body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> * Someone (I forget who) made an /article/ about Easter Bradford. This
> was, I think, the first case of an article WHICH WAS ABOUT a
> contributor.

He added the article himself.  I daresay that it would not have
occurred to anyone else to do such a thing.

--Jimbo


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: tarquin

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch

body:
Martin Harper wrote:

>>After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
>>
>>
>be talking about?
>
>I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before
>11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had
>the most fatalities.
>
>On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
>
>
Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ?
At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the
title. That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Would the maintenance of old user accounts be necessary or desirable in order
to preserve more exact details of authorship?

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>How about [[9-11 Airliner Incident]]?
>
>Or, for the more deliberately inclined, [[9-11 Airliner Attack]]?
>
>Both of these titles sidestep the issue of whether it was a "terrorist"
>event. The opening paragraphs of the article make it clear that the US,
>at least, called it a "terrorist attack".
>
>
This sounds almost comically PC to me.

We could always move it to [[Reportedly Intentional Mishap Involving
Several Airplanes over the United States on September 11, 2003]].

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Delirium wrote:

> This sounds almost comically PC to me.
>
> We could always move it to [[Reportedly Intentional Mishap Involving
> Several Airplanes over the United States on September 11, 2003]].

Err, 2001 of course.

But I don't really see what's wrong with "September 11 terrorist
attacks".  It's the nearly-universally-used term, and even countries
that generally strongly dislike the US--like Iran--use that term.

-Mark


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Easter Bradford

body:
[[Easter Bradford]] should either be deleted for being a vanity page
(but it's already been through VfD on this count) or it should be
kept. I don't see how we can bow to such vague claims that a page is
libelous. At the very least he should have to specify what the
problem is.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


from_name: Tucci

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Adbusters

body:
That's great, I love adbusters.

TUF-KAT

>  > From:
> "richard-PFJODL+h6fL1P9xLtpHBDw at public.gmane.org"
> <richard at adbusters.org>
>  > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:33:59 -0800
>  > To:
> <jwales-KK9S75Hv+MAAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
>  > Subject: powered by wikipedia
>  >
>  > Dear Mr. Wales,
>  >
>  > We would like to do a blurb for the encyclopedia
> in our next issue of
>  > Adbusters magazine (circ. 120,000; see
> www.adbusters.org). To do so,
> we
>  > would need a high resolution image of the
> Wikipedia icon. We love the
>  > encyclopedia and, although we don't print any
> paid ads in the
> magazine, we
>  > do print some free ones.
>  >
>  > Hope to hear from you or someone on the staff at
> your/their
> convenience.
>  >
>  > All best wishes,
>  >
>  > Richard DeGrandpre
>  > Associate Editor
>  >
>  > ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Tarquin wrote:

>>At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term
>>"terrorist" from the title.

>Why? The term 'terrorist' is almost always in the title of the incident when
>it is referred to in any place I've ever seen a reference (although it is
>very often just called "9/11" or "September 11" in the USA but those titles
>are not specific enough for us). The incident also perfectly fits the
>definition of terrorism. So there is no reason not to use it unless it is
>unreasonably offensive. I would, in fact, argue that *not* having the word
>'terrorist' in the title would be unreasonably offensive (IMO, that would be
>white-washing, or at lest sanitizing, the title).

This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all.
Why is that?  What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean?
Titles are not required to be maximally complete.
Furthermore, the attack on the Pentagon was /not/ obviously terrorism,
since it was an attack on a military target.
(I would argue that it was terrorism, but only given the context of NY.)

>>That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)

>Taking out the word "terrorist" in light of the fact that the word is very
>commonly used in the title and fits the definition, goes against our common
>name naming convention and also creates a needlessly vague title. It also
>supports the POV that the incident was not a terrorist act which is absurd
>since it perfectly fits the definition.

Leaving "terrorist" /out/ of the title absolutely does *not* support
any position that the attack wasn't terrorist.  How could it do that?
There is no presumption that titles include all relevant information.
(That's what the article /body/ is for. ^_^)

Our "common name" naming convention also doesn't apply
unless the phrase "September 11 attack" is /not/ commonly used
without the word "terrorist".  (That may be true, but I don't know it.)

>So if something is commonly called something, fits the definition, is not
>unreasonably offensive, then that term should be used.

Names are not required to be complete!

>More generally (meaning not directed toward Tarquin):

>Blacklisting terms is a very bad idea and is more PC than NPOV. Let's not
>forget that PC is in fact an extreme form of POV and is *not* akin to NPOV at
>all (which really deals with article *content* and not titles - titles are
>dealt with through our naming conventions).

I remember once trying to convince you of this very thing:
NPOV is primarily about article bodies, not titles,
and titles need to be further determined through arbitrary conventions.
That was a while ago, so I won't pretend that I changed your mind
(or even that your mind changed since that was a different context);
still, I'm glad to see you say this.

>PC = "politically correct" . Political correctness in the United States is a
>political and social movement which aims to use changes in language to
>prevent offending people who leftists think are offended by the use of
>certain terms. PC also aims to help change the way other people think by
>changing the use of certain terms (rather Orwellian if you ask me). This is
>*not* at all NPOV and should *not* be associated with the 'unreasonable
>offensiveness' clause of our common name naming convention (which is largely
>agendaless, unlike PC).

Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the term "PC" is.
Suffice it to say that no social movement called itself that.
All that "politically correct" nonsense is neither here nor there.

>Wikipedia needs to *follow* common usage, not try to change it!

True, but that's really not relevant to this debate,
since both "September 11 attack" and "September 11 terrorist attack"
can be found, in common usage, to refer to this event.
(Also, there is no particular naming convention for this sort of thing.)
Thus our name is free to err on the side of caution.

-- Toby


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] Easter Bradford

body:
I don't know anything about the law, but surely if there were libellous
remarks on the page, (and I'm not saying there are) it would only be
necessary to remove those bits. I think I am right in saying to be libel
it has to be untrue? Perhaps we should respond by asking him to state
which bits of the article are untrue?

As for it being a vanity page, we should deal with that later, after we
decide what to do about the libel accusation.

Theresa


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] German Wikipedia Complainability Status

body:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> ...  So, I'm loaning everything I've
> got available to Wikipedia just as fast as I can make it available.

...and still it's you to blame. Gawd, I like end users. :-)

Oh, by the way, THANKS for all the efforts and contributions you continously
make to keep things running. I'm sure most of us lurkers appreciate and
value your and Brion's efforts without telling it on the list everytime
someone loudly complains.

Peter


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Private email lists for mediation

body:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> It might be a good idea to have a private email list for mediation: list
> members would have to approved by a list moderator and when a particular
> mediation is over all list members would be unsubscribed by the moderator.
>
> There would be no public archive.
>
> If needed there could be several mediation lists so that several mediations
> can go on at once.
>
> Just a thought.
>
On the other hand, it'd be useful to have some kind of record of each
moderation, describing the outcome. Even if the outcome could be described
in a sentence or two, e.g. "Parties involved exchanged views, understood
each other's POV, agreed to minimize conflict in the future" or "Parties
involved could not agree on anything, mediation failed."

With enough of these records, it would help identify who plays nice on
Wikipedia. Entering into mediation should be a way to identify problems in
the process, & not a black mark on all parties involved.

Geoff


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] watchlist idea

body:
On Jan 15, 2004, at 14:29, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>     BV> There are two ways the db may search the watchlist.
>
> Three ways. It could do a join to the cur table and old table, or to
> recent changes.

Special:Watchlist joins only to cur; there are two ways to optimize the
join/sort operation (starting from watchlist, or starting from cur).

If the function did something else than what it does, then it might
have many different ways of doing it, of course.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040115/cbab5f9e/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
tarquin wrote:

> Ivo Khnig wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the
>> theme "sinle-sign-on"
>
> There is additional problem with single sign-on which I do not think
> has yet been considered.
>
> Let's imagine we've implement it. (yay! :) )
> I go to the Swedish Wikipedia to make langlinks, but I make a mistake
> and mess it up. My user page on se: is blank, because I've never
> edited there before.
> How do the people on se: know to find my user page on en: ?

If it finds no user page for you on se it could redirect to your primary
user page wherever that may be.  If you have more than one user page you
could designate which is primary.  I suppose too that there may be other
ways to deal with this problem.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] more wordIQ badness

references:
<200401151254.54415.sascha@pantropy.net>	<4006DFF3.5040307@telus.net>
	<shllo9c6up.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>
>>This kind of problem was entirely forseeable.  There is consistent
>>acceptance among Wikipedians of the principle that the material is there
>>for anybody's use, and a common irritation when a user purports to apply
>>his own copyrights.
>>
>
>You missed the point.
>
>1. User must obey the license (e.g., they are not allowed to make the
>   material proprietary).
>
There is a difference between saying that a user must obey the license,
and being ready to do something about it when he doesn't

>2. The main complaint was, a third party is abusing foreign bandwidth
>   (with "deep links").  Even if the material is free this does not mean
>   they are allowed to provide inline links to wikipedia.org.  They must
>   download the pictures and serve them from their own server.
>
>There is/was also a german pseudo mirror which let wikipedia.org werve
>the images.  At least in Germany this isn't allowed.
>
Again, no dispute.  It is a question of how to enforce this.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
How about [[9-11 Airliner Incident]]?

Or, for the more deliberately inclined, [[9-11 Airliner Attack]]?

Both of these titles sidestep the issue of whether it was a "terrorist"
event. The opening paragraphs of the article make it clear that the US,
at least, called it a "terrorist attack".

Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] Takedown notice for Easter Bradford page

body:
Two or three things that make it complicated are:

* Easter Bradford used to be a contributor. He made his own user page
and wrote about gay issues.

* Someone (I forget who) made an /article/ about Easter Bradford. This
was, I think, the first case of an article WHICH WAS ABOUT a
contributor.

* At some point, maybe much later, a whole bunch of unflattering stuff
found its way into [[Easter Bradford]].

* Recently, some dude claimed Easter owed him 2 DVDs and threatened all
sorts of dire actions (in talk:Easter Bradford) if he didn't comply.

** I think personal business like that clearly has nothing to do with
making Wikipedia articles; someone cut it from the talk page, but it's
still in "history".

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in TomeRaider format for PDAs

body:
The December 2003 updates to the TomeRaider-format downloadable copies
of Wikipedia for offline viewing on PDAs are again available for
download at:

http://download.wikipedia.org/tomeraider/current/

Versions are available in English, German, Dutch, French, and Esperanto.

For more information, please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TomeRaider_database

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040115/a65c0cbf/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>I hate to be picky, but were there any civilians involved in the
>"military" attack on the Pentagon? Like, passengers in the hijacked
>airliner? Crashing a planeload of civilians seems to qualify as
>"terrorist". In the sense that attacking civilians is for the purposing
>of arousing terror.

Well, what /was/ the purpose?  Given the NY attacks, terror is likely.
As for civilian deaths, remember the infamous Gulf War "collateral damage".
Was that a terrorist attack by the United States armed forces?

Actually, I know people that claim that the Gulf War /was/ terrorism!
But we're not going to put that into the article title.

>But perhaps this issue is best discussed on the talk page. Unless there
>is a deeper or wider issue involved. Do we need a definition of
>'terrorism'? Is it a question of /whose POV/ says that the hijackings
>and crashes says were (or were not) justifiable or "acts of war rather
>than terrorism"?

If somebody maintains that they were acts of war,
then the article body -- not the title -- can cover that.
We shouldn't make it [[September 11, 2001 war]] either!

>Perhaps the problem is that the word 'terrorism' has multiple or
>shifting meanings. Like 'racism' is (a) prejudice or discrimination
>against a member of a "race"; but also sometimes (b) /unjustifiable/
>racism, as by an oppressive majority against a defenseless minority.

>Perhaps this issue cuts across a lot of topics:
>* hate crime
>* racism
>* terrorism
>* Communism

It does, I think.  Such words generally shouldn't be in article titles.
This is not to say that this is a fast rule, and obviously [[Racism]] itself
is the right title.  But (say) [[Racist church burnings]] is not so good.

>To me, because of my simple-minded faith in my oh-so-simplistic "cult",
>it all boils down to a failure to love other people. Ah, if only we
>could apply WikiLove beyond the confines of our happy little virtual
>world!

/We/ can apply them -- even if the rest of the world does not! ^_^

-- Toby


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

references:
<EJENIMNDFLKBMNBMAGKDGEGJCGAA.mark@kruegerbrothers.com>
	<20040115203045.GB21862@tomk32.homelinux.org>
	<20040115214154.GF21046@joey.bomis.com>
	<200401151700.41301.sascha@pantropy.net>

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
> That is because of two reasons: 1. "toolbars" are spyware in most
> cases. Spyware targets people who don't know much about computers,
> which happens to be people that use mainly non-free software.

To me, that should actually generate demand for a GNU-free
alternative, right?  People can trust that it's not doing anything
evil, because the source is publicly available.

--Jimbo


body:
On Jan 15, 2004, at 15:30, Erik Zachte wrote:
> > The December 2003 updates to the TomeRaider-format downloadable
> > copies of Wikipedia for offline viewing on PDAs
> > are again available for download at:
> >http://download.wikipedia.org/tomeraider/current/
>
> Brion, these files are from July.

(moves directories to where they should have been)

Not anymore they're not...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040115/468722f7/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Anti-French Sentiment (was: Sep 11)

body:
I created the article in question, "Anti-French sentiment in the United
States".

I am not anti-French. I love French Fries, particularly McDonald's ;-)

I studied French in high school and actually did my homework for it --
unlike most of my other courses.

I memorized this poem:

Dejeuner du Matin

Il a mis le cafe
Dans la tasse
Il a mis le lait
Dans la tasse de cafe
Il a mis le sucre
Dans le cafe au lait
Avec la petite cuiller
Il a tourne
Il a bu le cafe au lait
Et il a repose la tasse
Sans me parler
Il a allume
Une cigarette
Il a fait des ronds
Avec la fumee
Il a mis les cendres
Dans le cendrier
Sans me parler
Sans me regarder
Il s'est leve
Il a mis
Son chapeau sur sa tete
Il a mis
Son manteau de pluie
Parce qu'il pleuvait
Et il est parti
Sous la pluie
Sans une parole
Et moi j'ai pris
Ma tete dans ma main
Et j'ai pleure.

However, many Americans (other than me) evinced anti-French sentiment
because of the Iraq War. "The French should appreciate our soldiers'
sacrifice during World War II," they said. "Look at all the cemeteries
filled with tens of thousands of dead GIs, fallen while defending them
from the Nazis."

Hmm, I wonder if the 'filter' will let this post through.

Oncle Edmond


from_name: Ivo Köthnig

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single-sign-on

body:
Hello,

I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the theme
"sinle-sign-on" (yes I know I could read the archive and I tried, but it is
too long for today :-)...) but here are some thoughts from me...

If I`ve got it, we have 3 main problems:

1. There could exists users on different lang-WPs with the same name.
2. There is no (good) way to find out automatically which accounds with the
   same name in different lang-WPs belong to different persons and which
   belong to the one person.
3. We have actually no good solution for the first problem but as long as we
   wait the problem gets larger.

So we should think first about to solve the third problem. This should be very
easy since we just have to create a new account in a new database for each
account in the old databases. Each account gets a new ID, the old name, says
from which lang-WP it is and which ID belongs to it there (and all the other
stuff belonging to the account).

If someone creates a new account, he/she has to take a name which is not used
in the new DB. A new account creates a new entry in the new database without
pointing to an lang-WP and an ID.

The lang-WPs have to use the new user-DB (and before that should be translated
to this, meaning the IDs has to be changed in the right way).

If this is done, the old user-dbs can be thrown away. (But we still need the
rows with the pointers to the old lang-WPs and the corresponding ID in the
new database as I will explain below.)

Thus we have the following situation: we have one single new user-database,
where it is allowed just for old uses to have accounts with the same name
like other users (or have more as one account with the same name).

These users have one big problem, they have to use there new ID to log in, so
they have a reason to solve there name-conflicts as described below.

Now we have everything we wanted and just the small name-conflict-problem
described above.

In the second step we have time to solve the problem with the names.

We could send automatically E-Mails to all accounts which have no unique name
(if the adresses are known) telling them which (new) IDs belong to the old
accounts (by telling them from which lang-WP there are, we even could tell
them there old ID: Ahh, for this we still need the informations!) and invite
them to merge the accounts which belongs to them! (Of course this needs a
special formular, where you have to enter the new IDs, and the old (and new)
password for each ID. Merging accounts could be a new feature of course).

We even could give them (and all others) the possibility to change there name
(which also should be a new feature), but of course just to unique names
which does not exist. This feature is somehow special, since for several
reasons the old name should be save for a longer time, i.e. it should not be
allowed for other persons to choose it for this time (but this is another
topic).

Thus the new user-database can be cleaned up to a better level. If there would
be users which does not want to change there name to solve the name-conflict
with other persons they can mark there account(s) as "under conflict". This
may will be the hard problems later.

After a while each account, whichs is not marked as "under conflict", but has
a name-conflict with an other account is changed automatically to a new name
(gets a additional number in the end of it...).

This may solves some "under-conflict"-accounts since may all other accounts
with the same name are may changed, cause they was not marked as
"under-conflict".

What to do with the rest could be discussed later...

Regards
Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Squid testing/ task coordination

body:
I've set up a test wiki for Squid tuning at http://wiki.aulinx.de/. It's
already passing through Squid.

Current status:

    * Canonical URL redirect- Main%20Page and similar redirects to
      Main_Page [Done] * Purge function- does the Squid purging [Done]
    * Session for anon after edit- no Cookie for anon browsing, session
      start on first edit.
    * Calls to PURGE- need to be added in the important places in the code
      (purge on any edit).
    * Cache-Control Header adjustments (easy, last step)

It would be great if one of the wizards could look into the session
adjustment- it takes me a while to figure out where and how otherwise.
It's a feature that's good to have anyway for visitors who consider
Cookies a bad thing.

The purging function works fine already, i want to add the calls at the
appropriate places next.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
On Thursday 15 January 2004 02:54 pm, Delirium wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
> > We could always move it to [[Reportedly Intentional Mishap Involving
> > Several Airplanes over the United States on September 11, 2003]].
>
> Err, 2001 of course.

If you had written "2004" I would have reported you to Tom Ridge. ;-)

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: .eu domains perhaps?

body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:23:53 +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>
>>No, don't play this game.  wikipedia.org is perfectly okay, no need to
>>waste money for additional domains.
>>
>
>Well- domains aren't expensive. .de costs 6? ,.org 10? per year,
>don't know what .eu will cost. If it's available- then why not? I don't
>like the thought of a porn company or similar taking it...
>
One has to see the point in Karl's approach.  The number of names that
could cause confusion is endless.  I considered getting several of the
relevant .ca names at C$50.00 each per year, but I've wondered whether
it would be a worthwhile expense.

Ec


from_name: David Friedland

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: High-res logo

body:
I have made a high-res version of the logo, including the text. It is at

http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/9/91/Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png

I have already informed Mr. DeGrandpre under separate cover

- David [[User:Nohat]]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

 > What's the URL for a high resolution image of the Wikipedia logo?
 > Do we also have one for the Wikimedia Foundation logo?
 >
 > ----- Forwarded message from
"richard-PFJODL+h6fL1P9xLtpHBDw at public.gmane.org"
<richard at adbusters.org> -----
 >
 > From: "richard-PFJODL+h6fL1P9xLtpHBDw at public.gmane.org"
<richard at adbusters.org>
 > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:33:59 -0800
 > To: <jwales-KK9S75Hv+MAAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
 > Subject: powered by wikipedia
 >
 > Dear Mr. Wales,
 >
 > We would like to do a blurb for the encyclopedia in our next issue of
 > Adbusters magazine (circ. 120,000; see www.adbusters.org). To do so,
we
 > would need a high resolution image of the Wikipedia icon. We love the
 > encyclopedia and, although we don't print any paid ads in the
magazine, we
 > do print some free ones.
 >
 > Hope to hear from you or someone on the staff at your/their
convenience.
 >
 > All best wishes,
 >
 > Richard DeGrandpre
 > Associate Editor
 >
 > ----- End forwarded message -----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

references:
<EJENIMNDFLKBMNBMAGKDGEGJCGAA.mark@kruegerbrothers.com>
	<20040115203045.GB21862@tomk32.homelinux.org>
	<20040115214154.GF21046@joey.bomis.com>

body:
On Thursday 15 January 2004 04:41 pm, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > I think about 100% of the core-developers use Linux or MacOS as
> > operating system. I bet that you will find no one who programms
> > the toolbar for you ;-)
>
> Nonetheless, it is a fantastic idea.  I have done some research,
> but some months ago now, and apparently
>
> (a) it is not that hard to create a toolbar for MSIE, using Visual
> Basic even, and
>
> (b) there seems to be no open source toolbar project out there.

That is because of two reasons:
1. "toolbars" are spyware in most cases. Spyware targets people who don't know
much about computers, which happens to be people that use mainly non-free
software.

2. most toolbar features are already integrated into the main browsers:
firebird (mozilla) and konqueror. In konqueror I can type "gg:wikipedia" in
the addressbox and it brings up the google search results for the query
"wikipedia". One can create new search aliases like these in the options. But
more interrestingly, there already is a wikipedia search integrated into
konqueror eg. "wp:bomis". Firebird also already has search plugins for
wikipedia (in 13 languages) but you have to install them from
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html - which so far has failed when I
tried to install them.

Another interresting thing to note is that wordIQ (one of the many number of
people that use our content without releasing it as GFDL and claiming
copyright) has a toolbar, that allegedly searches their wikipedia clone.
Allegedly because it uses IE, and I have no way of finding out.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: ezresults not playing fair?

body:
On Thursday 15 January 2004 04:08 pm, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Bob Mellish wrote:
> > More worrying than ezresults is WordIQ (www.wordiq.com) which not only
> > swipes wikipedia content without link back, GFDL compliance, or even a
> > mention of WP (see
> > http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_cont
> >ent), but also each article still links to wikipedia servers for all the
> > images, thus stealing bandwidth from WP.
>
> Did anyone contact them yet?

Different people did. Alltogether probably about 4 or 5 times. It is all
documented on [[Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content]]
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content).
Summary: They've always given lame excuses and never done anything.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

references:
<EJENIMNDFLKBMNBMAGKDGEGJCGAA.mark@kruegerbrothers.com>
	<20040115214154.GF21046@joey.bomis.com>
	<200401151700.41301.sascha@pantropy.net>

body:
On Thursday 15 January 2004 05:00 pm, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> Firebird also already has search plugins for
> wikipedia (in 13 languages) but you have to install them from
> http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html - which so far has failed when I
> tried to install them.

Which was of course because I wasn't browsing the web as "root". 'doh :)

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] watchlist idea

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

    BV> There are two ways the db may search the watchlist.

Three ways. It could do a join to the cur table and old table, or to
recent changes.

~ESP

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: .eu domains perhaps?

body:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:23:53 +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> No, don't play this game.  wikipedia.org is perfectly okay, no need to
> waste money for additional domains.

Well- domains aren't expensive. .de costs 6? ,.org 10? per year,
don't know what .eu will cost. If it's available- then why not? I don't
like the thought of a porn company or similar taking it...
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Well, what /was/ the purpose?  Given the NY attacks, terror is likely.
>As for civilian deaths, remember the infamous Gulf War "collateral
>damage". Was that a terrorist attack by the United States armed
>forces?

No for three reasons: 1) the intent was not to terrorize the civilian
population, 2) very few people call it that, and 3) by definition governments
cannot commit terrorism. One reason why terrorism is often seen as being
worse than atrocities committed by governments, is that there is no clear
thing to retaliate against when it is committed. At least in the Cold War we
could rely on the concept of mutually assured destruction to keep the Soviets
from nuking us (and vice versa). We cannot rely on that for terrorist acts
since the organizations the perform terrorist acts do not have nearly as much
to loose as a nation performing the same act would.

>Actually, I know people that claim that the Gulf War /was/ terrorism!
>But we're not going to put that into the article title.

And rightly so since that violates our common name naming convention.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
I hate to be picky, but were there any civilians involved in the
"military" attack on the Pentagon? Like, passengers in the hijacked
airliner? Crashing a planeload of civilians seems to qualify as
"terrorist". In the sense that attacking civilians is for the purposing
of arousing terror.

But perhaps this issue is best discussed on the talk page. Unless there
is a deeper or wider issue involved. Do we need a definition of
'terrorism'? Is it a question of /whose POV/ says that the hijackings
and crashes says were (or were not) justifiable or "acts of war rather
than terrorism"?

Perhaps the problem is that the word 'terrorism' has multiple or
shifting meanings. Like 'racism' is (a) prejudice or discrimination
against a member of a "race"; but also sometimes (b) /unjustifiable/
racism, as by an oppressive majority against a defenseless minority.

Perhaps this issue cuts across a lot of topics:
* hate crime
* racism
* terrorism
* Communism

To me, because of my simple-minded faith in my oh-so-simplistic "cult",
it all boils down to a failure to love other people. Ah, if only we
could apply WikiLove beyond the confines of our happy little virtual
world!

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11 (wasL User:LanceMurdoch)

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>It should be taken out because it is both a characterization
>and unnecesary for identifying the incident.

It should only be taken out if it is deemed unnecessary for identifying the
incident. Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston
Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'), [[Holocaust]], [[Racism]], and
[[Terrorism]] itself.

>There are numerous other incidents which might be qualified
>as "terrorist", but where that term might be more hotly disputed.

Then we dispute those! But please no blacklisting of terms. That is Newspeak
and censorship.

>By completely avoiding the term "terrorist", even when it seems
>obvious, we can avoid the need to set boundaries that define
>what is and what is not a terrorist act.

Self-censorship is the worse kind.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch

body:
At 09:46 AM 1/15/04 -0800, Ec wrote:
>tarquin wrote:
>
>>Martin Harper wrote:
>>
>>>>After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
>>>
>>>be talking about?
>>>
>>>I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years
>>>before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the
>>>aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be
>>>workable.
>>>
>>
>>Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ?
>>At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the
>>title. That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)
>
>"World Trade Center attack" doesn't work because of the related attack on
>the Pentagon, unless there is some need to distinguish the two..

Also, there were two terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; the first
killed (IIRC) five people.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sep 11 (wasL User:LanceMurdoch)

body:
Well, I'm certainly confused.  Are you saying that there is NO Anti-French sentiment in the United States?

RickK

Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:

tarquin a ?crit:
>
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> Blacklisting terms is a very bad idea and is more PC than NPOV. Let's
>> not forget that PC is in fact an extreme form of POV and is *not* akin
>> to NPOV at all (which really deals with article *content* and not
>> titles - titles are dealt with through our naming conventions).
>>
>>
> I wonder what happens when the PC brigade come across articles that
> begin "So-and-so is a black British actor"

I would like the PC brigade to have a look at the title of the
[[anti-french sentiment in the United States]] as well

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040115/b7697e49/attachment.htm


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] First formal request for a Mediator

body:
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 18:24, Poor, Edmund W wrote:

    I've been asked to be a mediator, by Jack Lynch (seconded by
    Danny) re: RK.

Brother Edmund; please understand I am writing as a
"brother" = "colleague"/whatever mediation committee member.

If you (personally) have been asked to be a mediator, that has yet to
have been confirmed by *both sides of the dispute*, If RK has indeed
asked you to mediate, I beg your forgiveness, but I hope you understand
that explicit acquiescence at the very least, from both sides of the
dispute, would be very nice.

    This is going to be hard.

    First, I might wind up recusing myself early on because my
    "interest" in Israel might make me biased. I invite those who
    know me well (and who have earned my trust) to contact me
    privately /immediately upon/ seeing any signs of bias on my
    part that may tend to sabotage the mediation.

    Second, there haven't been enough specifics presented. I hope
    people will either post diffs as links, on my user talk page so
    I can see EXAMPLES of what they're complaining about.

Indeed, may I again ask my brother/colleague to rein in his enthusiasm?
The institution of mediation should not bend over backwards to
accommodate
complaints that are merely of a trolling nature. Maybe you may have a
prejudice that makes you take any complaint against RK seriously, but
the
first order of business should be to determine whether the complaint has
any merit whatsoever. After we (the mediation committee) determine
there is a reasonable case to be answered, we as a committee should
confer, and decide who of us should take the case on (or alternately
of course Jimbo can make the determination and appointment).

    Third, I am sometimes pretty contentious myself, so I might
    turn a blind eye to someone else's contentiousness and
    troublesomeness.

    This might be easy.

    First, I am aware of a lot of my limitiations, and publicly
    acknowledging them will help keep me honest.

    Second, despite my weaknesses a lot of people trust me --
    possibly /because/ I rather freely admit to these weaknesses,
    rather than trying to hide them.

    At least one person on each side of the current conflict (the
    world vs. RK ;-) has written me some very nice personal e-mail.
    Without revealing confidences, I can say that the contents of
    these e-mails inspires me the hope that a quick and lasting
    resolution is within our grasp.

    Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
    A member of the official Mediation Committee

    P.S. Gosh, I wear a lot of hats!

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

P.S. If I am totally offbase here, I hope I can be as free in
acknowledging
my error as Ed habitually is.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040115/992c784a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all.
>Why is that?  What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean?
>Titles are not required to be maximally complete.

Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that your reasoning was only
that 'terrorist' should be blacklisted from the title because it is a "loaded
term". 'September 11 Attack' is *at least* used as often as 'September 11
Terrorist Attack' (probably more so). Of course we would have the add '2001'
to the title because of ambiguity reasons.

>I remember once trying to convince you of this very thing:
>NPOV is primarily about article bodies, not titles,
>and titles need to be further determined through arbitrary
>conventions.

Nah - my opinions are always right for all time. ;) But I seriously don't
remember holding such an opinion since it is not possible to have NPOV in
titles because we have to choose just *one* title for any topic.

>Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the
>term "PC" is. Suffice it to say that no social movement called
>itself that.

Well there is no political action committee whose aim is PC that I am aware
of, nor any groups that have exclusively pro-PC meetings. PC is more of a
cross-group "movement" to change the English language (using the word
"movement" very loosely). Perhaps "trend" would be more accurate (even though
there are many counter trends to PC that help to negate its progress).

>All that "politically correct" nonsense is neither here nor there.

Yes - political correctness is nonsense. :)

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Geoff Burling wrote:
>On the other hand, it'd be useful to have some kind of record
>of each moderation, describing the outcome. Even if the
>outcome could be described in a sentence or two, e.g. "Parties
>involved exchanged views, understood each other's POV,
>agreed to minimize conflict in the future" or "Parties
>involved could not agree on anything, mediation failed."

Yes, definitely!

I do think that moderation will fail if we don't set-up some way for the
involved parties to easily discuss mediation disputes. IMO, the fastest and
easiest way to do that is just set-up several mediation-l lists.

-- mav


from_name: Dan Carlson

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:09 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Certainly, one begins with new users and preventing them from choosing
> a name which duplicates anything already being used in any of the
> projects.  All existing unambiguous names can also be moved
> immediately.

I'd be curious to know how many "duplicate" users across wikis there
might be.  If there aren't that many -- and somehow, I don't think
there would be (aside from maybe Meta and en) -- it could probably be a
simple matter for someone to go through on a case-by-case basis and
clear or resolve the two user names.

I've got a question based on some previous discussion I read on the
list: do the people using Wikipedia in other languages think that
combining user bases is a good idea?  As I understand it, not everyone
would like the idea of combining the user accounts in such a fashion.
(Personally, I've got no stake in the matter; I even think that
combining the users would be a great idea, because I've got accounts on
both en and meta.  I just think the issue might need addressing, is
all. :-))

Dan Carlson (aka User:MinutiaeMan)


from_name: John C. Penta

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:15 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] On the Middle East, on the Jimbo-RK-Danny dispute, etc.

> Also being someone who reads this list without posting much, I was
> tryingfor some perspective rather than intending to get involved.
>
> In the abstract, I assumed that WP will always encounter problems
> in trying
> to include everything; because writing contemporary history in the
> making is
> not only contentious but probably based on sources that are
> incomplete.

      No kidding. My personal rule is to keep quiet for at least 30 years in terms of "history". Why so long?

      After 25 to 30 years, virtually all of the democracies open up most of their classified records (with some exceptions, of course). Before then, all you have is journalism, and we all know how accurate THAT is.

> The 'least bad' solution would seem to me to be a 'pendulum
> arbitration'plus 'cooling-off' period mechanism for edit wars:
> someone decides which of
> two versions is less unreasonable, and locks the page for a period
> of ten
> days.  Here pendulum arbitration comes from labour disputes, where
> you don't
> try to find the middle point (which encourages extreme positions)
> but choose
> one or other side.

Not sure that's a good idea; It just encourages people to go nuts. Also, people may well forget an article after a week.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Viajero wrote:

>"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries emotional
>baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling someone a "vandal" in
>Wikipedia!). Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously
>incompatible with NPOV. Moreover, if we label Al Queda or Shining Path
>terrorists, one can make the argument for labelling the US government a
>terrorist organization for mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or
>destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998, or causing
>500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the 1990s by means of
>sanctions. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.
>
>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote something
>awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist" should be banned from
>every article except [[Terrorism]]. I am inclined to agree with him.
>
>
I disagree that the word shouldn't be used--at the very least,
allegations of terrorism should be mentioned; we shouldn't just pretend
the word doesn't exist, since it does, and it is widespread use.  For
example, [[Hamas]] should and does mention that the US and EU (and many
other countries) consider it a terrorist organization.  [[King David
Hotel bombing]] should also mention that many people consider it a
terrorist attack, since, well, they do.

-Mark


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:34:35PM +0100, Ivo K?thnig wrote:
> 2. There is no (good) way to find out automatically which accounds with the
>    same name in different lang-WPs belong to different persons and which
>    belong to the one person.

EMAIL !!!

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Viajero wrote:
>"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries
>emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling
>someone a "vandal" in Wikipedia!).

Like the words 'racism', 'holocaust' and 'massacre'? I guess the articles on
those topics will have to be renamed as well.

>Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously
>incompatible with NPOV.

And NPOV obviously cannot operate in article titles since we have to choose
just one term for the title (thus choosing one POV). Common usage with the
caveats of ambiguity and unreasonable offensiveness is our rule for page
titles. Applying NPOV to titles would result in ponderously long titles that
would for practical reasons be useless as titles and near impossible to
remember for linking purposes.

>Moreover, if we label Al Queda or Shining Path terrorists, one can
>make the argument for labelling the US government a terrorist
>organization for mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or
>destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998,
>or causing 500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the
>1990s by means of sanctions. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.

See my response to Toby on this point:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009600.html

>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote
>something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>am inclined to agree with him.

I'm sorry but this is an absurd position to have and I do hope you re-consider
it. Not only would it result in  [[Terrorism]] becoming an orphan, but it
would whitewash a great many articles. If and when it is relevant to say that
X said Y about Z then we should say it!

Again blacklisting terms is *very* bad and reminds me of something I read in
the appendix of the book 1984 in which Orwell described Newspeak. The goal of
the totalitarian state in 1984 had with Newspeak was thought control: By
dropping certain terms from the language the concepts behind those terms
would fall away from the conscious thoughts of people. Eliminating the word
"freedom" for example, would help to stop the transmission of
freedom-oriented ideas and thus would ease any want in the population for it.

Eliminating 'terrorist' from Wikipedia would cover-up the fact that many
people consider terrorism to be a real thing and something that is in a
special class of atrocities.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] please re-enable "new articles"

body:
The new article feature has been disabled for the german language wikipedia
"for performance reasons". That was really a bad idea - the admins need that
feature to look for nonsens articles and so on. In the effect, now the
"recent changes" must be used a lot more, which IMHO will increase the server
traffic more than the "new article" page did. So please re-enable the new
article feature again.

By the way, it would be nice to announce such measures.

Uli


subject: [Wikitech-l] gmane posting policy

body:
Currently it's not possible to post to the mailinglists through
Gmane without subscribing via mail as well. Gmane requires you to confirm
your existence on the first post and runs effective spam filters. On most
mailing lists gmane posting is possible, there are no problems with spam.

My proposal is to lift the posting restriction for Gmane.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Viajero

body:
Ed,

On 01/15/04  at 11:24 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> said:

> I've been asked to be a mediator, by Jack Lynch (seconded by  Danny) re: RK.

First, what exactly you are mediating? "Re. RK" is a rather broad concept;
moreover, mediation implies two parties.

> I invite those who
> know me well (and who have earned my trust) to contact me
> privately /immediately upon/ seeing any signs of bias on my  part that
> may tend to sabotage the mediation.

Second, aren't mediations handled more or less confidentially? Or do you
plan to debate things on a public page or mailinglist?

> P.S. Gosh, I wear a lot of hats!

Well I hope for your sake that this one doesn't turn out to be a crown of
thorns!

V.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Statistics

body:
Any idea on when http://download.wikimedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm will
be updated with more recent info? I know there have been at least several
backups since December 6 but none are reflected in the stats yet...

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Shades of Rashomon

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:25 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Shades of Rashomon

> > Two knowledgable people with opposing biases can generally
> > write a good article even if the road is rocky.  No number of
> > ignoramuses can write a good article regardless of their biases.
>
> What about the typing monkey paradox?

Aliens.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] German Wikipedia Inavailability/Hardware Status

body:
> The replacement arrived, and Jason tested it, and it had the same ram
> errors.  The problem is mysterious, but anyhow we are to the point
> where we are likely going to send the machine back and have them fix
> it and return it.  I haven't spoken to Jason this morning, so I don't
> know the exact status of that situation.

What about that status today?

Uli


from_name: tarquin

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Blacklisting terms is a very bad idea and is more PC than NPOV. Let's not
>forget that PC is in fact an extreme form of POV and is *not* akin to NPOV at
>all (which really deals with article *content* and not titles - titles are
>dealt with through our naming conventions).
>
>
>
I wonder what happens when the PC brigade come across articles that
begin "So-and-so is a black British actor"


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>So if somebody doesn't like our coverage of them,
>then they only have to send us an "official take-down notice" [*],
>and we'll remove the page from general circulation
>and list it to possibly be deleted?
>
>
While I'm happy to see [[Easter Bradford]] deleted, I am concerned that
it may set a precedent.


subject: [Wikitech-l] more wordIQ badness

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:

>Thanks to [[user:DrBob|DrBob]] for finding this: Apparently wordIQ are not
>only infringing the GFDL and the copyright of wikipedia (or its
>contributers), but are also stealing our bandwidth. Images in the articles
>they have illegally copied from us are loaded from the wikipedia servers. (I
>did a quick test by replacing [[Image:BernardLortie.JPG]] with a modified
>version and having a look at
>http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Bernard_Lortie)
>
>
>
Can we block this?
I know on UnrealWiki we block images that are not embedded in our pages.


subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Ivo K?thnig wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the theme
>"sinle-sign-on"
>
>
There is additional problem with single sign-on which I do not think has
yet been considered.

Let's imagine we've implement it. (yay! :) )
I go to the Swedish Wikipedia to make langlinks, but I make a mistake
and mess it up. My user page on se: is blank, because I've never edited
there before.
How do the people on se: know to find my user page on en: ?


subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Am Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 19:09 schrieb Ray Saintonge:
> Ivo wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the theme
> >"sinle-sign-on" (yes I know I could read the archive and I tried, but it
> > is too long for today :-)...) but here are some thoughts from me...
>
> I've always supported the idea of a single "sign-on", but would be
> highly sceptical of the single "sing-on" suggested in the title.  Many
> of us may not have the vocal skills to enable us to continue with
> Wikipedia. :-)

Your right, this would disqualify me too... :-)


subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Am Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 18:25 schrieb Thomas R. Koll:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:34:35PM +0100, Ivo K?thnig wrote:
> > 2. There is no (good) way to find out automatically which accounds with
> > the same name in different lang-WPs belong to different persons and which
> > belong to the one person.
>
> EMAIL !!!

I used different email-adresses and as I know you don't have to give one. Of
course you can manage some problematic cases, but surly not all...

Regards
Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] more wordIQ badness

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:

> This kind of problem was entirely forseeable.  There is consistent
> acceptance among Wikipedians of the principle that the material is there
> for anybody's use, and a common irritation when a user purports to apply
> his own copyrights.

You missed the point.

1. User must obey the license (e.g., they are not allowed to make the
   material proprietary).

2. The main complaint was, a third party is abusing foreign bandwidth
   (with "deep links").  Even if the material is free this does not mean
   they are allowed to provide inline links to wikipedia.org.  They must
   download the pictures and serve them from their own server.

There is/was also a german pseudo mirror which let wikipedia.org werve
the images.  At least in Germany this isn't allowed.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: single-sing-on

body:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:03:30 +0000, tarquin wrote:

> How do the people on se: know to find my user page on en: ?

That's the same thing for other content really- if content exists in
English but not in one of the more 'exotic' languages there should be a
way to offer the existing languages for the article.

My proposal UI-wise is to display the full list of languages in a
<select>, with the no-yet written one alphabetically below and propably
greyed out. The existing ones should be alphabetically sorted above.
Alternatively the existing ones could be sorted by article length, to give
an idea about the comprehensiveness.

This way if you went to the not-yet written swedish version of your user
page, you could see which languages exist in the dropdown.

When you want to translate an article, just select one of the greyed-out
entries and start typing.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: more wordIQ badness

body:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:01:15 +0000, tarquin wrote:

> Can we block this?
> I know on UnrealWiki we block images that are not embedded in our pages.

We can do a conditional rewrite rule in Apache that tests for the referrer
and serves an 'explaining' image if it's not wikipedia...
I can already picture some nice pictures to serve ;-)
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: mark at kruegerbrothers.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
Hi everyone,
I want to suggest to think about whether we want to create/let create a
Wikipedia toolbar (as you all know from Ebay, Yahoo, Google, Nature etc.).
This would enable even the most active Wikipedians (besides the less active
visitors) to instantly search WP and - optionally later - to benefit from
other 1-click features (eg "My watchlist" or "In the news" as well as
"Recent changes" or "My contributions"). Even if I am not (yet) a programmer
being capable of programming this ... I have found a page offering a toolbar
kit (www.custom-toolbars.com). Further development issues should be
clarified when a general opinion has been made ... pls discuss.

Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: more wordIQ badness

body:
sample .htaccess
This one is opt-in abusers. most times it's used the other
way round.

SetEnvIfNoCase Referer ".*evilcorp.*" block=1

Order Deny, Allow
Deny from env=block
ErrorDocument 403 youstealimages.png

<FilesMatch "\.(gif|jpg|png)$">
       Order Deny,Allow
       Deny from env=block
</FilesMatch>

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:23:06PM +0100, mark at kruegerbrothers.com wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I want to suggest to think about whether we want to create/let create a
> Wikipedia toolbar (as you all know from Ebay, Yahoo, Google, Nature etc.).
> This would enable even the most active Wikipedians (besides the less active
> visitors) to instantly search WP and - optionally later - to benefit from
> other 1-click features (eg "My watchlist" or "In the news" as well as
> "Recent changes" or "My contributions"). Even if I am not (yet) a programmer
> being capable of programming this ... I have found a page offering a toolbar
> kit (www.custom-toolbars.com). Further development issues should be
> clarified when a general opinion has been made ... pls discuss.

I think about 100% of the core-developers use Linux or MacOS as
operating system. I bet that you will find no one who programms
the toolbar for you ;-)

ciao, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: single-sing-on

body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:03:30 +0000, tarquin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>How do the people on se: know to find my user page on en: ?
>>
>>
>
>That's the same thing for other content really- if content exists in
>English but not in one of the more 'exotic' languages there should be a
>way to offer the existing languages for the article.
>
>My proposal UI-wise is to display the full list of languages in a
><select>, with the no-yet written one alphabetically below and propably
>greyed out. The existing ones should be alphabetically sorted above.
>Alternatively the existing ones could be sorted by article length, to give
>an idea about the comprehensiveness.
>
>This way if you went to the not-yet written swedish version of your user
>page, you could see which languages exist in the dropdown.
>
>
>
I think it's a mistake the see langlinks as "translations" of each
article -- rather, they are points of contact between the different
versions of the encyclopedia.
As has been pointed out many times, there are not always one-to-one
correspondences between articles.


from_name: Anthere

body:
tarquin a ?crit:
>
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> Blacklisting terms is a very bad idea and is more PC than NPOV. Let's
>> not forget that PC is in fact an extreme form of POV and is *not* akin
>> to NPOV at all (which really deals with article *content* and not
>> titles - titles are dealt with through our naming conventions).
>>
>>
> I wonder what happens when the PC brigade come across articles that
> begin "So-and-so is a black British actor"

I would like the PC brigade to have a look at the title of the
[[anti-french sentiment in the United States]] as well


from_name: Ivo Köthnig

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Am Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 21:03 schrieb tarquin:
> Ivo K?thnig wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the theme
> >"sinle-sign-on"
>
> There is additional problem with single sign-on which I do not think has
> yet been considered.
>
> Let's imagine we've implement it. (yay! :) )
> I go to the Swedish Wikipedia to make langlinks, but I make a mistake
> and mess it up. My user page on se: is blank, because I've never edited
> there before.
> How do the people on se: know to find my user page on en: ?

I think there should be no difference to the actual situation. You than can
create userpages on each lang-WP but you dont need to do this.

Otherns actually find your userpage also just there where you have created
one!

Regards
Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Bob Mellish wrote:
> More worrying than ezresults is WordIQ (www.wordiq.com) which not only
> swipes wikipedia content without link back, GFDL compliance, or even a
> mention of WP (see
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content),
> but also each article still links to wikipedia servers for all the images,
> thus stealing bandwidth from WP.

Did anyone contact them yet?

Magnus


from_name: Chris Croome

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Domain-grabbing: wikipedia.it also taken. Take
	care of	your country...

body:
Hi

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:49:06 +0100, Fantasy wrote:

> today, just surfing a bit, I found that wikipedia.it was already taken
> by someone. We had that this year for wikipedia.de (and it was solved
> fortunately without problems), but how many more are to come?
>
> *Please check your country*. The later we find out, the more difficult
> it is, to get the domain back :-(

Somone has taken wikipedia.co.uk but wikipedia.org.uk is available -- you
can check using the whois form at the bottom left of this page:

http://www.nic.uk/

As a member of Nominet I can register .uk names for a fiver each and would
be happy to register wikipedia.org.uk and pay for it and use the details
for ownership from the .org address.

If you want me to do this drop me a line (I dunno when I'll next check the
Usenet groups...).

Chris


from_name: Ramanan Selvaratnam

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 21:41, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> (b) there seems to be no open source toolbar project out there.
What will be nice is an applet that docs on the panel... like gdict for
Gnome
http://wlug.org.nz/gdict%281%29

To be really useful useful this would require something or the other
running from the Wikipedia side serving content.

Anyone looked into this?
Know difficult or easy it is?

Ramanan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040115/584cb51e/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
On 01/15/04  at 10:57 AM, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> said:

> The incident also perfectly fits the
> definition of terrorism. So there is no reason not to use it unless it
> is  unreasonably offensive. I would, in fact, argue that *not* having
> the word  'terrorist' in the title would be unreasonably offensive (IMO,
> that would be  white-washing, or at lest sanitizing, the title).

"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries emotional
baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling someone a "vandal" in
Wikipedia!). Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously
incompatible with NPOV. Moreover, if we label Al Queda or Shining Path
terrorists, one can make the argument for labelling the US government a
terrorist organization for mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or
destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998, or causing
500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the 1990s by means of
sanctions. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.

On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote something
awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist" should be banned from
every article except [[Terrorism]]. I am inclined to agree with him.

V.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: .eu domains perhaps?

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>It's stupid to send money for nothing;

That would be true *if* we got nothing from buying .eu domains. When we
finally have a Wikimedia affiliate set-up in Europe, that organization can
promote Wikipedia rather effectively in Europe by pointing people to
http://wikipedia.eu/. The future portal at http://wikipedia.org will have
*all* wikipedia languages on it and would therefore be less effective for
Wikipedia promotion in Europe.

Given that even without translated PayPal interfaces that Euros are our second
biggest source of cash, I think that giving Wikimedia Europe the ability to
tailor their promotion efforts to Europeans would be a very good thing to do.

>also it depends on the context whether you
>think that's much money or not.

Oh please - Unless some type of high Internet tax is added, I would be very
surprised if .eu domains would be more than 25 Euros/year in two years' time.
On average every day we take-in more money than that *just* in Euros!

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Schneelocke

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia is too much open

body:
> >I've contributed with some articles. I'm rather disapointed, though. For
> >example, I've rewriten the article on Lebesgue integration in the English
> >wikipedia, since I find that the article explained the tenichal
> >difficulties of Riemman integral, but it does not define the notion of
> >Lebesgue integral (perhaps I had to tell you that I'm a mathematician, I
> >work at the mathematics department of Buenos Aires University,
> >Argentina).
> >
> >After that, looking at the history of the page, I find that some rather
> >old previous versions where much better, but they had been deleted since
> >a user consider them "too advanced". Needless to say, Lebesgue
> >integration is indeed an advanced topic in mathematics, so that any
> >article on this subject is necesarilly advanced (or does not covered the
> >topic).
>
> So fix it. Revert it to the previous version, and argue your case on the
> talk page.

Another possibility would be to create an article for the general public as
well as one with technical details etc., similar to [[M-theory]] and
[[M-theory simplified]].

--
12:04AM  up 11 days,  3:15, 2 users, load averages: 0.13, 0.23, 0.23

Every non-empty totally disconnected perfect compact metric space is
homeomorphic to the Cantor set.


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
> The December 2003 updates to the TomeRaider-format downloadable
> copies of Wikipedia for offline viewing on PDAs
> are again available for download at:

> http://download.wikipedia.org/tomeraider/current/

Brion, these files are from July.

Erik Zachte
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040116/d993116f/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
Am Freitag, 16. Januar 2004 00:22 schrieb Dan Carlson:
> On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:09 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Certainly, one begins with new users and preventing them from choosing
> > a name which duplicates anything already being used in any of the
> > projects.  All existing unambiguous names can also be moved
> > immediately.
>
> I'd be curious to know how many "duplicate" users across wikis there
> might be.  If there aren't that many -- and somehow, I don't think
> there would be (aside from maybe Meta and en) -- it could probably be a
> simple matter for someone to go through on a case-by-case basis and
> clear or resolve the two user names.
>
> I've got a question based on some previous discussion I read on the
> list: do the people using Wikipedia in other languages think that
> combining user bases is a good idea?  As I understand it, not everyone
> would like the idea of combining the user accounts in such a fashion.
> (Personally, I've got no stake in the matter; I even think that
> combining the users would be a great idea, because I've got accounts on
> both en and meta.  I just think the issue might need addressing, is
> all. :-))

i guess in other languages it is more likely, that users prefer this since
they may have an account at their own language, at en: and at meta:.

Ivo K?thnig


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>>Well, what /was/ the purpose?  Given the NY attacks, terror is likely.
>>As for civilian deaths, remember the infamous Gulf War "collateral
>>damage". Was that a terrorist attack by the United States armed
>>forces?
>>
>No for three reasons: 1) the intent was not to terrorize the civilian
>population, 2) very few people call it that, and 3) by definition governments
>cannot commit terrorism.
>
We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.

>One reason why terrorism is often seen as being
>worse than atrocities committed by governments, is that there is no clear
>thing to retaliate against when it is committed.
>
Terrorism by government is no less atrocious.  Destroying the homes of
innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of terrorizing them even
when the troops are careful to make sure that there is no-one in the
house when it is blown-up.

>At least in the Cold War we
>could rely on the concept of mutually assured destruction to keep the Soviets
>from nuking us (and vice versa). We cannot rely on that for terrorist acts
>since the organizations the perform terrorist acts do not have nearly as much
>to loose as a nation performing the same act would.
>
Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive force to
achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why small groups of
people would ever want to continue to use their meagre weapons to secure
their freedom..  Perhaps the way to prevent them from engaging in
terrorist acts would be to give them something to lose.

>>Actually, I know people that claim that the Gulf War /was/ terrorism!
>>But we're not going to put that into the article title.
>>
>And rightly so since that violates our common name naming convention.
>
Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who is taking the
"terrorist" action.

Ec

>


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: gmane posting policy

body:
Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> Currently it's not possible to post to the mailinglists through
> Gmane without subscribing via mail as well. Gmane requires you to confirm
> your existence on the first post and runs effective spam filters. On most
> mailing lists gmane posting is possible, there are no problems with spam.
>
> My proposal is to lift the posting restriction for Gmane.

To do this you need a way to explain to Mailman that postings that
contain the header;
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/

are allowed to be posted by non-members. Who knows how to do this?

Walter


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>It should be taken out because it is both a characterization
>>and unnecesary for identifying the incident.
>>
>It should only be taken out if it is deemed unnecessary for identifying the
>incident.
>
With that you make it sound as though you are agreeing with me.

>Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston
>Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'),
>
Perhaps.

>[[Holocaust]], [[Racism]], and [[Terrorism]] itself.
>
These are articles about the concepts themselves, and do not necessarily
imply the characterization of a particular act.

>>There are numerous other incidents which might be qualified
>>as "terrorist", but where that term might be more hotly disputed.
>>
>Then we dispute those! But please no blacklisting of terms. That is Newspeak
>and censorship.
>
There is ample opportunity in the body of an article to discuss whether
the term is applicable.  That luxury is not available in the title.

>>By completely avoiding the term "terrorist", even when it seems
>>obvious, we can avoid the need to set boundaries that define
>>what is and what is not a terrorist act.
>>
>Self-censorship is the worse kind.
>
I would call it restraint by avoiding inflammatory titles.

Ec


body:
>It has been re-enabled. Thank you, whoever did it!

I think it is supposed to do that automatically during certain hours of the
day. If so, it will probably be disabled automatically at a certain time
hours from now.

-- mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:
>
>>This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all.
>>Why is that?  What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean?
>>Titles are not required to be maximally complete.
>>
>
>Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that your reasoning was only
>that 'terrorist' should be blacklisted from the title because it is a "loaded
>term". 'September 11 Attack' is *at least* used as often as 'September 11
>Terrorist Attack' (probably more so). Of course we would have the add '2001'
>to the title because of ambiguity reasons.
>
I can easily live with the year in the title.

>>Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the
>>term "PC" is. Suffice it to say that no social movement called
>>itself that.
>>
>
>Well there is no political action committee whose aim is PC that I am aware
>of, nor any groups that have exclusively pro-PC meetings. PC is more of a
>cross-group "movement" to change the English language (using the word
>"movement" very loosely). Perhaps "trend" would be more accurate (even though
>there are many counter trends to PC that help to negate its progress).
>
They exist in some places.  Latin American death squads fall in that
category.  In the United States the Ku Klux Klan had its own PC agenda.

Ec


from_name: Gutza

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
mark at kruegerbrothers.com wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>I want to suggest to think about whether we want to create/let create a
>Wikipedia toolbar (as you all know from Ebay, Yahoo, Google, Nature etc.).
>This would enable even the most active Wikipedians (besides the less active
>visitors) to instantly search WP and - optionally later - to benefit from
>other 1-click features (eg "My watchlist" or "In the news" as well as
>"Recent changes" or "My contributions"). Even if I am not (yet) a programmer
>being capable of programming this ... I have found a page offering a toolbar
>kit (www.custom-toolbars.com). Further development issues should be
>clarified when a general opinion has been made ... pls discuss.
>
>Mark
>
>
This thing used to work for Mozilla (I expect Firebird as well):
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/misc.html#add_sidebar

There seems to have appeared a bug of some sort which prevents it from
really working properly (you can find a link to the bug on the page
linked above).

A little introduction for the brave ones: drag the *link* "add sidebar"
(yes, click and drag on the green text) to your bookmarks, visit the
page you want to "sidebar-ize" and click that link from your bookmarks.
Presto!

HTH

--Gutza


from_name: Kelly Anderson

body:
At 08:08 AM 1/15/2004, you wrote:
>I've set up a test wiki for Squid tuning at http://wiki.aulinx.de/. It's
>already passing through Squid.

Sorry, new to the list, what's Squid?

Is there a FAQ?

and is there an archive of this list so that I don't have to ask more
'stupid' questions? :-)

Thanks,
-Kelly


from_name: Wouter Vanden Hove

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
Op do 15-01-2004, om 21:41 schreef Jimmy Wales:

> (b) there seems to be no open source toolbar project out there.
>
> ---
>
> For Mozilla (and at least some derivatives), it is possible to create
> a toolbar using only, what, xml?  Some crazy thing about skins, blah
> blah blah.  I seem to recall that this is what took Mozilla so long to
> develop.

It took so long because Mozilla never was just a browser, but a whole
application development framework.

There are a lot of functions that  will never be integrated in a main
browser because they are too domain specific:

Here are some scientific toolbars:

http://msdbar.mozdev.org/
MSDbar is a Mozilla/Netscape toolbar application for searching the MSD
and other macromolecular structure resources.

http://expasybar.mozdev.org/
ExPASyBar project. It is for all people who are interested in
biochemistry. With ExPASyBar you can have simple access to the main
ExPASy databases.

http://pubmed.mozdev.org/
The PubMed Toolbar increases your ability to search information in NLM
Medline database trough PubMed interface.

Other toolbar project at Mozdev:

http://googlebar.mozdev.org/

http://stumbleupon.mozdev.org/
StumbleUpon is a mozilla toolbar which acts as an intelligent browsing
tool for discovering and sharing great web sites with other people.

http://companion.mozdev.org/
The idea of this project is to build the popular Yahoo! Companion for
Gecko-based browsers such as the Mozilla Suite, Mozilla Firebird or
Netscape.

http://gimli.mozdev.org/
The project gimli is born with the purpose of creating for mozilla the
greater amount of toolbars like yahoo companion, of googlebar, and
another.

Seeing all these makes it rather strange that no one came up with the
idea earlier.

Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.org
www.open-education.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040116/930521c8/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Viajero wrote:
>
>>"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries
>>emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling
>>someone a "vandal" in Wikipedia!).
>>
>Like the words 'racism', 'holocaust' and 'massacre'? I guess the articles on
>those topics will have to be renamed as well.
>
That's trivialization.

>>Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously
>>incompatible with NPOV.
>>
>
>And NPOV obviously cannot operate in article titles since we have to choose
>just one term for the title (thus choosing one POV). Common usage with the
>caveats of ambiguity and unreasonable offensiveness is our rule for page
>titles. Applying NPOV to titles would result in ponderously long titles that
>would for practical reasons be useless as titles and near impossible to
>remember for linking purposes.
>
You apply NPOV to titles by avoiding characterizations.  This makes
titles shorter, not longer.

>>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote
>>something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>>should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>>am inclined to agree with him.
>>
>I'm sorry but this is an absurd position to have and I do hope you re-consider
>it. Not only would it result in  [[Terrorism]] becoming an orphan, but it
>would whitewash a great many articles. If and when it is relevant to say that
>X said Y about Z then we should say it!
>
If so, say it in the text.

>Again blacklisting terms is *very* bad and reminds me of something I read in
>the appendix of the book 1984 in which Orwell described Newspeak. The goal of
>the totalitarian state in 1984 had with Newspeak was thought control: By
>dropping certain terms from the language the concepts behind those terms
>would fall away from the conscious thoughts of people. Eliminating the word
>"freedom" for example, would help to stop the transmission of
>freedom-oriented ideas and thus would ease any want in the population for it.
>
Orwell's society did not ban the word "freedom".  It just reserved the
right to insist that you understood it in a politically correct way.
 Totalitarian principles are more effectively spread when the subject
population believes that it has freely adopted those ideas.

>Eliminating 'terrorist' from Wikipedia would cover-up the fact that many
>people consider terrorism to be a real thing and something that is in a
>special class of atrocities.
>
I'm not saying that the word should be completely banned; there are
places for it.  Just not in most titles.

Ec

>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> by definition governments cannot commit terrorism.
>
>We are far from unanimity about that element in the definition.

Granted this part of the definition is disputed (I would not characterize the
dispute the way you do - IMO it is not as disputed as you let on), but the
intent to cause terror in a civilian population is not. Nor is the fact that
few people in the English-speaking world call the 9/11 attacks terrorist acts
(what English speakers say is relevant to naming conventions).

>Terrorism by government is no less atrocious.  Destroying the
>homes of innocent Palestinians is done with the intent of
>terrorizing them even when the troops are careful to make
>sure that there is no-one in the house when it is blown-up.

This is a practice I find abhorrent but I would not call it terrorism (esp
when it directed at people who somehow aided suicide bombers or were the
family of the suicide bombers - terrorism is directed toward a much larger
population which causes general fear for *everybody* in that population).

>Of course, a country that depends on the application of massive
>force to achieve victory finds it difficult to comprehend why small
>groups of people would ever want to continue to use their meagre
>weapons to secure their freedom..  Perhaps the way to prevent
>them from engaging in terrorist acts would be to give them
>something to lose.

No argument from me here. The U.S. could save billions on military spending
and terrorism security if they invested in ways to stomp-out the root causes
of terrorism - poverty and its close cousin ignorance.

>Ahh! then our common name naming convention depends on who
>is taking the "terrorist" action.

No - it depends on how English speakers use the English language.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds

body:
Magnus wrote:
>That's really one hard choice to make! ;-)

Actually any economic relationship with Amazon is going to be a politically
sensitive topic around here. This is due to the large number of people who
have an almost irrational hatred of Amazon because of their business
practices. I for one don't care, and in fact use Amazon often, but we have to
ask ourselves:

Is the money we would get worth being viewed as selling our soul to devil by a
not-insignificant number of our contributors and many in the free software
community?

I personally don't think the amount of money generated would be worth the
grief. But that is just me.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia Toolbar

body:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:23:06 +0100, mark-9hcUDxK07t8+ibij9IF1FkEOCMrvLtNR
wrote:

How about http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html?
examples:
wen mypage- get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mypage
wm Skins- gets http://meta.wikipedia.org/Skins
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: the recurring Amazon question

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Lance Murdoch <wikipedia-l at lancemurdoch.org> writes:
> > Not much of an intrusion, and it would bring in some bucks for Jimbo the
> > capitalist who runs Wikipedia.
>
> And what will be the next proposal?  Removing the other external
> booksellers because they don't bring in money?

There's no risk of that happening.  First, I would oppose it
strenuously, and second, I can't imagine the community supporting such
a notion.

Here's what I propose.  I'll sign us up now for an Amazon partner
account, and others that I can find for the sites we list there.
We'll make no changes to the book links page from the way it is now,
except that we'll add the codes and some text properly explaining
what's going on (though there's no material change for end users).

We'll track it for one week, to see how it goes.

At the end of that week, we'll evaluate, including a community vote as
to whether to include it or not.

If it was *just me*, I would do what we have always done, which is not
worry about it.  But I feel very strongly that I have a fiduciary and
moral responsibility to our donors (who aren't just me anymore) to
make sound financial decisions, so as to maximize the impact of the
money that has been given to us.  It doesn't seem sensible to make
this decision, therefore, without some solid indication of what the
dollar consequences actually are.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mediation, arbitration

body:
There are a few people (Anthere, TufKat, others?) who I neglected to
include in my first list, but it is past the start of the year, and we
have a few outstanding controversies that need to be addressed.  So
I'd like to move that we get things organized.  Unorganized committees
with no set procedures are worse than my benevolent dictatorship, I
think, because there's no clear way to say what should be done.

Mediation and arbitration are very different activities.  To recall,
mediation is a no-penalty effort to resolve a conflict through 3rd
party friendly intervention.  The mediation committee seeks to find a
way, on an article or in a personal conflict, for work to continue
without further trouble.

The arbitration committee, on the other hand, can impose a solution
that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I
reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve
the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster.  But I regard that
as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of
England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e. basically
never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.

I'd like for a (relatively quick, as there's work to be done now) vote
among each committee for a chairperson, who will be tasked with
organizing the work.  I'd say that the chair should come up with a
plan of action, and propose some voting thresholds, and then with the
input and consensus of the wider community, I'll stamp my official
seal of approval on that.

--Jimbo


body:
?
I am confused by your question.

Rick a ?crit:
> Well, I'm certainly confused.  Are you saying that there is NO
> Anti-French sentiment in the United States?
>
> RickK

About as much as [[September 11 terrorist attack]] ever happened in the US.

About a year ago, Jimbo suggested that for example a title such as
[[French American relationships]] could be more ...

Well, at least the article improved.


body:
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> > The replacement arrived, and Jason tested it, and it had the same ram
> > errors.  The problem is mysterious, but anyhow we are to the point
> > where we are likely going to send the machine back and have them fix
> > it and return it.  I haven't spoken to Jason this morning, so I don't
> > know the exact status of that situation.
>
> What about that status today?

The new machine should arrive later today at Jason's house.  He
intends to do a burn-in on that one, including memtest86.

Geoffrin continues to give errors on some memory tests, in every
different configuration that Jason tests.  He has 2 motherboards and
lots of sticks of ram.  But we are currently not 100% sure what the
exact situation is, as follows:

1.  As shipped, Geoffrin gave errors in test #8 of memcache86.  Jason
has determined that this was due to the memory being in the wrong
slots as shipped.  This is Penguin's fault, of course, but on the
other hand, the motherboard manual contains contradictory information,
so it's easy to understand the error.

2.  In various configurations consistent with the correct placement of
memory, Geoffrin gives sporadic errors in test #11.  These are listed
as "ECC" errors, which Jason believes may mean that these are o.k.,
i.e.  errors that were caught and fixed by the ECC stuff in the RAM.
Or, it may mean something else.  He was researching that yesterday
afternoon.

3.  Therefore, it is quite possible that Geoffrin will run just fine
in the current configuration.  Certainly, it no longer gives errors in
test #8.  It is also possible that Geoffrin will *not* run just fine
in the current configuration.  He's doing testing, but there's no way
to be certain, really certain, until we see what happens.

4.  As a result, we're still planning to loan this other machine to
Wikipedia as a backup for Geoffrin.  We do not know what time it will
arrive at Jason's house.  Also, this new machine has only 1 gig of
RAM, and I'm purchasing more to go into it.  There's some question as
to whether we should wait until Monday when that RAM arrives before
Jason drives to San Diego to install all this stuff, or if he should
go today.  (And going today is contingent on what time the new machine
comes in, anyway.)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
I'm a bit confused about what is being discussed here.  Does anyone
actually argue that calling it a terrorist attack is somehow mistaken
or prejudicial?

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> How about [[9-11 Airliner Incident]]?
>
> Or, for the more deliberately inclined, [[9-11 Airliner Attack]]?
>
> Both of these titles sidestep the issue of whether it was a "terrorist"
> event. The opening paragraphs of the article make it clear that the US,
> at least, called it a "terrorist attack".
>
> Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> Our "common name" naming convention also doesn't apply
> unless the phrase "September 11 attack" is /not/ commonly used
> without the word "terrorist".  (That may be true, but I don't know it.)

I won't comment much on the underlying issue, but I did do some
googling, for whatever that might be worth...

"September 11 attack" - 33,700
"September 11 terrorist attack" - 13,900

In Google News,
"September 11 attack" - 71
"September 11 terrorist attack" - 10

So, although it would not be my first choice, it does seem that the
"common name" naming convention may point us a way out of this
discussion.

Those who find the idea that including the word terrorism in the title
is biased to be mistaken or misguided or PC might still take comfort
in a different reason for changing the title -- to comport with common
usage.

For me, a standard policy of not using the word terrorism in such
cases would be silly.  The word can be overly politically loaded in
some contexts, but in others it is not.

But I could be comfortable with other reasons for changing the title.

--Jimbo


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: .eu domains perhaps?

body:
Gabriel Wicke <groups at gabrielwicke.de> writes:

> Well- domains aren't expensive. .de costs 6? ,.org 10? per year,
> don't know what .eu will cost. If it's available- then why not?

It's stupid to send money for nothing; also it depends on the context
whether you think that's much money or not.

> I don't like the thought of a porn company or similar taking it...

It's not our mision to fight against those companies; what they are
doing most probably is illegal and thus it must be solved with
appropriate actions.  Hiding the evil ist not the solution.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds

body:
Lance Murdoch <wikipedia-l at lancemurdoch.org> writes:

> Not much of an intrusion, and it would bring in some bucks for Jimbo the
> capitalist who runs Wikipedia.

And what will be the next proposal?  Removing the other external
booksellers because they don't bring in money?

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


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] single-sing-on

body:
"Dan Carlson" <minutiaeman at st-minutiae.com> schrieb:

> I'd be curious to know how many "duplicate" users across wikis there
> might be.  If there aren't that many -- and somehow, I don't think
> there would be (aside from maybe Meta and en) -- it could probably be a
> simple matter for someone to go through on a case-by-case basis and
> clear or resolve the two user names.

There's many of them. Luckily most of those would be the same person
indeed, but there's quite a few cases where that is not the case, or
unknown.

> I've got a question based on some previous discussion I read on the
> list: do the people using Wikipedia in other languages think that
> combining user bases is a good idea?  As I understand it, not everyone
> would like the idea of combining the user accounts in such a fashion.
> (Personally, I've got no stake in the matter; I even think that
> combining the users would be a great idea, because I've got accounts on
> both en and meta.  I just think the issue might need addressing, is
> all. :-))

Yes! What I would in particular like, is to have the ability to check
at once new messages on my User talk: in all languages, and having a
merged watchlist. I have a user page at about 30 Wikipedias (that's
what you get from being an active interwiki-user). It would be good
to know whenever there is a message for me anywhere (or one for
Robbot, for that matter).

Andre Engels


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Yes, It is a point of view title. From Al Qaeda's viewpoint they are engaged
in a defensive war against aggressive cultural, political and military
expansion of the West into Islamic affairs and into Saudi Arabia
particularly. Use of the word terrorist defines them very differently from
their self-definition.

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:29:44 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11
>
> I'm a bit confused about what is being discussed here.  Does anyone
> actually argue that calling it a terrorist attack is somehow mistaken
> or prejudicial?
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> How about [[9-11 Airliner Incident]]?
>>
>> Or, for the more deliberately inclined, [[9-11 Airliner Attack]]?
>>
>> Both of these titles sidestep the issue of whether it was a "terrorist"
>> event. The opening paragraphs of the article make it clear that the US,
>> at least, called it a "terrorist attack".
>>
>> Ed
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single-sign-on

body:
On Thursday 15 January 2004 16:07, Ivo K?thnig wrote:
> If I`ve got it, we have 3 main problems:
>
> 1. There could exists users on different lang-WPs with the same name.
> 2. There is no (good) way to find out automatically which accounds with the
>    same name in different lang-WPs belong to different persons and which
>    belong to the one person.
> 3. We have actually no good solution for the first problem but as long as
> we wait the problem gets larger.

I just want to notice that there is fourth problem which noone realised so far
- I have different user names at English and Serbian Wikipedias and they
would need to be joined; I guess this could be the case with more users.


from_name: dpbsmith at verizon.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Using a dictionary considered helpful

body:
I don't regard a dictionary as holy writ, and I don't have any illusions that
using one will settle these disputes, but I really do wish, when conducting
arguments--particularly in writing via email--that contenders would resort
more to the dictionary, at least as a starting point, for defining terms.

For example:

Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of
intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or
political reasons."

Terrorist: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism."

Not an answer, not unambiguous, not unchallengable, but a starting point.


from_name: Rick

body:
You said the title of the article is POV.  That would mean that there is no Anti-French sentiment in the US, which is obviously not true.

RickK

Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
?
I am confused by your question.

Rick a ?crit:
> Well, I'm certainly confused. Are you saying that there is NO
> Anti-French sentiment in the United States?
>
> RickK

About as much as [[September 11 terrorist attack]] ever happened in the US.

About a year ago, Jimbo suggested that for example a title such as
[[French American relationships]] could be more ...

Well, at least the article improved.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040116/9e6697e1/attachment.htm