti?rement gratuits ;
* d??tre disponibles en ligne par les technologies de
l?internet et assimil?es ;
* de disposer d?un contenu qui est modifiable par les
utilisateurs ;
* d?avoir un contenu qui n?est pas prot?g?s par les
dispositions r?glementant la propri?t? litt?raire,
artistique ou industrielle, le cas ?ch?ant distribu?
gratuitement dans les conditions d?une licence de
documentation libre du type Free Documentation License
r?dig? par la Free Software Foundation Inc., et
notamment sa branche europ?enne ?
http://www.fsfeurope.org/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Klingon Wikipedia

body:
Angela wrote:

> I think the users not on the mailing lists should have
> a chance to discuss this as well before a vote is
> started. There is an ongoing discussion at
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages,
> formerly at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump.

Interesting. Quick skim shows a two-line objection statement, and two
screensful of support for a Klingon Wikipedia.

Please can you un-suspend it now? Please may I remind you that there are
people waiting to be able to ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE to it?

Thanks.
Timwi


subject: [Foundation-l] A question to all board candidates...

body:
I propose a real-life case to all Foundation Board
candidates. I expect that all candidates are on this
mailing list naturally.

--------

Say, you are on the board of Wikimedia Foundation.

A user from a rather minor wikipedia contact the
foundation mailing list, to ask for help on setting a
local association. This user is currently working on
the status of the future association with her peers,
and naturally should set status that are in coherence
with the Foundation principles themselves.

Now, it so happens that when you were a candidate a
while ago, and while candidating, you indicated as
PART of your platform, that indeed helping smaller
wikipedias were an issue to you, and that you would
HELP set local chapters.

Indeed, the user of the minor wikipedia is VERY
encouraged by the fact you put local chapter
considerations in your plateform, so that she knows it
is IMPORTANT to you, so of course, she is confident
you will answer and bring help.

So, here she is, bringing the issue on the mailing
list, and asking help...

------

Question : what do you do ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
--- Jean-Christophe Chazalette
<jean-christophe.chazalette at laposte.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthere" <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> To: <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:05 PM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of
> wikimedia projects
>
>
> > I guess this is my last attempt to talk about
> > copyright issues in this place before deciding
> that
> >
> > - copyright discussions are obviously not
> interesting
> > *anyone* here, so are not worth trying to be
> discussed
> > since it raises absolutely no interest whatsoever
> >
> > - or that are not to be discussed in any other
> place
> > than on the english wikipedia list (see Tomos
> > discussion about changing our copyright license,
> > discussion that is occuring in another place, with
> the
> > idea that all wikipedias would follow the english
> > rules afterwards)
> >
> > So, I'll ask just another time to be certain.
> >
> > I must say that I am currently very disappointed
> by
> > lack of cooperation on the matter, because I do
> not
> > think my question is very difficult for those
> working
> > in the wikimedia projects other than wikipedia.
> >
> > We are setting the foundation status. The current
> > status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS
> > (wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the
> > gfdl license.
>
> It doesn't say that, ant :
>
> "WF have contents which are not protected by the
> provisions regulating the
> the intellectual property, if such is the case
> freely distributed under the
> conditions of a free licence of documentation of the
> type of the Free
> Documentation License written by Free Software
> Foundation Inc, and in
> particular its European branch with
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/"
>
> No classical copyright, and a possibility of *a*
> free licence *of the type*
> of GFDL. So that I can't see how it would be
> possibly wider. Did we read the
> same text ? :-)
>
> villy

We read the same text but do not understand it the
same way. Does this allow contents under public
domain, does it allow contents over other types of
free licenses, does it allow contents under fair use
and so on ?

In short, does it limit our future abilities to
distribute content depending on future choices ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Foundation-l] representation and official positions

body:
> > Pourquoi faut-il une association ?

Why an associaation ?

Yann said
> I think that a more progressive start, and therefore
> starting early is
> possible.
> Creating an organisation is necessary. For already
> one year, I make speeches
> and talks about Wikipedia without any official
> mandate, but this is already
> awkward and it is becoming very inconvenient.
>
> Je pense qu'une croissance progressive est possible,
> et donc de commencer
> plut?t.
> Cr?er une association est n?cessaire. Depuis un an,
> je fais des conf?rences
> sur Wikip?dia sans aucun mandat officiel, mais cela
> est d?j? embarassant, et
> ?a devient vraiment g?nant.

Il est important de signaler Yann, que sur la fr: tout
le monde semble te faire confiance pour ta
participation dans les multiples conf?rences. Je pense
que si tu avais besoin pressant d'un support officiel,
Jimbo te l'apporterait publiquement sans probl?me et
nous aussi.

Cela ?tant, dans l'attente d'une association, et ce
pour tous les projects sans association, c'est une des
raisons pour lesquelles mettre en place des positions
officielles au sein de la foundation am?ricaine est
important. Il faut que certains puissent se pr?senter
comme porteur de la parole wikipedia officiellement
pour notre ?volution.

I'd like to remind you Yann, that everyone on fr;
trust you for your PR activities. If you had an urgent
need for official support, Jimbo would publicly
brought it I think.

This said, as long as a project does not have an
association, it is very important that the foundation
set a collection of official positions and officially
declare trust for several users. It is important that
we say "we trust these people to speak for Wikimedia"
to the outside. Editors should be trusted to speak for
wikipedia, the foundation should help and not speak
for editors.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki editing for databases

body:
On Friday 28 May 2004 22:30, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Has anybody thought about wiki databases? By these I mean applying the

Yes, me. I am still thinking would it be better to insert it to Wikipedia, or
to write everything from scratch.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Greetings

body:
I did that, and people complain on my Talk page that it's an attempt at avoiding conversation with them.

RickK

David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
I discovered my crankmail went down in volume notably when I disabled
email being sent from my user page. My email address is really easy to
find, but wikicranks don't seem to be particularly persistent.

- d.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040529/387c83bb/attachment.htm


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki editing for databases

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

>On Friday 28 May 2004 22:30, Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>>Has anybody thought about wiki databases? By these I mean applying the
>>
>
>Yes, me. I am still thinking would it be better to insert it to Wikipedia, or
>to write everything from scratch.
>
Could you expand on this please? It's not clear to me what you're
trying to say.

Stan


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Klingon Wikipedia

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Ray-
>
>>I don't see what a vote there would accomplish.  The criterion for
>>acceptance should be the presence of a significant minority in support.
>
>
> We are not a wiki hosting provider.
>
Please define the following words:

* wiki
* hosting
* provider

Additional homework:

* we
* not

:)


from_name: Rad Geek

subject: [Wikitech-l] RSS feed for current events?

body:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:16:28 +0200, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de>
wrote:

> At de.wikipedia, we are using the MediaWiki namespace for things like
> current events.

> Has anyone tried to export those parts into a rss/rdf file, i.e.
> [[MediaWiki:Hauptseite Aktuelle Ereignisse]] on de or [[MediaWiki:In the
> news]] on en?

> I think there might be some useful purpose for this file for external
> web sites and this could also help wikipedia.

[... de-lurking, since I have worked on various RSS and Atom syndication
projects before.]

1. Not to start a holy war or anything, but if you are going to be
syndicating, you really should use Atom. Most major newsfeed readers
support it; those that don't yet, most likely will soon, and in the
interim people can run scripts which convert Atom to RSS using a simple
XSLT transformation. Atom is *more* flexible, has a single standard
(rather than 9 different, ad hoc, and incompatible versions--see
<http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss>), and is
much more flexible.

2. That said, you may very well *not* want to do any syndication on
WikiPedia at the moment, whatever the format. Why? Well, because delivery
mechanisms for syndicated feeds are currently *terrible*. WikiPedia has
enough load-related performance problems as it is; imagine the same
situation, except with a significant portions of your users reloading one
page over and over again every 10 minutes to see if something has changed
(most newsreaders *default* to polling somewhere around every 5-15
minutes).

-C

--
Charles Johnson <technophilia at radgeek.com>
AIM: AiPuch
WWW: http://www.radgeek.com/

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


from_name: David Speakman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: [[Anti-French sentiment in the United States]]

body:
I believe Ian Penton-Voak did research in the 90s that showed evidence
of recent natural selection here.

In a study of women choosing attractive "masculinized" or "feminized"
computer-generated images of faces of men, British and Japanese women
were more likely to pick men who showed more feminine traits than women
of other countries.

--
Davodd
David Speakman

On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:58:38 +0100, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Anthere wrote
>
>> This is serious ???
>
>I wish British men got off so lightly.  Apparently we're almost all
>gay. That must exclude Sean Connery, I guess.  (Still, James Bond
>served in the Navy, so you can never tell.)


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs

body:
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> schrieb:
> Andre-
> > And finally, once more I apologize for getting so angry. Especially
> > because, as you said, in the end we want the same.
>
> No problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the best approach to
> get this started. As I said, if you can establish a general consensus for
> starting with a blank, basic wiki in spite of my objections I will of
> course work with you. If you don't want to campaign for this I ask you for
> just a little more patience. We *will* make this happen, one way or
> another.

Well, I guess my messages here are supposed to be some kind of campaign.
I'm just starting to get the impression that the rest of the people here
don't seem to care either way.

Andre Engels


subject: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject:
[WikiEN-l] proposed policy change - allow *certain* CC-licensed
	images on Wikipedia...

body:
I wish to propose that images available under *some* of the Creative
Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even more permissive) use
than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in Wikipedia.

The licenses are the:

By-attribution license:
* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

The only requirement to use works create by this license is that you
must give the author credit.

The Attribution-ShareAlike license:
* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Like the by-attribution license with the additional requirement that any
derivative works must be made available under the same terms as the
original work.

As I understand things, the consensus is that including these works in
the Wikipedia doesn't present any legal problems, as combining works with
different licenses is permitted under clause 7 of the FDL, the aggregation
clause.

I also believe that the CC by-sa license is very similar in spirit to
the GPL and FDL, and the CC attribution license is even more permissive
than what we allow.  Therefore, philosophically, there is no reason not
to allow such images on the Wikipedia.

I know there are others who wish to allow images using some of the other
CC licenses on to the Wikipedia.  While there are arguments on both
sides to that one, it's a seperate debate.

My motivation for this is simple: I am in negotiation with a body that
has a very large database of images that would be useful for the
Wikipedia, many of them unobtainable from any other source.  However,
the individual whom I am discussing this with is a little hesitant about
taking the GNU FDL to his bosses, as it is so hard to interpret.  This
will make it much harder to get permission.  Having a simpler,
easier-to-understand, and functionally equivalent license they can use would
make the task easier.  Others on the list have mentioned the same
problem.

What do you all think?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
                                        http://benambra.org

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job
to interpret law.
  -- George W. Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


references:
<40B854EC.4040907@presroi.de> <opr8rlg9zs6og2kp@smtp.1and1.com>
	<40B8A09D.1020107@presroi.de>

body:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:39:25 +0200, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de>
wrote:

> Rad Geek schrieb:

. . .

[problems with delivery of syndicated feeds by polling ...]

>> Why? Well, because delivery  mechanisms for syndicated feeds are
>> currently *terrible*.

> This is not an argument. Since there is no dynamic content, putting it
> somewhere else is quite easy. I could host those files, htat's not a
> prolby.

O.K.; I misunderstood the proposal; mea culpa. If there is some kind of
system of replicating the data to mirror servers, and people are polling
*those* servers instead of the WikiPedia servers, then of course there
should be no performance hit.

How would users be directed to the right server? Would they just go to the
front page of the data that the feed is syndicating, and find a link to
the (offsite) URI? Or would there be some other mechanism?

-C

--
Charles Johnson <technophilia at radgeek.com>
AIM: AiPuch
WWW: http://www.radgeek.com/

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


body:
Hi,

At de.wikipedia, we are using the MediaWiki namespace for things like
current events.

Has anyone tried to export those parts into a rss/rdf file, i.e.
[[MediaWiki:Hauptseite Aktuelle Ereignisse]] on de or [[MediaWiki:In the
news]] on en?

I think there might be some useful purpose for this file for external
web sites and this could also help wikipedia.

Mathias
--
nach uns der synflood.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik's vandalism and threats

body:
It's fine, Theresa, I didn't think your comments were an attack.

Guanaco and Fennec unblocked him the first night he was starting his vandalism spree.

I agree with your statements about Quagga.

Note that some anon has been posting anti-Wik comments on the edit summaries of inconsequential edits he's been making to articles Wik edited, and trying to claim that I am supporting him.  This is not true.

RickK

"KNOTT, T" <tknott at qcl.org.uk> wrote:

>I don't know.  Maybe some help with the vandalism instead of getting attacked for doing the right thing?

Rick If I came across as if I were attacking you I apologise. It was not my intention. Let's not fight among ourselves eh?

> Maybe not have people unblocking him when he's destroying people's pages?

Who unblocked him? I've been blocking every proxy he uses. So have several others.

Anything he can do can be sorted out. Let's not get emotional about it. He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban. He's said he'll leave for good. Great! He's far more trouble than he is worth IMO. Let's just let him go. I can't help but feel quagga is enjoying the fight and doesn't want Wik to go. I feel that Quagga is not in any way acting in the best interest of wikipedia.

Theresa

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040529/72d9dfbb/attachment.htm


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Muke Tever

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Case - Sensitivity for Wiktionaries

body:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:56:52 +0200, Ronny Raschkowan
<wiki at kopfrechnung.de> wrote:
> Why all this: Most of latin languages have most words with lowercase
> letters (ex.: german, french, english, ....). In the Wikipedia, it is
> not a big problem to have only uppercase letters. But in a dictionary,
> it's very important to have and to see a / the difference between upper-
> and lowercase words.

In the en:Wiktionary, the casing of a word is shown inline in the page, on
a line above the definitions that also shows grammatical information on a
word, such as its gender or principal parts:

	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Malaysia
        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Harangue
        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Magicus

I think also that having separately-cased forms of words on different
pages might overemphasize the difference between some senses of a word,
where some may be capitalized and some not:

        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cynosure

Basically I disagree with case-sensitivity in page titles because I think
it is better for the title of an article to be in title case.  On the
en:Wiktionary we go out of our way to capitalize page titles, and use
redirects for languages the wiki software isn't smart enough to capitalize
automatically... if this case-sensitivity is enabled it will be a lot more
work.

The only exception I could see is words like "isiZulu" where the proper
title casing is not the initial character of the word.

      --Muke Tever, [[en:User:Muke]]
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


body:
--- Angela <sloog77 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Currently, all our projects are under the GFDL.
> However, there is no reason future projects need to
> be.

There is a tremendously important reason why all our text-based projects should
be under the same (or at least compatible) license: To alow inter-project
copying. It would be absurd to not be able to copy text back and forth between
Wikibooks and Wikipedia, for example.

All our text should be under the same license (images can very easily be
regarded as aggregations, so we can be more lax with them, IMO). We chose the
FDL, so for the time being we are stuck with the FDL. In the future I would
like to see us migrate to a GNU FCL or at least to an improved FDL.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Take the Wikinews project as an example. If successful, Wikinews will not
> only compete with CNN but also with AP and Reuters. That means that
> newspapers, magazines and websites may be interested in using our content
> instead of the expensive AP feed.

Would it not be much more important to make sure that Wikinews text can be used
to *update* the corresponding Wikipedia articles? I've been very skeptical of
the Wikinews idea due to the fact that it may reduce the rate at which
Wikipedia is kept up to date. But placing Wikinews text under a license that is
incompatible with Wikipedia is way over the top.

> But the FDL with its long license text
> and complicated terms is not very practical for that.

Then let's work on reducing the FDL down to its essentials, call that the FCL,
have the FSF adopt it and create a FDL 2.0 that allows direct compatibility
with invariant-section-free FDL content and the FCL (the FCL would in turn be
compatible with the CC by-sa).

> There is even the
> question if we really want to force Wikinews users to copyleft their
> content, or if the public domain or an attribution license wouldn't be
> more practical in this instance.

Then that project would not be free content. Free content licenses protect the
content from proprietary control and ensure a positive feedback loop which
continually improves the content. Public domain and non-share-alike attribution
licenses encourage mutually incompatible content forks where improvements that
create derivative works cannot be re-incorporated back into the original -
meaning there is no positive feeback loop.

Not to mention the fact that a non-FDL Wikinews article could not copy anything
more than a fair use amount of background text from Wikipedia.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

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


references:
<40B854EC.4040907@presroi.de>
	<opr8rlg9zs6og2kp@smtp.1and1.com>	<40B8A09D.1020107@presroi.de>
	<opr8rn3lca6og2kp@smtp.1and1.com> <40B8AB45.4040507@presroi.de>

body:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:24:53 +0200, Mathias Schindler <neubau at presroi.de>
wrote:

> Rad Geek schrieb:
>
>> How would users be directed to the right server? Would they just go to
>> the  front page of the data that the feed is syndicating, and find a
>> link to  the (offsite) URI? Or would there be some other mechanism?

> This reply here from me might reveal me as the greatest greenhorn in IT
> world ever but I wasn't thinking of load balancing at all. I have some
> gigabyte of traffic per month to spend and some hard disk space and the
> feed file from current headlinews would be less than 5 KByte. A refresh
> rate of 5-15 Minutes does make use of the HTTP 304 status code, doesn't
> it?

Unless your server is odd, sure, this won't be much of a worry if you have
lots of traffic to spare. But I'm still not sure I understand what you're
proposing. And, in any case, I think I wasn't clear when I was expressing
my worry.

The worry is this: the point of having a syndicated feed is for users who
consume the normal content ("In the News"-style content on WikiPedia in
this case) to be able to find it, and put it into a feed reader or news
aggregator of some kind. So the question is: if (1) you are going to be
creating feeds for WikiPedia (en: or de:), but (2) they are going to be
hosted on *your* server rather than WikiPedia's servers, then that raises
the question of (3) how are the prospective users going to find out where
the feeds *are* hosted?

When you first made the proposal, I thought that what you meant was that
the MediaWiki software would generate a feed of the content in this
section, and that it would supply a link (through an ...
element, a <link rel="alternate" .../> element, or both) to the location
where the file can be retrieved from WikiPedia. After you clarified that
you were thinking of hosting it on *your* server, I assumed that you meant
something more along the lines of WikiPedia generating the file, your
server mirroring it from WikiPedia, and directing users over to the feed
on your server *instead of* directing them to the feed on WikiPedia's
servers.

*If* that's what you're proposing, then you solve the problem of adding
extra load to WikiPedia's servers (since only a few sources--your mirror
server, and anyone else who has a mirror server) is accessing the feed,
and everyone else is getting the feed from your server instead of
WikiPedia's. But it creates a new problem: WikiPedia now needs to know the
URI to the feed on *your* server, and present it to people reading the "In
the news" section, in order for users to be able to get the feed from
where you want them to get it.

That's not a very tricky problem; I was just wondering what you had in
mind to solve it: if, for example, you intended to have those who maintain
the "In the news" section insert a link to your mirror of the newsfeed
manually, or if you had some more automated method in mind.

But, as I said, I don't know anymore if I've even clearly understood what
it was that you had in mind. If this is all based on a misreading on my
part, I apologize.

-C

--
Charles Johnson <technophilia at radgeek.com>
AIM: AiPuch
WWW: http://www.radgeek.com/

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Say, you are on the board of Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> A user from a rather minor wikipedia contact the
> foundation mailing list, to ask for help on setting a
> local association. This user is currently working on
> the status of the future association with her peers,
> and naturally should set status that are in coherence
> with the Foundation principles themselves.
>
> Now, it so happens that when you were a candidate a
> while ago, and while candidating, you indicated as
> PART of your platform, that indeed helping smaller
> wikipedias were an issue to you, and that you would
> HELP set local chapters.
>
> Indeed, the user of the minor wikipedia is VERY
> encouraged by the fact you put local chapter
> considerations in your plateform, so that she knows it
> is IMPORTANT to you, so of course, she is confident
> you will answer and bring help.
>
> So, here she is, bringing the issue on the mailing
> list, and asking help...
>
> ------
>
> Question : what do you do ?

We need to first look at the formation of the German chapter/association in
order to develop rules and procedures for setting up chapters. Once that is
done we could refer the person to that documentation and provide assistance as
needed. There would, at the least, have to be enough dues-paying Wikimedia
members in that person's area in order to make it possible to have a viable
chapter. Once that is the case, and enough of those members indicate a
willingness to actually participate in a chapter, then the foundation could
provide some seed money to set-up the legal framework. Then to stay a Wikimedia
chapter a *minimal* set of guidelines must be adhered to (such as keeping a
certain set number of active chapter members and reporting chapter-specific
finances and activities to the foundation). I would also like to see each
chapter president have at least a honorary role in the foundation itself
(perhaps even as honoray trustees).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
I regret, again, that this is discussed only on the english list.

I repeat again that copyright issues, and the issue you raise are
wikipedia topic large, not english restricted only.

Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot
> retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider
> the effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we
> would do just as Electicology suggested:
>
>> If "new" licence is chosen, then it could be noted that all
>> contributions after a decided year would come under the new licence.
>> If a contributor was also active before that date any contribution
>> that he makes after that date will carry a retroactive application of
>> the licence to his previous edits.  We can deal with the others later.
>
>
> If you think about the fact that village pump is used daily, for
> example, the introduction of such license would prevent further
> violation quite effectively. So are the increasing amount of Template:
> texts and wikiproject templates that will be developed in the future.
> Some materials are sent to meta. And many language-wikipedias perhaps
> translate some of key policies from English Wikipedia first.

That is absolutely no argument to LIMIT the discussion to english list.
Many language wikipedias ALSO wish to be part of the discussion, and for
this discussion requires to be done at the right place Tomos.

If you believe that all wikipedias will only just copy the english rules
and policies passively, I think you are very deeply in the wrong.

> (Besides, Japanese Wiktionary has just started, making it even more
> reasonable to dual license it.)
>
> While I am not intended to push the idea at this point, it should happen
> sooner than later, and being late is better than never, it seems.
>
> (Disclaimer:I am not a lawyer.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tomos
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra
> Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/


body:
And again, any discussion of changes of licensing on wikipedia projects
should really really really be a discussion involving all wikipedias.

Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
> Regarding the legal risk of violating GFDL (and thereby someone's
> copyright) on en. Wikipedia:
>
> American Wikipedians are reasonably safe, I suppose. I am not sure about
> non-American en. Wikipedians, since that may entail implications on
> international jurisdiction and choice of law.
>
> Whenever we speak of legal risks associated with GFDL, we have to face
> the issue that at least in English Wikipedia, there seems to be no
> official, agreeed-upon interpretation of the GFDL (what is "work"? who
> are the copyright holders? are images under GFDL? is Page history the
> history as in GFDL? etc.)
>
> But that aside, here are the defenses that I find quite significant:
>
> 1) We only need substantial, reasonable compliance rather than a strict,
> literal compliance.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000084.html
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Michael_Snow/Candidate_statement_and_discussion&diff=3741153&oldid=3739719)
>
> 2) One has to register his copyright work. Unless otherwise, he may not
> be able to sue the violator in a Federal Court.
>
> (http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F&diff=26058&oldid=26049
> * and
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
>
> * A sidenote - Although Alex's remark there is a bit agressive, the
> matter is now solved between the involved parties, as I understand.
>
> 3) Coauthors of a work cannot sue each other regarding copyright violation.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-February/000261.html)
>
> 4) The moral rights are not protected under the U.S. copyright law much,
> so that even if a lawsuit is brought up, there won't be much of a damage
> to be found.
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014275.html)
>
> 5) In addition, if Terms of Use becomes effective sometime in the
> future, as proposed in the expanded version, it may prevent any lawsuit
> between two Wikipedians. See the arbitration clause in the following page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Terms_of_use_(proposal)
>
>
> All combined, it seems that current practice is reasonably safe for
> American Wikipedians. Yet it seems quite possible, for example, a troll
> registers a work and tries to sue someone who strip attribution from his
> contribution by moving it to meta or a talk page from village pump.
>
> Also, some features of the U.S. courts are said to be riskier or a bit
> unpredictable in comparison to Japanese courts. (See:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.legal/263)
>
> And last, but not the least, I am not sure if it is okay to just say
> that we should keep violating GFDL just because it cannot be held
> accountable in court.
>
> So again, it is better to have something like the PD license in palce
> even from at this point, I am inclined to think.
>
> (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. And the citations I provided above are
> not legal opinions, either.)
>
> Best,
>
> Tomos
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life
> from MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from
	an outside GFDL source?

body:
--- Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos at hotmail.com> wrote on WikiEN-l:
> Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot
> retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the
> effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would
> do just as Electicology suggested:

Sorry, it is simply not possible to create a derivative dual licensed work from
a GFDL-only licensed article. Doing so would be a violation of the copyright of
everyone who submitted the GFDL-only text. Dual licensing would also make it
impossible to accept any new GFDL-only text.

We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that license.
Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already stated
that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> At de.wikipedia, we are using the MediaWiki namespace for things like
> current events.
>
> Has anyone tried to export those parts into a rss/rdf file, i.e.
> [[MediaWiki:Hauptseite Aktuelle Ereignisse]] on de or [[MediaWiki:In the
> news]] on en?

Somebody's running an RSS feed from [[Wikipedia:Announcements]] on en;
this is done with a scraper and the file hosted on an external site:
http://jeays.net/wikipedia/announcements.xml

There is built-in RSS2 and Atom feed generation support now for
Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages. IIRC both pages are
cacheable, though of course RC changes very frequently on en! If they
turn out to be problematic, we can have them update only periodically.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040529/956e51a0/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki:copyright

body:
Gutza wrote:
> Why I personally would prefer to point to the localized version of the
> license in the Romanian Wikipedia is because the "semi-official but
> unofficial" (as in "linked to by GNU") Romanian version of the GFDL
> license was translated and is hosted on... the Romanian Wikipedia (see
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html#translationsGFDL).

It can point to a wiki page, but currently it'll be hardcoded in the
configuration, and we don't have a list of all such pages.

Probably should make that overrideable from a MediaWiki: page.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040529/5d5e3f51/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Fwd: FW: About the upgrade to version 1.3 of
	nl.wiktionary.org]

body:
Just so I don't forget this...
--brion

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: About the upgrade to version 1.3 of nl.wiktionary.org
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:02:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Walter Vermeir
> Hi Brion,
>
> The starting members of the dutch Wiktionary have decided that the name
> "Wiktionary" is to bad for use in the dutch version. It is difficult to
> pronounce and is meaningless.
>
> We will use the name "WikiWoordenboek". (woordenboek =dictionary).
>
> I inform you about this now because the conversion to the new wiki is
> possibly a good time to change all the "Wiktionary" settings and label to
> "WikiWoordenboek".
>
> If there is no technical problem please set the website namespace to
> "WikiWoordenboek" (whit 2 capitals)
>
> Greetings,
> Walter Vermeir

Can you also setup nl.wikiquote.org please?

Please send a confirmation.

Greetings,
Walter Vermeir

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040529/b5f1ce8f/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: RSS feed for current events?

body:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:45:44 +0200, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

. . .

> On fr; there is now both RSS and Atom...

> Is that risky in terms of load ?

Probably not just *yet*, but it could become risky *soon*, and it's hard
to predict just how quickly it will.

The problem is that the way feeds are delivered right now is by polling
with an HTTP GET according to an interval set by the newsreader. The way
that this is implemented, in every newsreader that's available right now,
so far as I know, is by using a fixed interval, which usually defaults to
somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes, and which the user can manually set to
something else (so that, for example, they're not wasting cycles checking
in on a site that never updates more than once daily). Of course, most
users *don't* bother to change the interval, so most feed readers end up
polling your site every 5-15 minutes.

This isn't a big deal if you've got relatively few visitors--particularly
if the server is set up to just send a 304 if there have been no
modifications. But it doesn't scale very well at all: in terms of load,
it's not much different form having one user press the "Reload" button
every few minutes to see whether there have been any changes. As RSS and
Atom syndication become more ubiquitous, and feed readers become more
popular, more and more users are going to want to use services like this
on highly trafficked sites such as WikiPedia. So there's a distinct risk
that the current model won't be sustainable for very much longer.

-C

--
Charles Johnson <technophilia at radgeek.com>
AIM: AiPuch
WWW: http://www.radgeek.com/

Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Klingon Wikipedia

body:
--- Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > However, given that all notable arguments have already been exchanged, I
> > think the best way to go about this is to simply start a vote on Meta on
> > whether we want a Klingon Wikipedia. I suggest you do it.
>
> There was never a vote on Meta on whether to start a Wikipedia in
> German, Polish, Swedish or Norwegian.

Those are natural languages that are used by many millions of people every day.
There is *absolutely* no question whatsoever that we should have encyclopedias
for those languages and that there are enough people interested in working on
such encyclopedias to make them viable projects.

Artificial languages are not so clear cut. Some like Esperanto are obvious
candidates for inclusion since they have regular international conferences and
their own published literature. But for the less obvious cases I do think that
a set of criteria should be followed and if the creation is still
controversial, then a vote should be held to settle the issue.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
I'd like to say I am not happy we have been upgraded so soon. We have
many problems, and the upgrade took place even though some bugs were
mentionned on meta.

This morning, I still have blank pages, cut pages, errors.

I edited only 3 pages today
About once every two times, the edit page appears blank and has to be
reloaded. Sometimes, the article itself appears not complete. Only some
sections are displayed.

And as usual, I am under Mac Netscape 7.02.

I feel like we have been used as beta testers.

And please, remove the real name info box. Please.

Meir Mendelovich wrote:
> Surprisingly, some of the Wikipedias where upgraded to Version 1.3 beta 1
> with the new skin. As I suspected, this skin does not support right-to-left
> (RTL) languages correctly. Though I kept warning on this issue, it was
> disregarded.
>
> The result is that currently the Hebrew (http://he.wikipedia.org) and Arabic
> (http://ar.wikipedia.org) Wikipedias are not usesable! The version should be
> reversed ASAP !!!
>
> Both me and the other Hebrew and Arabic wikipedians would be happy to help
> debuging the new skin and version but it is not acceptable to update the
> live site version without ANY proper tests!
>
> We have long list of bugs that I would be happy to translate to English when
> it will be needed. But, for now, install the old version that worked fine.
>
>         Meir :-(


from_name: Rt. Rev. Dr. Hans F. Lorenz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Remove my name, Please.

body:
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040529/5028a330/attachment.html>


body:
To be specific

When I edit Roby user page

Here is what  I get at the top

There were serious xhtml markup errors detected by tidy.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><title>test</title>

Meaning ?

Anthere wrote:
> I'd like to say I am not happy we have been upgraded so soon. We have
> many problems, and the upgrade took place even though some bugs were
> mentionned on meta.
>
> This morning, I still have blank pages, cut pages, errors.
>
> I edited only 3 pages today
> About once every two times, the edit page appears blank and has to be
> reloaded. Sometimes, the article itself appears not complete. Only some
> sections are displayed.
>
> And as usual, I am under Mac Netscape 7.02.
>
> I feel like we have been used as beta testers.
>
> And please, remove the real name info box. Please.
>
>
>
> Meir Mendelovich wrote:
>
>> Surprisingly, some of the Wikipedias where upgraded to Version 1.3 beta 1
>> with the new skin. As I suspected, this skin does not support
>> right-to-left
>> (RTL) languages correctly. Though I kept warning on this issue, it was
>> disregarded.
>>
>> The result is that currently the Hebrew (http://he.wikipedia.org) and
>> Arabic
>> (http://ar.wikipedia.org) Wikipedias are not usesable! The version
>> should be
>> reversed ASAP !!!
>>
>> Both me and the other Hebrew and Arabic wikipedians would be happy to help
>> debuging the new skin and version but it is not acceptable to update the
>> live site version without ANY proper tests!
>>
>> We have long list of bugs that I would be happy to translate to
>> English when
>> it will be needed. But, for now, install the old version that worked fine.
>>
>>         Meir :-(
>


body:
And the VISIBLE content of
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AStatuts_pour_une_association_en_France

this page is

There were serious xhtml markup errors detected by tidy.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><title>test</title>
[modifier]

 Looxix

 "Les r?f?rences ? WF Inc. comme destinataire ?ventuelle des
fonds ont ?t? supprim?es, il faut ?valuer leur cons?quence comptable et
fiscale d?abord."

d'accord (je m'y connait absolument pas en compta/fisca); mais
je pense qu'il est important d'avoir une id?e g?n?rale plus ou moins
pr?cise sur la fa?on dont les fonds pourraient ?tre d?pens?.

 m?me chose au sujet du montant des contisations; m?me si ?a ne
doit pas ?tre mentionn? dans le statuts, il faudrait avoir une id?e, une
fourchette, au sujet de ce montant.

 "(les) non adh?rents (de WIKIM?DIA FRAN?AISE,) peuvent
s?exprimer ? titre consultatif"

 pour moi, cela veut dire que cette association ne se veut pas
repr?sentative des utilisateurs des sites wikip?dia fancophones.

 "... qui se sont vus conf?rer, ? quelque titre que ce soit, des
droits techniques relevant habituellement des pr?rogatives ou des
missions d?un administrateur syst?me"

 ?ma cela ne veut rien dire si on ne d?fini pas ce que c'est un
administateur syst?me (par exemple est-ce que les admins sont
des administrateurs syst?me ?

 pourquoi faire cette distinction ?

 "au plus tard deux mois avant la date de d?but d?une assembl?e
g?n?rale"

 heuuu, on est un wiki, ? l'?re internet et au XXe si?cle; c'est
bcp trop long ?ma

 "?lus pour trois (3) ann?es"

 bcp, bcp trop long ?ma

R?cup?r?e de
"http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia:Statuts_pour_une_association_en_France"

Derni?re modification de cette page : 29 mai 2004 ? 01:27. Le contenu
est disponible selon les termes de la licence GNU Free Documentation
License.

------

I know not if I am the only one to see this instead of article. But this
is not exactly an encyclopedia any more :-)


body:
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> schrieb:
> Anthere-
> > We are setting the foundation status. The current
> > status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS
> > (wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the
> > gfdl license.
>
> > Should we do that or not ?
>
> No, please do not. We should have the option to decide for any new
> Wikimedia project whether to use the FDL or another license.
>
> Take the Wikinews project as an example. If successful, Wikinews will not
> only compete with CNN but also with AP and Reuters. That means that
> newspapers, magazines and websites may be interested in using our content
> instead of the expensive AP feed. But the FDL with its long license text
> and complicated terms is not very practical for that. There is even the
> question if we really want to force Wikinews users to copyleft their
> content, or if the public domain or an attribution license wouldn't be
> more practical in this instance.

Not to mention that technically _no_ Wikipedia project holds the GNU/FDL.
We never should have taken it in the first place, we certainly should not
bind us to it any more than we are by the situation of already having content
under it.

Andre Engels


from_name: Jay Bowks

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Klingon Wikipedia

body:
For the benefit of community
building... if there is a Klingon
language using community and
they wish to use Wikimedia supported
space and software, then what is the
real obstacle to their being able
establish and maintain their own
language wiki? The benefit is that
it provides yet another hangout
for Klingon language enthusiasts
to meet, collaborate and exchange
pats on the back... Not to mention
the interstellar goodwill that it
promotes ;-) But that aside, Klingon
is as much a part of the American
culture as Valley Girl Speak, or
Basic English as spoken in the old
Radio Free Europe.

The omission of Klingon, despite the
existence of a Klingon language using
community who are willing to maintain
their own wikipedia language space, that
would be a suppression of the openness
goals that the Wikipedia and Wikimedia
were founded on.

Let's have Klingon back and on good
terms. The addition of Klingon language
to Wikipedia is similar to its presence in
Google. Does it do Google any harm? Will
it harm Wikipedia? The only harm is in the
exclusion of folks who are very motivated
and could be a support for Wikipedia. And
their exclusion would be a regrettable and
bad example. Let's get those 'Wiki-klingers'
back.

Sincerely,
Jay B.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:34 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Klingon Wikipedia

> Angela wrote:
>
> > I think the users not on the mailing lists should have
> > a chance to discuss this as well before a vote is
> > started. There is an ongoing discussion at
> > http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages,
> > formerly at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump.
>
> Interesting. Quick skim shows a two-line objection statement, and two
> screensful of support for a Klingon Wikipedia.
>
> Please can you un-suspend it now? Please may I remind you that there are
> people waiting to be able to ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE to it?
>
> Thanks.
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] I'm infuriated.

body:
Whooaa! There!

But I'd support your request to have
Klingon Wiki back up and running
and I'm somewhat taken aback that
it's been brought down too. I would
urge its reactivation, let's talk it
out and not turn away folks who
would be dedicated to maintaining
another language on the basis of
someone else's evaluation of whether
it is an honorable or not language.
If the ISO folks gave it a code and
the Google people are willing to
host versions of silly languages
like "hacker" and "elmer fudd",
and yes even "Klingon" then what
harm could it do Wikipedia to
include Klingon in its available
list of languages for wikipedia?
Of course, the "Bork bork bork"
is pretty useless, but there's a
goodly number of auxiliary langs.
included in the Google lang.
choices.

Here's a list of Google's language
options... I know it isn't the same
as hosting an encyclopedia in that
language but some of the choices
are surprising, and do these harm
Google in any way? No.

Afrikaans
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bengali
Bihari
Bork, bork, bork!
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Catalan
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
Elmer Fudd
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Hacker
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Klingon
Korean
Kyrgyz
Latin
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Marathi
Nepali
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Persian
Pig Latin
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Romanian
Russian
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Xhosa
Yiddish
Zulu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net>
To: <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] I'm infuriated.

>
> Hello,
>
> I'm pretty damn angry now. I can't believe you suspended the entire
> Klingon wiki.
> I can understand if you don't want inter-wiki links to it. I can
> understand if you don't want any links to the site. But can't you just
> let those that WANT TO WORK ON IT, work on it?!
> Seriously, guys, I'm indescribably disappointed. Put Klingon back up, or
> trash Toki Pona.
> Pretty damn annoyed,
> Timwi


from_name: Lightning

references:
<40B854EC.4040907@presroi.de> <opr8rlg9zs6og2kp@smtp.1and1.com>
	<40B8A218.1030800@yahoo.com> <opr8rttvcs6og2kp@smtp.1and1.com>

body:
On May 29, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Rad Geek wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 2004 16:45:44 +0200, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> . . .
>
>> On fr; there is now both RSS and Atom...
>
>> Is that risky in terms of load ?
>
> Probably not just *yet*, but it could become risky *soon*, and it's
> hard to predict just how quickly it will.
>
> The problem is that the way feeds are delivered right now is by
> polling with an HTTP GET according to an interval set by the
> newsreader. The way that this is implemented, in every newsreader
> that's available right now, so far as I know, is by using a fixed
> interval, which usually defaults to somewhere between 5 and 15
> minutes, and which the user can manually set to something else (so
> that, for example, they're not wasting cycles checking in on a site
> that never updates more than once daily). Of course, most users
> *don't* bother to change the interval, so most feed readers end up
> polling your site every 5-15 minutes.
>
> This isn't a big deal if you've got relatively few
> visitors--particularly if the server is set up to just send a 304 if
> there have been no modifications. But it doesn't scale very well at
> all: in terms of load, it's not much different form having one user
> press the "Reload" button every few minutes to see whether there have
> been any changes. As RSS and Atom syndication become more ubiquitous,
> and feed readers become more popular, more and more users are going to
> want to use services like this on highly trafficked sites such as
> WikiPedia. So there's a distinct risk that the current model won't be
> sustainable for very much longer.
>

Wouldn't Squid take care of this???? It seems like very much a
non-issue to me

Lightning


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject:
Removing real name (was Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Irresponsible version
	upgrade on several Wikipedias)

body:
>>>>> "A" == Anthere  <anthere9 at yahoo.com> writes:

    A> And please, remove the real name info box. Please.

I've just checked in code that allows a sysadmin to disable the real
name user interface. I didn't muck with making the database field
optional, since I figured a blank field won't hurt much, and trying to
optionalize that would just be too hairy.

The configuration variable is $wgAllowRealName, and defaults to
true. Someone's going to have to set it to false for those projects
that don't want real names. Frankly, I'm not well-enough versed in
Wikimedia politics to know how these decisions are made, so I didn't
want to do it unilaterally based on feedback on this list.

I haven't changed the code in the credits block and RDF showing real
names. I figure that's lower priority, but I'll try to get to it
today.

~ESP

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


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

body:
> We are setting the foundation status. The current
> status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS
> (wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the
> gfdl license.

My two cent: Set together with some lawyers and work out another license,
which is more suitable for wikis. The GNU FDL is constantly violated when
we're translating from one wikipedia to another, copy from one article to
another and so on. The GNU FDL has a lot of issues with pictures, with that
bloody "title page"... It's a pity that we can't change the Wikipedia licence
any more. We would need something that would allow to copy more freely within
the wikis, something which is more suitable for collaborative writing.
However if the content is to be taken "outside", authors should be named as
indicated by the version history.

Uli