from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

body:
Catherine wrote:
>Comments please on draft of new letter at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_re>quest_for_permission
>
>Thank you!
>Catherine

Thanks! This is exactly what I've been looking for.

Meelar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [Wikitech-l] Another use for MediaWiki/parsing wiki markup

body:
I have started used the MediaWiki software for a new purpose:
internal organizational planning. I work with a couple of nonprofit
organizations, and I'm helping them set up and get familiar with
using their own internal wikis to develop meeting agendas, draft
policies, and so forth. It seems to work quite well for this purpose.
Has anyone else tried this? I'd be interested in comparing notes.

This has also raised my interest in writing some hooks into the
software. For example, my prwatch.org website has a page that lists
staff bios. We've recently added several new staff members, and it
has occurred to me that it might be nice to use our internal wiki as
a way for each staff member to be able to update and maintain his or
her own bio. They could add it to our internal wiki (which is
passwork-protected), but then I could use SSI includes and some
custom PHP to display the text of the bios inside pages that look
like static HTML to people who visit the prwatch.org web site.

To make this work, I'd need a standalone parser for the wiki markup.
I've tinkered at the edges of the MediaWiki code, but I don't
understand it well enough to know where the parser resides or how I'd
adapt it to make a standalone parser. Can someone here give me some
guidance?

Incidentally, I think there might be some commercial potential for
this type of application. I can imagine a lot of situations where
companies would find wikis helpful both for internal organizational
planning and for maintaining the publicly-displayed content of their
websites, but where they would want to ensure that only authorized
people are allowed to modify the content. If these hooks were written
into the MediaWiki software, someone could probably make a nifty
living out of going around as a consultant and helping companies set
this up.

--Sheldon Rampton


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: RSS and other syndication feeds

body:
Patrice Neff wrote:

> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:
>
>>It is not possible in general to authenticate an RSS feed. Of course
>>Wikipedia could require a cookie or a HTTP Auth before it will show
>>you the RSS feed, but that makes it pretty much useless because most
>>RSS readers don't support this. In particular, a lot of RSS readers --
>>such as LiveJournal -- handle RSS feeds as a fundamentally public
>>resource and cannot allow any authentication to be sent with it.
>
> I'm currently thinking about the same problem for a personal Web
> site. The approach I'll probably choose is some hash in the URL. For
> example a hash of the User name and the Password hash. The "XML" or
> "Syndicate" or whatever-button will then link to the
> rss.php?user=user&id=HASH page. There I can easily check if the HASH
> is correct for the specified user.

That seems quite clever - if a user want their feed to be public, they
can just give out the URL, and if they want it private again, they just
change their password.

However, I can see two problems with it. Firstly, if the hash is known,
then the password might not be too difficult to crack anymore (because
you can just do it locally). Seconlyd, users are probably generally too
stupid to handle it correctly. Some people will put such a hashed URL
into a public RSS reader (e.g. LiveJournal) and then complain that other
people can reed their feed.

Admittedly, the latter problem is probably not quite as bad on Wikipedia.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Footnotes

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Another Wikisourceror has raised the matter of footnotes in the
> Scriptorium.  http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource%3AScriptorium
>
>> Hello! I wasn't able to figure out how to insert raw html anchors in
>> to the text. I am mainly interested in inserting "clickable"
>> footnotes, something like
>>
>> 1
>
> I know that some time ago we talked about being able to annotate at
> Wikisource, but it's still a small enough project that the technical
> people aren't regularly there.  Can anybody help him?

I seem to recall that for Wikipedia, we specifically decided we really
don't want to allow authors to do this...


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: User talk page spamming (policy suggestion)

body:
Optim wrote:

> Summary: Timwi asked to have a policy against
> talk page spamming.
>
> My reply:
>
> I don't think it would be good to have such a
> policy. And the incidents you described are not
> "spamming".

You've forgotten to bring forward at least one argument. Fred Bauder
mentioned a good one in favour of such a policy. Admittedly, I didn't
explicitly mention one, but I think mine is pretty obvious: It is
annoying to be bothered with impersonal requests that you have nothing
to do with.

Timwi


from_name: David Speakman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: List of encyclopedia topics

body:
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi
>
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> > I'd also suggest letting all the
> > terms run together on the page, no line breaks, since no
> one is ever
> > going to add any kind of explanatory note after each term,
> and you get
> > to see more of them at once.
>
> I think it would make more sense if people would indeed leave notes
> saying something like "Not encyclopedic" or "Invalid title"
> or anything
> else that explains why a certain topic won't be covered in Wikipedia.

For some of us, one link per line also makes it much easier to search
for and edit or remove a single topic.

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] List of encyclopedia topics

body:
I have filtered the old list I had compiled once against a current list
of article titles, and have about 79000 topics left. I put the "central"
page for these at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_encyclopedia_topics
and created one "demo" page (#57) with 1000 links. Should I upload the
otheres as well (also 1000 links each), or is the quality too bad?

Magnus


body:
Optim wrote:

> Summary: Timwi asked to have a policy against
> talkpage spamming. I disagreed. Timwi replied
> stating "It is annoying to be bothered with
> impersonal requests that you have nothing to do
> with."
>
> My message:
>
> Since you had edited the article, you had some
> connection with the case, so it was not spamming.

This was also their (the spammer's) argument, but it's a very bad
argument. I do *not* automatically have a connection with an article
just because I corrected a spelling mistake. As I said, if correcting a
spelling mistake automatically means I have some sort of connection to
the article and people were allowed to mass-post a request to hundreds
of User talk pages of spelling correctors, then I will be heavily
discouraged from correcting spelling mistakes again. I cannot believe
you want this to happen.

The correct place to draw attention to the Lucid dreaming Wikibook would
have been [[Talk:Lucid dreaming]]. Someone who has edited the article
*and* is interested in the topic -- and hence, the intended audience --
will have that article on their Watchlist.

> Personally I was very happy to get this user's
> message regarding Lucid dreaming, and I wouldn't
> like people to stop informing me about articles
> where I have contributed because of some
> "spamming" policy.

Again, this is what your Watchlist is for.

Timwi


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> I'd also suggest letting all the
> terms run together on the page, no line breaks, since no one is ever
> going to add any kind of explanatory note after each term, and you get
> to see more of them at once.

I think it would make more sense if people would indeed leave notes
saying something like "Not encyclopedic" or "Invalid title" or anything
else that explains why a certain topic won't be covered in Wikipedia.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 03/06/04 17:39, Timwi wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:

>> I'd also suggest letting all the
>> terms run together on the page, no line breaks, since no one is ever
>> going to add any kind of explanatory note after each term, and you get
>> to see more of them at once.

> I think it would make more sense if people would indeed leave notes
> saying something like "Not encyclopedic" or "Invalid title" or anything
> else that explains why a certain topic won't be covered in Wikipedia.

Compare the FOLDOC lists, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_On-line_Dictionary_of_Computing/R_-_S

- either marked "DONE" or "NO IMPORT".

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Footnotes

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Another Wikisourceror has raised the matter of footnotes in the
>> Scriptorium.  http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource%3AScriptorium
>>
>>> Hello! I wasn't able to figure out how to insert raw html anchors in
>>> to the text. I am mainly interested in inserting "clickable"
>>> footnotes, something like
>>>
>>> 1
>>
>> I know that some time ago we talked about being able to annotate at
>> Wikisource, but it's still a small enough project that the technical
>> people aren't regularly there.  Can anybody help him?
>
> I seem to recall that for Wikipedia, we specifically decided we really
> don't want to allow authors to do this...

That's likely true, and I'm sure there are valid though arguable reasons
reasons for it.  For now I would prefer to remain neutral on that issue
for Wikipedia.

Wikisource is a different project.  Its primary function is the
reproduction of existing texts.  These texts can be but essentially
should not be edited.  There is, nevertheless, a reasonable demand for
annotation.  This could not happen within the text without seriously
damaging its readability.  In the absence of something like annotations
in a parallel box, footnotes can be one way of dealing with this.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] User talk page spamming (policy suggestion)

body:
Optim wrote:

>Summary: Timwi asked to have a policy against
>talkpage spamming. I disagreed. Timwi replied
>stating "It is annoying to be bothered with
>impersonal requests that you have nothing to do
>with."
>
>My message:
>
>Since you had edited the article, you had some
>connection with the case, so it was not spamming.
>
>Personally I was very happy to get this user's
>message regarding Lucid dreaming, and I wouldn't
>like people to stop informing me about articles
>where I have contributed because of some
>"spamming" policy.
>
>I wouldn't like if some user will use the talk
>pages for real spamming (i.e. "buy my product"
>etc). But I just don't understand how the cases
>you described can be considered spamming.
>
>I wouldn't object a spamming policy if it could
>define properly what spamming is.
>
Soliciting other members for help in developing an article or topic
seems fair in a project this size.  None of us can otherwise be fully
aware of all potentially interesting developments.  It's true that many
people who helped with the article may only have corrected a
misspelling.  If that's the case they should just delete the message and
go on with life.  This kind of "spam" is trivial when compared to what
goes on elsewhere.

Ec


from_name: Patrice Neff

in_reply_to:
<c2a7vu$n9m$1@sea.gmane.org> (timwi@gmx.net's message of "Fri,
	05 Mar 2004 15:56:38 +0000")

references:
<7C53EDC5-6E99-11D8-AE4C-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<87ptbr49pw.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us>
	<c2a7vu$n9m$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:

> It is not possible in general to authenticate an RSS feed. Of course
> Wikipedia could require a cookie or a HTTP Auth before it will show
> you the RSS feed, but that makes it pretty much useless because most
> RSS readers don't support this. In particular, a lot of RSS readers --
> such as LiveJournal -- handle RSS feeds as a fundamentally public
> resource and cannot allow any authentication to be sent with it.

I'm currently thinking about the same problem for a personal Web
site. The approach I'll probably choose is some hash in the URL. For
example a hash of the User name and the Password hash. The "XML" or
"Syndicate" or whatever-button will then link to the
rss.php?user=user&id=HASH page. There I can easily check if the HASH
is correct for the specified user.

Every RSS reader I have used so far supported query strings.

Regards
Patrice

--
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me."               (The Bible, John 14:6)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>>Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works.  Wikipedia doesn't
>>need to alter most images.  I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair
>>use.  If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
>>
>>
>
>The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work,
>so long as they maintain its history.  If you say that about work
>you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.
>
>
Not according to Jimbo, you're not.

Anthony


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
I agree with this completely.  I think we should switch to CC-by-sa for
images.  This would certainly be compliant with the spirit of the GFDL,
and according to the same arguments as fair use it is compliant with the
letter of the GFDL.

Anthony

Delirium wrote:

> I think part of the problem is that it's hard to get licensing,
> because nobody understands the GFDL.  It's easy if Wikipedians submit
> their own photographs, which should be encouraged (it saves a lot of
> hassle, and lets us get exactly what we want), but often that's not
> possible.
>
> To raise one example, a few weeks ago I emailed Red Hat's licensing
> department asking about the copyright status of their "hat" logo.  I
> essentially asked if we may, solely as regards copyright law, use that
> particular drawing (which I assume is copyrighted, being an original
> drawing) under either the GFDL or some other permissive license.  I
> went to some length to indicate that we're not asking for any
> trademark license or any sort of trademark permission at all, and will
> expect to be held to the standard permitted uses of trademarks.
>
> So far, haven't gotten a response... if even a GPL-friendly company
> like Red Hat doesn't know what to do about it (unless I just hit the
> wrong people), then I don't see why we'd expect most others to do so.
>
> Though in this particular case, it may be worth it to not bother, as
> 99% of the thing with logos is probably the trademark, not the
> copyright on a particular drawing that comprises the logo.
>
> -Mark


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.2.0rc3 release candidate

body:
This should be pretty much it before a formal 1.2.0 release; the main
thing remaining is smarter update of the messages when updating an
existing wiki. (Upgraders, please see
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_namespace for some notes on
how the new UI interface message editing works. You may have to
manually fix messages that were previously customized in Language.php.)

Thanks to everyone who's given feedback! Changes in 1.2.0rc3 from rc2:

General:
* register_globals no longer required
* Fix error message on some redirects on Windows servers
* Now supports friendlier URLs without mod_rewrite:
/index.php/Page_Title in place of /index.php?title=Page_Title
* arrow icons for 'enhanced recent changes' now included
* Timestamp consistency bug on some page move cases fixed.

Web installer fixes:
* If write of LocalSettings.php fails, the text is printed for a manual
cut-n-paste
* Fixed failure to write LocalSettings.php on older versions of PHP
* Can now run database updates if pointed at an existing db
* Include path now uses correct separator on Windows

Command-line installer/updater fixes:
* Now copies magnify-clip.png and LocalSettings.php (by update.php)

Full release notes and download:
https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?
group_id=34373&package_id=110941

-- 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/20040307/18d4bc4f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] DNA, mediation AND arbitration

body:
Tonight, I can't sleep.
So, I go up again.
I look at Wikipedia.
I look at the DNA article and its talk page.

I see the result of yesterday unprotection.
It looked so obvious to me what would happen.
I think of private mails.
I think of mediation failing.
I think of arbitration request.
Arbitration request rejected because not approved by Jimbo.
I see those putting oil on the fire.
I think of dispute resolution method as currently suggested.

I see what is gonna happen.
Likely... unsysoping and soft ban, right ?

And later, since nothing will be solved, hard ban ?

So mechanical.

You sure there was nothing else to do than wait, without answering,
without commenting, just wait till *that* happen ?

(shaking my head in disbelief)
(listening to heavy silence)


subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, mediation AND arbitration

body:
Tonight, I can't sleep.
So, I go up again.
I look at Wikipedia.
I look at the DNA article and its talk page.

I see the result of yesterday unprotection.
It looked so obvious to me what would happen.
I think of private mails.
I think of mediation failing.
I think of arbitration request.
Arbitration request rejected because not approved by Jimbo.
I see those putting oil on the fire.
I think of dispute resolution method as currently suggested.

I see what is gonna happen.
Likely... unsysoping and soft ban, right ?

And later, since nothing will be solved, hard ban ?

So mechanical.

You sure there was nothing else to do than wait, without answering,
without commenting, just wait till *that* happen ?

(shaking my head in disbelief)
(listening to heavy silence)

-----

And feel so disheartened that I fail to send this to the right list :-)


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
> Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into
> MediaWiki?

Tag-dogmatism has stalled the project:

	http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Rend

"creativity management" and developers have found no medium.

Best,
Peter


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
> >>Not sure what's *horrible* about no derivative works.  Wikipedia doesn't
> >>need to alter most images.  I'd take cc-nd over copyrighted with fair
> >>use.  If cc-nd is completely unacceptable, then so is fair use, right?
> >
> >The GFDL states that third-generation copiers can alter the work,
> >so long as they maintain its history.  If you say that about work
> >you only have cc-nd or fair use rights to, you're in violation.
> >
> >
> Not according to Jimbo, you're not.

This is not really an accurate representation of my position,
actually.  Anthony is onto something, but my position is more complex
that his simple statement would make it out to be.

Clause 7 of the contemplates aggregation with independent works.  Some
paradigm cases of this would be combining different essays in a book,
or combining photos with text.  If the independent works in the
aggregate are not themselves derivative works of the Document, and
when the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to lmit
the legal rights of the compilation's users _beyond_ what the
individual works permit, all is well.

Fair use is a completely separate matter, having nothing to do with
clause 7.

Here's a handy table:

our GFDL text + nonfree photo = not a license violation, but not
appropriate for Wikipedia

our GFDL text + free photo = not a license violation, VERY appropriate for
wikipedia

our GFDL text + fair use photo = not a license violation, should be used
sparingly for Wikipedia (more sparingly than what we've done to date,
in my opinion, but first we're working to catalog everything so we can
do some appropriate analysis)

-------

As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free.  The
right to make derivative works is an important right.  It might be
viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as
opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so.  I think
it's very important in our medium.

Would I prefer to have a CC-ND photo to one which is licensed to
Wikipedia for our use only?  Not really.  Both are unacceptable.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.  Is there really a
problem that would require us to go to Arbitration over this?

Arbitration is, or ought to be, our "last resort".  I envision it
being used primarily only for people who are entirely unwilling to act
with good faith.  A mere editing dispute, so long as it's done in a
spirit of willingness to compromise and seek mutual ground, ought not
to be the sort of case that gets escalated.

So I'd like to appeal to 168 and Mav to set a good example, to try to
show people how this can be done, to show how love for knowledge, love
for our big picture goals, and yes, love for each other, and be used
to resolve an issue.

During the course of this discussion, I see both parties editing the
text of the other in an attempt to find some sort of common ground.
Surely we could do better at this, but this isn't a case where there
is just clearcut abuse on one side or the other.

The strange thing to me about the whole thing is that I do not really
understand what is at stake here.

When we're arguing about Palestine and Israel, I get it.  People are
dying.  The future of millions of people is at stake.  Historical
forces of 3 major religions are in play, and where Islam, Judaism, and
Christianity meet, we have this horrible ongoing situation with so few
prospects for a happy conclusion.

So, I get it that people have a hard time reaching peace on such
issues.

But, uh, take a look at some diffs here.  It's all about whether one
sentence or the other is too wordy?  About whether to use words like
'gene' or 'nucleaic acid'?

Can someone try to make this dispute meaningful to me?  Can I be
persuaded that this is worth fighting over?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.

I'm with Fred here.  I just don't get what the point of this is.  I've
tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few
months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm,
I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or
politically charged, or anything.

What I see is that some people prefer one, and some prefer the other,
and that neither side seems willing to just let it go.

My suspicion is that this page has turned into a proxy-fight about
other, deeper, more personal beefs.  There are points of pride
involved?

Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I blocked a user whose handle is "Jesus Chirst".
>
> It should be self-evident that this is an unacceptable user name.
>
> I feel very strongly about this, and I feel my action though unilateral
> is justified. Our username policy is clear.
>
> If his aim is to contribute to the encyclopedia, he can pick a less
> provocative user name. If he has some other name, then he has no right
> to register at all.

I agree with this.

> I expect Mav and Jimbo to back me up on this, or my vacation will be
> permanent.

I'm uncomfortable with "Do X or I'm leaving" rhetoric.  I actually
think that it undermines good arguments in favor of X, by making it
seem like a power play.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Friday 05 March 2004 15:29, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > I blocked a user whose handle is "Jesus Chirst".
> >
> > It should be self-evident that this is an unacceptable user name.
>
> What if that is his real name?

If it is, then that's fine.  There are many other possibilities that
would make it o.k., too.

But let's be realistic here.  It was most likely chosen just to be
flamboyant and to yank some people's chains.  It's not asking too much
of someone to ask them to pick a different name.

One nice thing about being a small community of reasonable people is
that we don't *need* to have "hard and fast" rules that are ruthlessly
enforced by a "blind" bureaucracy to the point of absurdity.  We can
just be sensible and kind, and that'll be enough.

--Jimbo


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
But the issue is fighting over something NOT worth fighting over.

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 07:33:10 -0800
> To: wikien-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168
>
> Can someone try to make this dispute meaningful to me?  Can I be
> persuaded that this is worth fighting over?


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: DNA, mediation AND arbitration

body:
Anthere wrote:

>* I suggested to restart the discussion and individual propositions all
>over again. I do not think a majority vote has any value on an article
>page to the point a strong veto given by one of the main author may be
>just neglected. I don't think a couple of people repeating ad nauseam
>that this is the most approved version so the "right" one, while the
>vetoer reverts it on sight, is the right path for consensus decision
>making. Veto is something recognised in consensus.
>
Without commenting on the DNA dispute, I want to address the
implications of consensus in this statement. In my opinion, neither
majority voting nor a veto system belong in consensus decision-making.
This is not to criticize Anthere, whom I know to be committed to
promoting consensus, only to take issue with the way it is expressed here.

My personal understanding of consensus is that it falls somewhere
between a majority and unanimity. Certainly 50% plus one vote is not a
consensus, and Anthere points out that when there's strong minority
opposition, a simple majority vote has no value for us. But allowing
vetoes is no good either, or we'll be held hostage by the Plautuses (or
Plauti?) of the world.

To my mind, consensus means a decision that is supported by a large
portion of the group, and takes into account any objections. It does not
mean that people with objections have to support the decision. However,
by addressing the objections within the consensus, at some point the
group is entitled to expect people with objections to acquiesce in the
group's decision. This means the proportion of support required for
consensus depends partly on the strength of the objections. It also
means that a very few people may be so stubborn and recalcitrant that
they don't believe a consensus can be reached without including them, or
fail to recognize when this happens. At some point, we have to kindly
but firmly tell such people that this is not the project for them.

--Michael Snow


from_name: sannse

body:
There is no doubt in my mind that this needs to go to arbitration urgently.
As far as I know the arbitration committee is still only taking referrals
via Jimbo.

I believe Anthere has already asked Jimbo to refer it on, but in case she
hasn't or in case he missed it: please Jimbo, can you refer the 168../ mav
dispute to the arbitration committee urgently.

Thanks

sannse

Anthere wrote:

> Tonight, I can't sleep.
> So, I go up again.
> I look at Wikipedia.
> I look at the DNA article and its talk page.
>
> I see the result of yesterday unprotection.
> It looked so obvious to me what would happen.
> I think of private mails.
> I think of mediation failing.
> I think of arbitration request.
> Arbitration request rejected because not approved by Jimbo.
> I see those putting oil on the fire.
> I think of dispute resolution method as currently suggested.
>
> I see what is gonna happen.
> Likely... unsysoping and soft ban, right ?
>
> And later, since nothing will be solved, hard ban ?
>
> So mechanical.
>
> You sure there was nothing else to do than wait, without answering,
> without commenting, just wait till *that* happen ?
>
> (shaking my head in disbelief)
> (listening to heavy silence)
>
> -----
>
> And feel so disheartened that I fail to send this to the right list :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

references:
<BC6E4CAE.1EA3%fredbaud@ctelco.net> <4048BBC8.9070600@yahoo.com>
	<BC6E4CAE.1EA3%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20040307114636.01d64fe8@shawmail>

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you
> suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has
> been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be
> exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk:
> may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such
> an otherwise trivial matter.

Can you tell me what you mean by "using his abilities as an admin"?

Has he been banning people?  Installing his version and then
protecting the page (repeatedly, I mean, a one-time failing would be
bad, but hardly worthy of this kind of brouhaha)?  Threatening to ban
people for changing it?

I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of
the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on
here, perhaps on both sides?

--Jimbo


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

references:
<BC6E4CAE.1EA3%fredbaud@ctelco.net> <4048BBC8.9070600@yahoo.com>
	<BC6E4CAE.1EA3%fredbaud@ctelco.net>

body:
At 07:37 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
>
>I'm with Fred here.  I just don't get what the point of this is.  I've
>tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few
>months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm,
>I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or
>politically charged, or anything.

The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you
suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has
been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be
exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk:
may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such
an otherwise trivial matter.


from_name: Arvind Narayanan

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 05:44:01AM +0100, Anthere wrote:
> Tonight, I can't sleep.
> So, I go up again.
> I look at Wikipedia.
> I look at the DNA article and its talk page.
>
> I see the result of yesterday unprotection.
> It looked so obvious to me what would happen.
> I think of private mails.
> I think of mediation failing.
> I think of arbitration request.
> Arbitration request rejected because not approved by Jimbo.
> I see those putting oil on the fire.
> I think of dispute resolution method as currently suggested.
>
> I see what is gonna happen.
> Likely... unsysoping and soft ban, right ?
>
> And later, since nothing will be solved, hard ban ?
>
> So mechanical.
>
> You sure there was nothing else to do than wait, without answering,
> without commenting, just wait till *that* happen ?
>
> (shaking my head in disbelief)
> (listening to heavy silence)
Wow, you should try your hand at poetry :-)

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

body:
At 10:45 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you
> > suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has
> > been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be
> > exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk:
> > may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such
> > an otherwise trivial matter.
>
>Can you tell me what you mean by "using his abilities as an admin"?
>
>Has he been banning people?  Installing his version and then
>protecting the page (repeatedly, I mean, a one-time failing would be
>bad, but hardly worthy of this kind of brouhaha)?  Threatening to ban
>people for changing it?

Protecting "his" version of the page, this most recent time and also back
around February 13 the previous time this problem arose. Also, back in the
February incident, he got into a delete/undelete war over the
request-for-comment page where this was being discussed; this was the
reason for his emergency de-sysopping at the time.

>I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of
>the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on
>here, perhaps on both sides?

I've apparently become "involved" now so my perspective may be considered
biased.


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:21:21PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded a few chess images by taking screenshots, which is quite
> cumbersome.
>
> Wikiproject Chess says
>
> 	Having uniform chess diagrams will be easy once LaTeX chess support is
> 	here. Word has it that it will soon be implemented on wikipedia. It is
> 	already implemented on http://wikisophia.org.
>
> Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into MediaWiki?

Where's documentation for that chess package ?


from_name: Rob Hooft

subject: [Wikitech-l] Strange behavior

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2004, at 11:30, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we should have a "view source" for all pages, that just
>> serves the Wiki text for the page, unformatted -- not as HTML.
>
>
> Serving plaintext is human-unfriendly because most browsers will display
> it without line wrapping. Using a <textarea> provides legible,
> copy-and-pasteable text with soft line wrapping, and minimizes behavior
> differences between using 'edit' to get at an editable page's source and
> 'view source' to get at a protected page..
>
> For machine readers, Special:Export provides the source text in a light
> XML wrapper which includes metadata (title, revision date, last author,
> edit comment) for any page.

The pywikipediabot uses Special:Export whenever it can download more
than one page at a time. Sometimes, however, there are characters in
pages or usernames which are not decodable in the right character set;
in such a case the XML produced by this option is unparsable (according
to the standard, any XML compliant parser has to generate a fatal error
upon such an event). Unless that is fixed, the "export" via the "edit"
option, even for a locked page, is necessary for a complete robot run to
succeed.

Rob

--
Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Strange behavior

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> O.k., this explanation makes sense.  It's a tradeoff.  Generally
> speaking, people ought not be editing in languages they can't read
> anyway.  I wouldn't normally, except that I just wanted to change
> that phone number.

Yikes, I am sometimes editing ~30 different languages, and I only really
understand 4 of them.... For changing technicalities like interwiki
links, there are thousands of wikipedia editors editing foreign
languages that they don't understand.

One possible solution, that would require a huge paradigm shift in the
software, would be that the interface language would not be tied to the
wikipedia language, but to the editor... Then again, most people that
edit foreign language 'pedia's are so used to the 'pedia userinterface
that they "understand" everything anyway.

Rob

--
Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/


subject: [Wikitech-l] wikipedia.misc

body:
On Mar 7, 2004, at 10:57, Nils Kehrein wrote:
> does anybody know who is in charge for the wikipedia.misc list/group?
> My message to the list is being helt for several days now without a
> reason. Perhaps the admin died or something? ;-)

Assuming you mean wikipedia-l, I've gone through and cleared out the
spam & worms and released the held messages. It seems nobody's been
watching that list for the last couple of weeks at least.

-- 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/20040307/b34179ce/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Jimmy-
>
>
>>As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free.  The
>>right to make derivative works is an important right.  It might be
>>viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as
>>opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so.  I think
>>it's very important in our medium.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use
>some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received
>one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people
>are worried about third parties modifying their work.
>
>And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which
>features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these
>characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it
>commercially, as long as it's copylefted.
>
>
Can't they just trademark the characters to prevent that?

-Mark


body:
Follow up to DNA conflict, I

* unprotected the DNA page to avoid it staying unavailable for too many
months

* the first two paragraphs (the disputed part) are virtually protected.

* any edit made to the first two paragraphs will be reverted. The rest
of the article is free for edition

* any edit made to the first two paragraphs will get the user soft
banned (unless typo correction or similar move)

* if the user is a sysop and unban himself, it will be listed as sysop abuse

* I suggested to restart the discussion and individual propositions all
over again. I do not think a majority vote has any value on an article
page to the point a strong veto given by one of the main author may be
just neglected. I don't think a couple of people repeating ad nauseam
that this is the most approved version so the "right" one, while the
vetoer reverts it on sight, is the right path for consensus decision
making. Veto is something recognised in consensus.

* I suggest that, any user interested by the topic, tries to give a
version or two that he would approved (and refrain from listing the
allegably majority approved one, since this one is vetoed anyway) and
try to do this in all independance of mind (ie, trying not to suit one
or the other of the disputants deliberatly)

* I hope that when each participants has given one personal proposition,
he will make effort to create other version from merging his and
versions by other participants

* When some solutions are worked out, I suggest that all propositions
are listed and that a vote takes place again. The voters may *only* be
those who "participated" in the discussion and "proposed versions".
Other votes will be removed. Those people late in the discussion will
have the opportunity to participate in the next vote session. I will
look for potential participants to the current discussion.

* No voluntary participation to that discussion and propositions, will
signify the person is not interested in its outcome. This person will
not be granted the right to revert the subsequent change that will be
decided upon (in other words, if someone does not give propositions, and
discuss with the others, does not participate to the vote, let a
decision be taken without saying anything, then this user will not be
granted the right to revert the article later on. Any reversion will
grant a *ban* on this article).

* The vote will be in such a way, that any vote strongly against will
remove the option from the list. Yes, I know it makes it more likely
that no solution is found. Perhaps will that motivate people to try to
find an acceptable solution for all

* Either people find an agreement, or these first paragraphs will stay
uneditable for the months to come. I might even consider a rotation of
the version every couple of weeks, so that no one version is prefered.

* The IP user who edited the first two paragraphs of the article will be
automatically unbanned in about 23 hours.

* Any discussion over arbitration in Mav and 168 conflict is in Jimbo
hands. Any discussion over further unsysoping or softbanning or hard
banning of 168 or Lir, is to take place in other places than the current
DNA talk page. I will remove any personal attack from that page.

* I changed my nick. I switched from sweetlittlefluffything to
firmlittlefluffything


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
Jimmy-
> As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free.  The
> right to make derivative works is an important right.  It might be
> viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as
> opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so.  I think
> it's very important in our medium.

Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use
some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received
one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people
are worried about third parties modifying their work.

And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which
features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these
characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it
commercially, as long as it's copylefted.

What does it do for us to have it modifiable though? We're an
encyclopedia, our purpose is not the creation of new artwork but the
improvement of encyclopedia articles. The purpose of the comics is to
illustrate these articles. Modifying them does not further that purpose
(except for resizing, converting etc. which are probably allowed anyway).

I think there's an argument to be made to allow something like "no
derivative works" for *some* images. It doesn't really hurt our purpose as
a "free encyclopedia", IMHO.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
Hi,

I have uploaded a few chess images by taking screenshots, which is quite
cumbersome.

Wikiproject Chess says

	Having uniform chess diagrams will be easy once LaTeX chess support is
	here. Word has it that it will soon be implemented on wikipedia. It is
	already implemented on http://wikisophia.org.

Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into MediaWiki?

Cheers
Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
OK, the missing 77 pages are up, one link per line. Every 100 links
these's a section heading so we can use section editing, which seems to
come in handy with such long lists.

Magnus

David Speakman wrote:
>
>
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi
>>
>>
>>Stan Shebs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd also suggest letting all the
>>>terms run together on the page, no line breaks, since no
>>
>>one is ever
>>
>>>going to add any kind of explanatory note after each term,
>>
>>and you get
>>
>>>to see more of them at once.
>>
>>I think it would make more sense if people would indeed leave notes
>>saying something like "Not encyclopedic" or "Invalid title"
>>or anything
>>else that explains why a certain topic won't be covered in Wikipedia.
>
>
> For some of us, one link per line also makes it much easier to search
> for and edit or remove a single topic.
>
> --
> David Speakman
> http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
> 501 Moorpark Way #83
> Mountain View CA 94041
> Phone: 408-348-1786
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moved here from [[Talk:Maximus Rex]]

body:
Someone wrote the following on [[Talk:Maximus Rex]] (notice: the article
[[Maximus Rex]] doesn't exist).

Timwi

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

Hello,

I was using your article on Roman currency for a research project, and
was wondering how i would go about properly citing it in my bibiography.
I can be reached at chronicallybored at comcast.net


subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:19:31PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:34:55PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:21:21PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a few chess images by taking screenshots, which is quite
> > > cumbersome.
> > >
> > > Wikiproject Chess says
> > >
> > > 	Having uniform chess diagrams will be easy once LaTeX chess support is
> > > 	here. Word has it that it will soon be implemented on wikipedia. It is
> > > 	already implemented on http://wikisophia.org.
> > >
> > > Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into MediaWiki?
> >
> > Where's documentation for that chess package ?
> In the doc/ directory. Not sure if that's what you're asking though.

None in http://wikisophia.org/doc.
I want url to documentation for the TeX chess package you're using there.


subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

in_reply_to:
<20040307113455.GB4383@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>;
	from taw@users.sourceforge.net on Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:34:55PM
	+0100

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:34:55PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:21:21PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have uploaded a few chess images by taking screenshots, which is quite
> > cumbersome.
> >
> > Wikiproject Chess says
> >
> > 	Having uniform chess diagrams will be easy once LaTeX chess support is
> > 	here. Word has it that it will soon be implemented on wikipedia. It is
> > 	already implemented on http://wikisophia.org.
> >
> > Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into MediaWiki?
>
> Where's documentation for that chess package ?
In the doc/ directory. Not sure if that's what you're asking though.

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


from_name: Stephan Walter

subject: [Wikitech-l] automatic PDF generation from WP articles

body:
Hi list,

I made a python script to convert wikipedia articles to LaTeX or PDF.

http://swalter.homelinux.org/wiki2pdf/

It runs on my own box, so you may not be able to use it 24/7. But you
can get the source from:

http://cowww.epfl.ch/~swalter/wiki2pdf/source.php

(Requires: Apache with PHP, Python, LaTeX with ucs [Unicode] package)

Images and tables are not yet supported, but I plan to implement them
soon. Theoretically all languages with latin alphabet should work, but I
have only tested de,en,fr,it.

Please test the script and post your comments/errors/criticism.

Regards,
Stephan

--
http://cowww.epfl.ch/~swalter/


from_name: Nils Kehrein

subject: [Wikitech-l] wikipedia.misc

body:
Hi,

does anybody know who is in charge for the wikipedia.misc list/group?
My message to the list is being helt for several days now without a
reason. Perhaps the admin died or something? ;-)

Regards,
Nils.

--
Created by 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters.


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Be heartened by the fact that the DNA article is
	pretty good

body:
> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> I look at the DNA article and its talk page.
>
> I see the result of yesterday unprotection.
> It looked so obvious to me what would happen.
> I think of private mails.
> I think of mediation failing.
> I think of arbitration request.
> Arbitration request rejected because not approved by Jimbo.
> I see those putting oil on the fire.
> I think of dispute resolution method as currently suggested.
> And feel so disheartened that I fail to send this to the right list :-)

Well, here's something heartening to think about.

If you are _not_ a Wikipedian and have _not_ been following wikien-l
and have _not_ been watching the page and checking the page history...

...and you go to [[DNA]]...

...what you will read there is a perfectly respectable article that
would not be out of place in any encyclopedia, well-written, complete,
accurate as far as I can judge, garnished with two decent
illustrations...

...and a strange, baffling little notice at the top.

Please don't ask me how such a good result can occur as the result of
such a chaotic and unpleasant process.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1454 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040307/e4e4d12a/attachment.bin


from_name: Yann Forget

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

Hi,

Le Sunday 07 March 2004 18:28, Stephan Walter a ?crit :
> Hi list,
>
> I made a python script to convert wikipedia articles to LaTeX or PDF.
>
> http://swalter.homelinux.org/wiki2pdf/

I doesn't work for the French article "Cin?ma" :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin?ma

Yann
- --
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAS3N3m4KYjQo0y9oRAqnIAKCY+PiLDrbVnIfrGf3mXSWXb+eATQCfYOSV
xu6lH4d5KMocDvsP8zaJQdU=
=e4X4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Hi Yann,

Yann Forget wrote:
> I doesn't work for the French article "Cin?ma" :
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin?ma

The problem are accent characters within a link, in this case [[La
guerre des ?toiles]]. I'll try to fix it.

Thanks for your comment
Stephan

--
http://cowww.epfl.ch/~swalter/


subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:52:22AM -0800, Peter Danenberg wrote:
> > Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into
> > MediaWiki?
>
> Tag-dogmatism has stalled the project:
>
> 	http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Rend
>
> "creativity management" and developers have found no medium.
>
>
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater :(

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
>
>
> I'm with Fred here.  I just don't get what the point of this is.  I've
> tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few
> months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm,
> I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or
> politically charged, or anything.
>
> What I see is that some people prefer one, and some prefer the other,
> and that neither side seems willing to just let it go.
>
> My suspicion is that this page has turned into a proxy-fight about
> other, deeper, more personal beefs.  There are points of pride
> involved?
>
> Or maybe I'm just missing the point.
>
> --Jimbo

both versions are factually correct, coherent, and not politically
charged. You are not missing the point.


body:
Michael Snow a ?crit:

> My personal understanding of consensus is that it falls somewhere
> between a majority and unanimity. Certainly 50% plus one vote is not a
> consensus, and Anthere points out that when there's strong minority
> opposition, a simple majority vote has no value for us. But allowing
> vetoes is no good either, or we'll be held hostage by the Plautuses (or
> Plauti?) of the world.

I was not suggesting a general policy, just trying to suggest something
to get us out of the trap.
In this case, several users believed the vote was a poll, and certainly
not a binding vote.

> To my mind, consensus means a decision that is supported by a large
> portion of the group, and takes into account any objections. It does not
> mean that people with objections have to support the decision.

In the case of an article, this is mandatory. People with objections,
who do not support the decision, just revert. This can't be ignored.
Which is also why I suggested that anyone not participating to the
discussion, should not participate that that particular vote, and that
anyone not participating to the vote, won't have the authority to oppose
it (within reasonable time limits)

However,
> by addressing the objections within the consensus, at some point the
> group is entitled to expect people with objections to acquiesce in the
> group's decision. This means the proportion of support required for
> consensus depends partly on the strength of the objections. It also
> means that a very few people may be so stubborn and recalcitrant that
> they don't believe a consensus can be reached without including them, or
> fail to recognize when this happens. At some point, we have to kindly
> but firmly tell such people that this is not the project for them.
>
> --Michael Snow

In this case, the consensus solution appear to some, to have been
essentially crafted to include one of the disputant position, in an
attempt to get rid of her opposition.

Which is why I suggest that new propositions are crafted from fresh.

Naturally, the cleanest option could be the get rid of the two opponents
by banning them both (or gently discouraging them enough so that they
quit the project).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA

body:
Bryan Derksen a ?crit:

> Protecting "his" version of the page, this most recent time and also
> back around February 13 the previous time this problem arose. Also, back
> in the February incident, he got into a delete/undelete war over the
> request-for-comment page where this was being discussed; this was the
> reason for his emergency de-sysopping at the time.
>
>> I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of
>> the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on
>> here, perhaps on both sides?
>
>
> I've apparently become "involved" now so my perspective may be
> considered biased.

Yes.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Be heartened by the fact 168 will not write any more DNA
	article

body:
Be heartened people.

The DNA article is a good article indeed.

Its main author was a wikipedian named 168...
168... authored many good articles in the molecular
biology field.

Unfortunately, he met a user called Lir on the way. He
tried to raise the discussion many times on her case.
When he saw no reaction from the community whatsoever,
he tried different options, which unfortunately, do
not go along the rules. He did them in great part to
raise attention.

He was treated like a paria for doing this.

He requested public trial.
He had not.
I should never had tried to help with mediation, I
should have left him speak aloud.

He requested arbitration, as he felt he was wronged.
He was denied that right.
I now know, that arbitration is an unfair process,
because access to arbitration is only granted to a
certain category of people.

So, be heartened people, the DNA article is good
article (thanks in great part to 168), and the DNA
article is now secure from the outrageous attacks of a
dedicated man, who gave so much hard work to the
project, and who ended up being treated like a paria
and a vandal.

>From many conversations, I know a couple of people
will be very happy and relieved that 168 is gone.

I hope it will not be the general feeling at least.
And that, in spite of 168 abusing sysop power, there
will be a couple of person to just thank him for the
hard work he gave to the project. Please, do not ALL
OF YOU let him go just as you would do with a vandal.

It was not winning a battle against 168 that occured.
It was just forgetting that those who build the
encyclopedia are human beings, and not perfect.

-------

A copy of a comment from POM

I went back and read through the archives. I think it
is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory
against all others by playing "let's you and him
fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to
be in the position of dealing with his victory. I
don't think anybody else should be happy with that
victory either. If anything has emerged from these
discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding
Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in
favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M
06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Strange behavior

references:
<20040304142142.GH14471@joey.bomis.com>	<8765dkjtph.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us>
	<A4E3B8D6-6E15-11D8-AE4C-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<404B0A83.7080509@hooft.net>

body:
On Mar 7, 2004, at 03:41, Rob Hooft wrote:
> The pywikipediabot uses Special:Export whenever it can download more
> than one page at a time. Sometimes, however, there are characters in
> pages or usernames which are not decodable in the right character set;
> in such a case the XML produced by this option is unparsable
> (according to the standard, any XML compliant parser has to generate a
> fatal error upon such an event). Unless that is fixed, the "export"
> via the "edit" option, even for a locked page, is necessary for a
> complete robot run to succeed.

Rob, I'd like to get this fixed before I push out the final 1.2.0
release of MediaWiki. I remember there were problems with line endings
and perhaps some misencoded Windows-1252 characters... could you point
to a few pages that exhibit problems to test with?

-- 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/20040307/04fa8c4a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Patrice Neff

in_reply_to:
<c2cn7p$vv2$1@sea.gmane.org> (timwi@gmx.net's message of "Sat,
	06 Mar 2004 14:29:03 +0000")

references:
<7C53EDC5-6E99-11D8-AE4C-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<87ptbr49pw.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us>
	<c2a7vu$n9m$1@sea.gmane.org> <moses.87y8qe160a.fsf@usenet.patrice.ch>
	<c2cn7p$vv2$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:

> However, I can see two problems with it. Firstly, if the hash is
> known, then the password might not be too difficult to crack anymore
> (because you can just do it locally). Seconlyd, users are probably
> generally too stupid to handle it correctly. Some people will put such
> a hashed URL into a public RSS reader (e.g. LiveJournal) and then
> complain that other people can reed their feed.
>
> Admittedly, the latter problem is probably not quite as bad on Wikipedia.

That's a valid argument. A dictionary attack might be a problem
especially considering the problem that most users still use very weak
passwords. So additionally we could add a date of the last change into
the string where we calculate the hash from. I see that the
user_touched field already exists in the database. Could we use this?
So for example a calculation like
  $hash=sha1($user_id.$user_name.$user_password.$user_touched)

Of course then we would need to give a user-friendly error message
once the user can not be authenticated. I'm thinking about a single
valid RSS item saying that the user could not be authenticated and
explaining the fact, that a new URL must be used after every edit.

Or if we don't have too many options in the settings yet, we could
make including the $user_touched variable optional... :-)

Regards
Patrice

--
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me."               (The Bible, John 14:6)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: wikipedia.misc

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Assuming you mean wikipedia-l, I've gone through and cleared out the
> spam & worms and released the held messages. [..]

Thanks!

Nils.

--
Created by 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Erik, I reverted that edit of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=2676279&oldid=2674374

(comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will
only provoke extended flamewars)

If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam.

Do not delist candidates. Allow free speech :-)

--------

Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could you
please tell the community about it and not only the
user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ?

I know not if there is a requirement somewhere, for
clarity and respect of information display,
mentionning that a developper unsysoping a sysop
should tell the community about it, but if there is
none, I think there should.

Could you update the policy for me (if it is not in
the policy) ?

I am fine with a couple of users taking the
responsability of enforcing rules, but I think a
developer should not be a position of power, and the
minimum a developer should do, would be to tell the
community of any unilateral decisions he takes
(especially when no one asked him to, and this even if
the action is supported by rules).

Being sysop is not really a position of power, but
being a developer is. When on top of it, it is the
same person who
1. make/decide the rule
2. take the decision of enforcing the rule
3. technically enforce the rule

That is a question of separating some pillars of
power, which usually denote a democracy.

Thanks

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


references:
<7C53EDC5-6E99-11D8-AE4C-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<c2cn7p$vv2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<moses.87d67oyddt.fsf@usenet.patrice.ch>
	<200403080809.34224.smolensk@eunet.yu>

body:
On Mar 7, 2004, at 23:09, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Sunday 07 March 2004 14:50, Patrice Neff wrote:
>> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:
>>> Some people will put such
>>> a hashed URL into a public RSS reader (e.g. LiveJournal) and then
>>> complain that other people can reed their feed.
>>> [snip]
>> [snip] I'm thinking about a single
>> valid RSS item saying that the user could not be authenticated and
>> explaining the fact, that a new URL must be used after every edit.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea. But more information could be added
> that
> rarely or never changes and is known to user only, for example, date of
> account creation (if it is known) and user's preferences.

This seems like an impractical road with major usability problems.

It's been suggested in the past to allow users to mark their watchlists
as public, so for instance someone could go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/Brion_VIBBER to see my
watchlist (if I marked it as public). A public watchlist could then
also be syndicated as RSS.

That's clean and simple: opt-in, so you're aware that your watchlist
isn't 100% private, and we don't have to worry about constructing walls
and barriers to keep people from accidentally letting it slip out (or
get in themselves!)

-- 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/20040307/135e0442/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
Jimbo wrote:
>So I'd like to appeal to 168 and Mav to set a good example,
>to try to show people how this can be done, to show how
>love for knowledge, love for our big picture goals, and yes,
>love for each other, and be used  to resolve an issue.

It is completely wrong to characterize this as a me vs 168 issue.  Several
people on Talk:DNA have tried to work this out with 168 and Lir. This last bit
saw one revert from me, two from Bryan Derksen, three proposed compromise
versions submitted by me and 6 reverts by 168. After 168's last revert to his
favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik later de-sysoped him for this. 168
then blanked his user and user talk pages.

An except from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168
(you should read both summaries if you want an overview of the two versions of
events):

On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle. [57] On the next day, Anthere
asked Kingturtle for the article protection to be restored at first sign of
necessity. 168's first edit to that article was a revert to his favored version
the next day. [58] Mav reverted the article back to the version most people who
voted on the February_5_Version liked. 168 reverted the article to his favored
version again. [59] Mav responded with a proposed compromise version that
combined the information contained in both versions. [60] 168 reverted that as
well.[61] Mav tried another compromise [62], but 168 reverted back to his
favored version again.[63] Bryan Derksen then reverted 168. Mav saved another
proposed compromise version [64], which 168 reverted (marking the revert as a
minor edit and not giving an edit summary). [65] Bryan Derksen reverted 168's
revert. 168 auto-reverted Bryan [66] and protected the page. [67]

Note that that was a total of 6 reverts by 168 in a 24 hour period and that a
poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6 [68]
Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users
for 24 hours for breaking this rule.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>This is not really an accurate representation of my position,
>actually.  Anthony is onto something, but my position is more complex
>that his simple statement would make it out to be.
>
>

>Here's a handy table:
>
>our GFDL text + nonfree photo = not a license violation, but not
>appropriate for Wikipedia
>
>our GFDL text + free photo = not a license violation, VERY appropriate for
>wikipedia
>
>our GFDL text + fair use photo = not a license violation, should be used
>sparingly for Wikipedia (more sparingly than what we've done to date,
>in my opinion, but first we're working to catalog everything so we can
>do some appropriate analysis)
>
>-------
>
>As to why CC-ND (=No derivs) is bad, well, it's not GNU free.  The
>right to make derivative works is an important right.  It might be
>viewed by some as less important in the context of a photo or text, as
>opposed to software code, but I personally don't think so.  I think
>it's very important in our medium.
>
>Would I prefer to have a CC-ND photo to one which is licensed to
>Wikipedia for our use only?  Not really.  Both are unacceptable.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>
But fair use photos are also not GNU free.  And what about photos which
are fair use *and* CC-ND?  Isn't this better than photos which are fair
use with no license?  I should note that CC-ND explicitly places
encyclopedias under the category of a collective work.  As long as you
don't modify the image itself (beyond that allowed by fair use), you're
fine.

It seems to me that CC-ND is better than fair use.  It's global, rather
than US specific.  It's applicable to all reusers, instead of being
potentially unusable for commercial reuse.  And perhaps best of all,
there's no arguing over whether the image is fair use.  While it clearly
should be deprecated in favor of free licenses such as CC-SA or CC-BY, I
think it's much better than many of the "fair use" photos we currently have.

But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only
want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos.  But when
it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than
fair use for the vast majority of reusers.  Cropping is about the only
useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's
probably going to fall under fair use anyway.

Anthony


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Another use for MediaWiki/parsing wiki markup

body:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> I've tinkered at the edges of the MediaWiki code, but I don't understand
> it well enough to know where the parser resides

Parser.php? ;-)


from_name: Constans, Camille (C.C.)

body:
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Nicolas Weeger [mailto:weeger at noos.fr]
>Envoy? : dimanche 22 f?vrier 2004 16:16
>? : wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Objet : Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Bureaucrat on French Wikipedia
>
>
>> no Ryo, it is not so. It was not very well explained, but
>you need to be
>> bureaucrat to make people sysop, and a bureaucrat is a sysop
>which needs
>> a special status given by a developer.
>
>I did understand that.
>But I'm also _certain_ at some point I _did_ access the 'make
>sysop' page. IT
>has a plain text box to enter the user's name :)
>
>> I suggest you (I think Shai was interested as well) ask a
>developper to
>> make you bureaucrat on fr, so we do not have to bug a developper any
>> more :-)
>
>I have no objection to being bureaucrat - but maybe we should
>ask the opinion of
>other french contributors.
>
>> ant

For now, we are three bureaucrat on fr, Traroth, Aoineko and me. Each can name another person bureaucrat.


subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Note that that was a total of 6 reverts by 168 in a 24 hour period and that a
>poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6 [68]
>Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users
>for 24 hours for breaking this rule.
>
>
I'd like to lobby for this to happy ASAP.  The rule has a massive
majority (nearly 90%), and we need some way of enforcing it.  It should,
hopefully very quickly, become simply unacceptable to revert any one
article more than 3 times in a day.  Once you've wrangled back and forth
a few times, you stop.  There is really no justification at *all* for a
revert-war going on for longer than that---it accomplishes absolutely
nothing.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
KNOTT, T wrote:

>I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?
>
>
>
I would prefer that, as a technical matter, it became impossible to
redirect anything in the article namespace to anything not in the
article namespace.  This includes redirects to user pages, redirects to
Wikipedia: pages, and especially interwiki redirects.  The article
namespace should be self-contained and extractable, and all redirects
should be essentially "see [[articlelocation]]" links.

IMO, of course.

-Mark


from_name: David Speakman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked usernames

body:
Isn't there a "red flag" list of blocked troll-tempting or obviously
inflamatory usernames to head off future disputes?

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of KNOTT, T
>
>
> I disagree. If someone logs in with an offensive user name,
> then there is no reason to discuss the blocking. What is
> there to discuss? Ed didn't block the person, only the
> username. They can always log in again with a different user
> name.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Erik wrote:
>Many users have left over the past months because
>of the lack of real enforcement of our policies.

This is unfortunate. Much of the work that I and others have put into the
dispute resolution process aims to help in this regard by seeking consensus if
possible, votes if necessary, mediation if needed and arbitration as a last
resort.

>I have desysopped users in the past for abusing
>admin powers and I will continue to do so if the
>arbitration committee fails to act in emergencies.

Arbitration is normally the last step of a long process (and rightly so, IMO).
But I do support the idea of giving admins (and in the case of admin abuse,
developers) a greater (yet still limited) ability to act in emergencies and act
based on community comment in polls.

Polling on items seems to work when a quick decision is needed. Tim did that
for 168's first de-sysoping and a poll was also conducted about what to do with
 Plautus satire. IMO, a developer or admin could perform *temporary* actions
based upon the results of such a poll and then the matter could be sent to the
arbitration committee if further action is needed. At least that is what I
would like to see tried as the new way of doing things.

But IMO unilateral actions should really only be exercised in true emergencies
(such as very obvious vandalism or an admin going on a rampage). However, any
action to enforce an arbitration decision would not be a unilateral act.  If
the issue is not a true emergency, then a quick poll could be conducted. If
more than a supermajority of a minimum number of non-sock puppet users (say
75%+ of at least 15 users polled) vote for an action, then the admin or
developer could perform that action. If done correctly, such an act would be
based upon the will of the community (as represented by the poll), and *not*
look like it was based on the will of the admin/developer. That is an important
distinction to me.

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik a couple of issues

body:
Anthere-
> Erik, I reverted that edit of you.

>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&
> diff=2676279&oldid=2674374

> (comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will
> only provoke extended flamewars)

> If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
> like everyone else (but you) does : vote against
Sam.

>No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting
>page, it operates by  consensus, and when it is clear
>that no consensus will develop, then it  is
>pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same
>on VfD.

I disagree with this opinion of yours. However, I will
not revert you again since Sam has expressed his
disinterest for sysophood. Otherwise, I would have, as
I consider it is not your job to prevent other people
from speaking up. You may, however, lead a campaign to
prevent Sam from being made a sysop if you wish. But
it is not your role to decide whether other people may
or may not discuss an issue.

Next time you decide to do that, please check with the
user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other
people please.

> Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could
you
> please tell the community about it and not only the
> user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ?

>Which place do you suggest? The mailing list? The
>Village Pump? The
>Requests for comment page? The arbitration page? The
>Wikimedia board?

Any of those would have been fine.

>As for whether it was justified: "168..." again acted
>in clear  violation
>of the sysop guidelines by protecting a page in an
>edit war in which he
>was very much involved (see history of [[DNA]]). He
>had been warned not
>to  do so in the past.

I do not remember I put your decision into question.
If I remember well, I told you yesterday to do as you
feel like. I did not scream "nooooo, don't do it".
Though I felt like saying it.

I do not think you should feel that you have to
justify yourself about this move (unless you somehow
feel uncomfortable with it afterwards ? :-)).

However, as a ***developper***, so as someone whose
community ***trust***, you should feel yourself bound
to report such action to the community.

It is bad you take this kind of decision, and do it,
without telling the community. I entirely support your
right to do so in emergency (though in truth, the
emergency was ***gone***), however, this does not mean
you may whatever you feel like without others being
aware of it.

The arbitration committee has >not even heard his
>case  because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is
>ridiculous.

I agree this is ridiculous Erik. I only asked twice
the arbitration committee to do something, and only
asked twice Jimbo to refer it. Plus it was seconded by
Sannse.

However, I think there is something your are
forgettting here (or possibly you do not know). The
fact is that if Mav was willing to go to arbitration,
as somehow a representant of the community to fix this
sysop abuse issue, the primarily requester maker was
168...who also had issues to fix with Mav.

So, in the end, you practiced yourself arbitration on
behalf of Mav (and by extension the community), but
168 request...are just in the trash can.

>If there's
>one  person who should not be a sysop, it's this guy.
>And not in 3 weeks and
>for 24 hours, NOW and indefinitely.

As I said, the problem is not your decision, but the
lack of transparency.

You did not even remove the guy from the sysop list,
no ?

>I refuse to sit idly by as  our
>policies are mocked.

I second on this;
I also do not appreciate the current immobilism :-)

Regards,

ditto

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] personal report of DNA and related events

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168#Version_of_based_on_the_above_and_edited_primarily_by_Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
>It is completely wrong to characterize this as a me
vs >168 issue.   Several people on Talk:DNA have tried
to >work this out with 168 and Lir. This  last bit
>saw one revert from me, two from Bryan Derksen, three
>proposed  compromise versions submitted by me and 6
>reverts by 168. After 168's last revert
>to his favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik
>later de-sysoped him for
>this. 168 then blanked his user and user talk pages.

Let's be more accurate.
The current issue on the DNA (I mean, the content of
the page itself) is clearly not a 168/Mav issue. It is
more a 168/Lir issue that degenerated into
meaningfullness. Most of the original contributors to
the debate are wisely hiding themselves :-)

In a mail I received saturday, I had this comment (I
dare making it public, because it is so true :-))

"I don't envy your position as mediator. Personally I
think I will go  back to investigating whether
Huntsman spiders will really bite people as they are
claimed to do, and whether it really hurts so much
when they
finally do it. I think maybe that is safer. ;-)"

Note that Lir is extremely discreet as well.

That leaves just a couple of people hurting
themselves, and a good contributor leaving.

Mav just happen to be an element in the last reversion
scheme.

However, the arbitration issue is another matter
entirely.
Mav wanted the arbitration to consider whether to
unsysop definitly 168, or perhaps to get a pledge from
him not to abuse power again.
168 considers Mav was highly unfair to him, and is
partially responsible of what happened.

In my great innocence, I had hoped that the sysop
issue could be fixed before we could go back to an
unprotected article.

In my other great innocence, I had hoped that any
conclusion resulting from the arbitration committee
could help 168 feels better, and approach the article
in a better frame of mind.

God preserve my innocence ! :-)

>An except from
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168
>(you should read both summaries if you want an
>overview of the two  versions of
>events):

I added a third version :-)

>On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle.ns.

All the report by Mav is entirely correct.

>Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the
>ability to block
>users for 24 hours for breaking this rule.

And this is correct as well.
And I do not think there was an emergency to unsysop
24 hours after the reversion war. This should have
been Jimbo or arbitration committee to decide.

Anyway, this conversation is pretty much academic now.
168 left anyway.
Wikipedia is actively making sure to select
contributors for their strength and ability to resist
pressure and bullying. That won't help decrease the
conflict to do so.

ihmo :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creative Commons Licence

in_reply_to:
<404C0807.4040006@inbox.org> (message from Anthony DiPierro on
	Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:43:35 -0500)

body:
> But maybe that's where I'm misunderstanding you, because maybe you only
> want to use "fair use" in the clear-cut areas, such as logos.  But when
> it comes to an image of Dolly the Sheep, CC-ND is much more useful than
> fair use for the vast majority of reusers.  Cropping is about the only
> useful modification I could see a reuser needing to make, and that's
> probably going to fall under fair use anyway.

Perhaps, but we aren't licensing Wikipedia images "cropping-only."  If
we publish an image of Dolly under the GFDL, we have claimed that
anyone can take that image and do /anything/ to it, including make a
picture of her kicking down the World Trade Center with George Bush
cheering her on.

There are no provisions in the license we're using for specifying that
some changes are okay and others aren't.

I once again refer everyone to my correspondence with HMSO.  Many
lawyer-wannabes on this list are happy to advise us to ignore the
clearly-stated position of Her Majesty's Government.  Of course,
/they/ aren't the ones who will have to defend their opinions in
court....


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] no derivative work?  was: Creative Commons Licence

body:
Marco Krohn wrote:
> What I don't agree with is the focus or better the change of focus that is
> taking place. Our top priority shouldn't be to become the best
> "encyclopedia"--we should become the best "free encyclopedia".

Marco,

I don't think that's what's going on.  If anything, our change of
focus is *towards* a greater emphasis on freedom, not less.  Maybe
you haven't been following the discussions closely?  :-)

In the past, we've been lax about having things on the site that have
been licensed for the exclusive use of wikipedia, or for
"noncommercial" use, etc.  We've also made extensive use of "fair
use", well within the bounds of what a nonprofit educational
organization can do, but probably too extensive given our goals for
re-use.

The current discussion is all about changing that to ensure that we
are free.

As far as I can tell, everyone shares that goal.  The only real
questions have to do with borderline cases and where to draw the line.
Or perhaps I should say "how" to draw the line as opposed to "where",
since our agreed upon procedures will drive the outcomes.

The rest of what you said, I agree with completely, even while
acknowledging Erik's point that for some types of work, a nearly free
(all except derivs) license is the best that can be hoped for, and
that in certain exceptional cases, we might decide to accept that.

But I think that Erik and I agree that such a situation is less
desirable than a fully freely licensed contribution.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> This whole mediation/arbitration distinction seems fallacious to me. Alas,
> we're in this mess now, and it is unlikely to be fixed.

I don't know, I'm up for radical change if the current system is not
working out.

The big problem I see right now is that too many people say "forget
mediation, I want to go straight to arbitration".  So the mediation
step is slighted.  And people aren't just being annoying when they do
that, it's that by the time it gets to formal "mediation", things are
so bad that only "arbitration" is possible.

The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
compromise).

They want to go to arbitration over it.

--Jimbo


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

references:
<7C53EDC5-6E99-11D8-AE4C-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<c2cn7p$vv2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<moses.87d67oyddt.fsf@usenet.patrice.ch>

body:
On Sunday 07 March 2004 14:50, Patrice Neff wrote:
> Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> writes:
> > However, I can see two problems with it. Firstly, if the hash is
> > known, then the password might not be too difficult to crack anymore
> > (because you can just do it locally). Seconlyd, users are probably
> > generally too stupid to handle it correctly. Some people will put such
> > a hashed URL into a public RSS reader (e.g. LiveJournal) and then
> > complain that other people can reed their feed.
> >
> > Admittedly, the latter problem is probably not quite as bad on Wikipedia.
>
> That's a valid argument. A dictionary attack might be a problem
> especially considering the problem that most users still use very weak
> passwords. So additionally we could add a date of the last change into
> the string where we calculate the hash from. I see that the
> user_touched field already exists in the database. Could we use this?
> So for example a calculation like
>   $hash=sha1($user_id.$user_name.$user_password.$user_touched)
>
> Of course then we would need to give a user-friendly error message
> once the user can not be authenticated. I'm thinking about a single
> valid RSS item saying that the user could not be authenticated and
> explaining the fact, that a new URL must be used after every edit.

I don't think that's a good idea. But more information could be added that
rarely or never changes and is known to user only, for example, date of
account creation (if it is known) and user's preferences.


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
Redirect to the User space then delete the redirect.

RickK

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

A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]].

Another user wrote this on my talk page

"I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040308/a466e56d/attachment.htm


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst

body:
I disagree. If someone logs in with an offensive user name, then there is no reason to discuss the blocking. What is there to discuss? Ed didn't block the person, only the username. They can always log in again with a different user name. ~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: Optim [mailto:optim81 at yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 06 March 2004 08:49
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst

Summary: EdPoor blocked a user "Jesus Chirst".

My reply:

His/her username was the only reason for the
block?

There was no discussion before the block?

If these two statements are true, then this user
should get unblocked.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]].

Another user wrote this on my talk page

 "I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?


from_name: Brian Corr

subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
I am very concerned and disturbed by these events.

I think that these sort of actions "win the battle, but lose the war."

I had not been involved in the Mav/168... issue, but what I have read on
the list and the various Wikipedia pages leaves me still unclear why 168...
had to be sysoped unilaterally and before the arbitration committee was
assigned the case. If 168... had been engaged in a range of conflicts at
that moment and taking advantage of his sysop powers in them, I could
better understand, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I appreciate that
Erik has apologized for forgetting to let people know about it. However, I
am fearful for the reason Anthere laid out about people exercising their
power to act as the police, the judge, and the jury -- even if I would
agree with the decisions they make

However, I *have* been carefully following what's been going on with Sam
Spade/Jack Lynch for the last couple of weeks. Indeed, I have been rather
involved in dealing with him when I have the stamina. I am completely
opposed to his being removed from VfA after a few minutes. I understand the
point about flamebait -- and clearly many of us are convinced that this
user is a troll -- a very persistent and strategic one, but still a troll.

But to remove this from VfA was counterproductive:

* Sam Spade was nominated by Perl at 21:24 -0500
* I had gotten notice from someone that Sam Spade was listed on the page at
21:58 -0500.
* By the time I got to VfA the nomination was already deleted -- not even
removed to the talk page. That happened at 21:52 -0500

I think that the nomination should have stayed up for at least a day --
then it could have been removed to the talk page as is normally done. If we
are to operate in a cooperative manner, we need to know about these sort of
things. I don't think it would have been a problem. There of course
wouldn't have been much support for his nomination -- even though Erik told
Sam Spade that he would have supported the nomination on his talk page --
but I think it would have created less "evidence collection" than did the
numerous attempts of Aplank/Greenmountainboy to become an admin. If Sam
Spade had left a message on VfA saying he didn't accept the nomination that
would have been one thing, but I don't think his message to Perl
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Perl&dummy=1&diff=2675160&oldid=2674795>
was enough to justify removing from VfA either.

I will add that I'm sure that Sam Spade reads this list a few times a day
for more ammunition, so we are all doing the worst thing possible in this
case -- we're feeding the troll here and all over the wiki. I think the
voting and discussions of RfA would have done that to some degree, but now
he's succeeded in getting the list involved -- again. And I'm sure bringing
the conflict to this forum is much more nourishing than just having it on
the wiki itself.

If you think I'm exaggerating I'd suggest spending a few minutes perusing
his contributions:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Sam_Spade&limit=5000&offset=0>
He's a master at wasting people's time -- both newbies and more experienced
users -- and he's been sucking up a ton of people's editing energy. Three
more examples:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_socialism#featured_article???>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Bryan_Derksen&oldid=2306791#Atheism>
as Jack
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism> as Sam
(and I included one with my involvement in the interest of "full disclosure")

*But overall*, I am very concerned that we are being increasing divided and
split by internal disputes and by trolls -- and while this isn't in any way
new or unique, I haven't seen this level of rancor and mistrust in my time
here. Considering how rapid Wikipedia's growth has been of late, I am very
worried about what this bodes for the future.

I think the mediation and arbitration committees are an important first
step, but for them to do what they need to, there needs to be more energy
put into keeping them moving forward and staying active -- and I believe
that the mediation committee needs to be able to directly refer "cases" to
the arbitration committee. I also think that this must go hand-in-hand with
a lighter touch by sysops and developers, and some clarification of
guidelines to help make the various systems that keep Wikipedia functioning
(sysops, bureaucrats, developers, the two committees, and Jimbo's role) all
work together better than they are currently doing.

Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Anthere-
> Erik, I reverted that edit of you.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&
> diff=2676279&oldid=2674374

> (comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will
> only provoke extended flamewars)

> If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
> like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam.

No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting page, it operates by
consensus, and when it is clear that no consensus will develop, then it is
pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same on VfD. Cunctator has
been much chastised for removing items on VfD, but I agree with him on
that point.

Wikipedia is not a place for mindless flamewars. I would do the same if
someone would list Lir on this page. I have informed Sam about this, and
he has explicitly stated that he does not want to be an admin on [[User
talk:Perl]]. He wrote to me personally:

"I was a bit grumpy about you removing me, but it was also the right
decision ;) I don't like anything to do w flamers, and me being on that
page attracts em for me."

> Do not delist candidates. Allow free speech :-)

This is not about free sprech. It's about a healthy community atmosphere.
Listing a contentious user on RfA only turns it into an "evidence
collection" page, which is not its point, especially when the user doesn't
even *want* to be an admin.

> Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could you
> please tell the community about it and not only the
> user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ?

Which place do you suggest? The mailing list? The Village Pump? The
Requests for comment page? The arbitration page? The Wikimedia board?

As for whether it was justified: "168..." again acted in clear violation
of the sysop guidelines by protecting a page in an edit war in which he
was very much involved (see history of [[DNA]]). He had been warned not to
do so in the past. The arbitration committee has not even heard his case
because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is ridiculous. If there's one
person who should not be a sysop, it's this guy. And not in 3 weeks and
for 24 hours, NOW and indefinitely.

Many users have left over the past months because of the lack of real
enforcement of our policies. I have desysopped users in the past for
abusing admin powers and I will continue to do so if the arbitration
committee fails to act in emergencies. And the protection of a
controversial article in an edit war certainly qualifies. Or do you want
protection wars in addition to edit wars? I refuse to sit idly by as our
policies are mocked.

Regards,

Erik