from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/28/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> >> No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
> >
> > I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article
> > on any
> > person - living or dead - is RESPECT.
>
> The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it
> again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web
> destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the
> article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows,
> to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for
> fun.
>
> It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove
> that information.
>
> I have seen these discussions too many times: "The Washinton Post has
> run a story in 1978 in which person X, that is a detractor of Y, says
> of Y 'he is a [expletive] abuser, and he poured chemicals on Z', so
> we should mention detractor's opinion in the article about Y because
> it has been published in a reliable source". Of course, that story
> has only appeared once, no scholars studying Y or other mainstream
> press has picked up and reprodduced X's viewpoints of Y, but
> nonetheless, editors push for its inclusion in a BLP on the basis of
> the argument "it has been published in a reliable source".
>
> IMO, WP:BLP needs more teeth than it has now. Maybe a more stringent
> application of NOR and V is now due.
>
> -- Jossi

The key issue here is the reliability of the detractor. Most detractors are
strongly POV, so unless it's a majority opinion shared by more people, it
shouldn't be included, even if it's published by a newspaper.


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Artur Fijałkowski

subject: [Commons-l] COM:FP and QI problems

body:
On pl.wiki people want in FPC all images to obey same rules. So eg. images
made during concerts are criticized for perspective errors characteristic
for photos of buildings, criticized for unnatural colors (problem that there
is no white light on concerts is ignored), stage equipment, closed eyes,
flying hair, etc.

For me it should be written bold, that different types of photographs need
different rules! If not only certain types of photos would be FP and if so,
what for we really need FP?

AJF/WarX
-------------- nast?pna cz??? ---------
Za??????cznik HTML zosta??? usuni???ty...
URL:  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070328/8ecc0f3c/attachment-0001.htm


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:

> Respect for another person must be an ethic in WP - it must be
> built into
> the very culture. If a person needs to be taught how to respect
> someone, I
> believe they need to go learn it outside of the Community - and
> come back
> only when they are willing to practice such respect.

I completely agree. But it will take a lot of educating to make our
editors as conscious about PA's on BLPs than on fellow editors...

-- Jossi


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

in_reply_to:
<grsl03tvq058c3anqijb6bt1tqkv592tqr@4ax.com> (Guy Chapman aka
	JzG's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:04:10 +0100")

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> writes:

> That article sucks royally.  More eyes, please.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan
>
> The major problem is that the "controversy" (which I have
  largely
> removed now) is reported only in one local tabloid, with a
  single
> reprint cited.  It does indeed look as if we are being used to
  promote
> a vendetta.
>
> I have asked on Talk for reliable secondary sources for the
> significance of the allegations.  A Wall Street Journal profile
  would
> be nice...
>
> My Factiva subscription gives precisely zero hits on McMahan
  outside
> of the campaign by the Broward New Times.  Not one.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
>
  http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Amusingly, there's already an article about Wikipedia's coverage
of that article:, which I found along with a a bunch of aother
articles in LexisNexis Academic. From, yes, the  New Times
Broward-Palm Beach, February 22, 2007 Thursday:

"Daddy's Little Obfuscator; The McMahan clan tries a new way to
attack our "Daddy's Girl" bombshell -- by dive-bombing Wikipedia"

Choice quotes:

"As of this writing however (it changes by the hour), Wikipedia's
entry
is a pathetic thing, opening with three paragraphs of pure
pap. (McMahan
is chief executive officer of blah blah blah, he founded the
financial
firm so-and-such, his charities include whatzitmatter... as if
anyone
were looking up McMahan for that drivel.) Finally, it gets to the
point,
watered down by so much editing and reediting that it reads like
an
afterthought:

"Linda Schutt his biological daughter, who was raised by adoptive
parents through adulthood, has claimed in a lawsuit that she had a
sexual relationship with him as an adult. Documents from this suit
became the source of information for a series of articles in the
Broward-Palm Beach New Times, with further coverage in other
tabloid
journals."

Ouch. The "tabloid" touch hurts so much."

Of course, the article's quote in investigating sockpuppetry is
also
choice:

,----
| Behind every Wikipedia entry meanwhile, there's a discussion
page, which is where the war of words over McMahan's entry has
really been taking place. This includes a
several-thousand-words-long screed trashing Cramer and her story
by "CabbageFairy," who claims to be something of a journalism
expert. CabbageFairy accused New Times of the basest unethical
practices in the McMahan story.
|
| Something about CabbageFairy's profile at the site however, made
Tailpipe suspicious. Could the mysterious "researcher" be, gulp,
none other than Bruce McMahan's eldest daughter, Alison? Tailpipe
looked into it further and discovered that, yes, Alison McMahan is
a film historian who has written a book about early film pioneer
Alice Guy Blach? whose first feature film, in 1897 bore a French
title that translates to - you guessed it - "The Cabbage Fairy."
`----

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:

>  because the obituaries are
> great sources.

for an hagiography...

- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:57 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> The key issue here is the reliability of the detractor. Most
> detractors are
> strongly POV, so unless it's a majority opinion shared by more
> people, it
> shouldn't be included, even if it's published by a newspaper.

Additional wording to that effect at [[WP:BLP]] could be helpful.

-- Jossi


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
> > > user is a serious offence.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> >
> > That's not what we're talking about at all.
> >
> > Erica
>
>
> Its part of it.  People I think are  letting it slide for comments, because
> there is no penalty.
>
> But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?

Brandt was not given a free pass and to say so is to mischaracterise
what has happened. A single non-disruptive edit he made while banned
(and while disclosing his identity) was not reverted for exceptional
reasons.

Importantly, we behaved exceptionally to a particular action, rather
than to a person (as you seem to suggest).

I'm starting to feel that I'm repeating myself. I don't think reducing
this discussion to statements and questions like "why Brandt's free
pass?" helps anyone or clarifies anything.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Vee

body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/28/07, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
> > > user is a serious offence.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> >
> > That's not what we're talking about at all.
> >
> > Erica
>
>
> Its part of it.  People I think are  letting it slide for comments,
> because
> there is no penalty.
>
> But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?
>
> --
> - Denny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

This has already been answered several times so far, but I'll repeat the
basic points:

Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make
useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain
that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they
would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the
article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an
article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and
isn't going to help anybody.

He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other banned
users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> That article sucks royally.  More eyes, please.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan
>
> The major problem is that the "controversy" (which I have largely
> removed now) is reported only in one local tabloid, with a single
> reprint cited.  It does indeed look as if we are being used to promote
> a vendetta.

Erm... Alternative Press != tabloid. They don't = Washington Post
either, but they're not completely dismissable. Broward Palm Beach
News has video, for God's sake - this isn't the Enquirer.

-Phil


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Funniest thing in a while...

body:
Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just don't know how to react to this one. A while ago I
> wrote a stub
> on a pretty dodgy company called [[PayPerPost]] that pays
> bloggers to
> write nice things about advertisers' products. Today I
> notice some new
> text - mostly fairly positive about the company, but not
> too
> horrendous. The source is "willifordblog.com", and the
> (new) user is
> called Mwilliford - coincidence? Hmm...
>
> So I go to his blog, and here's the first post, entitled:
> "I'm on wikipedia"
> --
> today, my buddy Ted Murphy wrote in the payperpost blog
> about them not
> having much on their page on wikipedia so I logged in and
> edited the
> payperpost page. I'm pretty excited that I got something
> on there.
> Check it out:
...
> I'm still giggling over this sentence, "I'm pretty
> excited that I got
> something on there."
>
> Um, what to do next?

Nice editing.  Replacing advertising with [[product
placement]] or [[shill]] wouldn't be unreasonable.  Or just
see also links.  It's not really advertising if the
promotion is not disclosed.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather


body:
On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/28/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other
> banned
> > users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.
>
>
>
> Why not update the banning, blocking, and BLP policies to say this is
> *endorsed*, then? Is there concensus for this, then lets have concensus
> for
> this and make the policy reflect practice...
>
> --
> - Denny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Okay:

[[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:27:42 +0100, "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
wrote:

>How do we write policies that deal with this?

This question is semantically equal to "how do we legislate Clue". The
answer is, we can't.  Tell you what, though - if we restricted
biographical article to those subjects of whom at least one reputably
published biography exists, we'd not have this problem, because the
published biography would indicate the weight to be given.

Sadly that would mean deleting most of the articles on living
individuals...

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: teun spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use

body:
The fact that MySQL is a database and can be considered an alternative for
MS SQL Server, does not mean that we should not write a book on MS SQL
Server.
I agree that screenshots are an invaluable part of books on software
packages.

I wish you health and happiness.
teun spaans

On 3/28/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> >Can you explain for us why Wikibooks needs fair use? I'm not sure I
> >see as much of as a use case as I do for Wikipedia. Can you provide
> >some pointers?
>
> There are certainly some examples, more wide-spread then you might
> imagine.
> We have several books devoted to the use of particular software packages,
> many of which are copyright. Screenshots of these programs, which are an
> invaluable learning aide, are fundamental to these books. For some
> programs
> there are free alternatives whose screenshots can be reasonably
> substituted
> for the copyrighted versions (albeit with some explanation as to the
> disparity), but for other programs, there are no such equivalents.
>
> Other books, such as art or history books tend to make use of fair use
> images as well. We dont have nearly as many art or history books as we
> have
> computer software books, however.
>
> >At most it would seem to me that it would be something that should
> >only be permitted by exception on a book by book basis based on the
> >subject matter of the book.
>
> It's a matter that has been discussed on our project. We have toyed with
> the
> idea that each book could have it's own localized policy documents dealing
> with issues like this. Many authors tend to overexaggerate their own need
> for special exceptions, however, and so we have generally not followed
> that
> path.
>
> >The prospects of printing wikibooks is probably much greater, to the
> >complications and harm from using non-free images is also probably
> >greater. This should cause us to consider more carefully.
>
> This is precisely the reason why I have personally called for a reduction
> in
> fair use, long before the WMF resolution on the issue. Wikibooks in my
> experience is more oriented towards printing and distributing then
> wikipedia
> is, for instance. Readers in areas that dont allow fair use are at a
> distinct disadvantage because they cannot usually print or distribute our
> books. Some books are at a disadvantate without fair use, however, and we
> need to weigh these issues carefully.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth (b:User:Whiteknight)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN
> Presents today.
>
> http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>the
>blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us
>a better encyclopedia.

That really helps move the debate along...

Actually I think the main thing which makes a reliable source reliable
is having some kind of editorial review process and a bar to
publication.  That is to define a reliable source in the sense that a
newspaper is a source - which is a valid definition as far  as
secondary sources go.  we should draw, in the main, on secondary
sources, because that is what an encyclopaedia, in the main, does.

Sometimes we also draw on primary sources.  The benchmark here is not,
in my view, reliability, but authority.  If Joe Bloggs is an
*authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite
JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history.
Probably.  The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
- as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference.  So we
fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the
editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should
work well enough.

This does not prevent us using non-traditional secondary sources,
where they have processes in place which make them trustworthy.  The
BBC website has some excellent material, for example.

Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute
our own judgment for editorial or peer review.  That's fine as long as
it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment,
but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is
well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view
that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of
human knowledge?  This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we
cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project.
Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good
because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous
argument on Wikipedia.

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto 'd Sera

subject: [Wikipedia-l] belarusian wikipedia (be and be-x-old)


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

subject: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium to launch this week

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 26/03/07, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>> Vee wrote:
>>> I can't believe they've gone 'live' without even sorting out basic copyright
>>> issues... CZ is a joke.

>> It isn't so terribly shocking. After all, Wikipedia did the same.

> Eh? I understood Wikipedia started with GFDL because Nupedia did.

Certainly it was said to be GFDL from the beginning.

But there was a good deal of discussion and disagreement during the
first year or so about just what this meant, including:

- whether authors were transferring their copyright to Bomis (LMS
   thought so, IIRC);

- whether Bomis could change the licence to something else if it wished;

- whether Wikipedia was in fact satisfying its obligations under the
   GFDL (to provide transparent copies, attribution, and so forth);

- whether each page was a separate work under the GFDL;

- whether there was, or should be, an invariant section on every page
   containing a link back to Wikipedia.

The point is that a new, small project can in practice get away with
fudging these issues for a while.

-M-


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 3/26/07, Matthew Woodcraft <matthew at woodcraft.me.uk> wrote:
> It isn't so terribly shocking. After all, Wikipedia did the same.

There is a big difference. When wikipedia launched, it was very much
an experiment. It wasn't really clear how the copyright-thing should
work, free content was in its infancy. We've worked it out since then
and now has an advanced and rigorous system for dealing with such
issues. Citizendium doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, they can just
look at wikipedia and see how we handle copyright. Wikipedia didn't
have that luxury.

--Oskar


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

body:
Okay, I see your point. I had to ask, though.

Best regards.


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

body:
Nick Wilkins schreef:
> My second brought me to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Liechtenstein, which
> is clearly taken directly from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtensteinwithout any attribution
> whatsoever.

The article is now attributed to Wikipedia at the bottom. I believe this
message ("This article uses content that originally appeared on
Wikipedia.") is added automatically to revisions marked "from Wikipedia"
(W) in the history.

I hope there is a CZ project working on tagging all pages derived from WP;
if I could, I would help with that, but unfortunately I cannot get a CZ
account.

Eugene


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 28/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >the
> >blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us
> >a better encyclopedia.

> That really helps move the debate along...

I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.

> Sometimes we also draw on primary sources.  The benchmark here is not,
> in my view, reliability, but authority.  If Joe Bloggs is an
> *authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite
> JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history.
> Probably.  The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
> - as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference.  So we
> fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the
> editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should
> work well enough.

Yes. You can't legislate clue. But assuming all print sources are good
and all blogs are bad is blind idiot worship of WP:RS.

> Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute
> our own judgment for editorial or peer review.  That's fine as long as
> it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment,
> but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is
> well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view
> that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of
> human knowledge?  This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we
> cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project.
> Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good
> because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous
> argument on Wikipedia.

Well, yeah. The trouble is there's no way to write a policy that
legislates clue without running into edge cases that make you look
stupid, e.g. [[Peter Hollingworth]].

- d.


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group (revised)

body:
On 3/28/07, ?ukasz Garczewski <lgarczewski at gmail.com> wrote:
> "a group of volunteers charged with advising the Board of Trustees and
> taking care of a specific part of the Foundation's activities."
>
> Should "Group" be defined separately? Or perhaps we should rework the
> above definition?

Well, their activities will be execution, not advisory. Their activity
is theoretically covered by a committee already; the annouced Group is
a sort of support team for Communication Committee, for covering the
sphere the current member and supportive people are not well handling.
 As I heard from Sandy on wmfcc-l, they will have a mailing list, a
public one. It would mean the group will have no access to the
confidential information now each committee/internal people are
invited to share. (And it is also an implication the member of the
group will be considered a possible future member of Comcom, I
understand).

I have no idea why "translators" are mentioned here, since it is
covered already to some extent by Local Coordinators and Teams, though
if they are happy to be a part of proposed group, and take
responsibilities for other spheres like liaisons for their
communities, I will be happy to see it realize.

--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group

body:
On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not have done with it and call it com-org?

Too much like [[Sea Org]], then people really will think we're a cult ...

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
>how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
>press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.

The press?  A bunch of dunces.  They print all kinds of crap.  But -
if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to
be at least marginally careful.  That is not the same as "print
sources".  Print sources also comprises books and scholarly journals.
I hold some brief for scholarly journals, although these too are more
than capable of showing chronic bias.  The really bad ones, though, go
bust.

>> Sometimes we also draw on primary sources.  The benchmark here is not,
>> in my view, reliability, but authority.  If Joe Bloggs is an
>> *authority* on mediaeval history, then it is valid to cite
>> JoeBloggs.com in support of arcana in articles on mediaeval history.
>> Probably.  The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
>> - as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference.  So we
>> fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the
>> editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should
>> work well enough.

>Yes. You can't legislate clue. But assuming all print sources are good
>and all blogs are bad is blind idiot worship of WP:RS.

This is true.  But let's not confuse the general and the specific.  In
general, print sources, tabloid newspapers aside, are more dependable
than blogs.  Once one gets to specifics, some blogs amount to
authoritative primary sources, but are still primary sources.  In some
cases a blog can reflect the views of a single expert on a number of
competing claims, and that can be attributed to that expert with some
confidence, but we still have the question of how expert the expert
is, and whether his personal biases are skewing his assessment.

>> Do remember, though, that when we use primary sources we substitute
>> our own judgment for editorial or peer review.  That's fine as long as
>> it's me making the call, because in the main I trust my own judgment,
>> but what if it's that notorious POV-pusher David Gerard, who is
>> well-known for trying to slipstream support for his seditious view
>> that an open Wiki can provide a reliable and accurate distillation of
>> human knowledge?  This is nonsense, as any fule kno and surely we
>> cannot allow such crypto-communist propaganda to infect the project.
>> Or the reverse, depending on who's adding the content. "This is good
>> because I said it's good and I know these things" is a dangerous
>> argument on Wikipedia.

>Well, yeah. The trouble is there's no way to write a policy that
>legislates clue without running into edge cases that make you look
>stupid, e.g. [[Peter Hollingworth]].

Yup.  So in the absence of the ability to legislate Clue, we keep the
policy base to a minimum and exercise intelligence and judgment.  In
the absence of intelligence and judgment, we carefully and selectively
engage those who are known to have Clue.  This is called "running to
Jimbo" :o)

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


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
> > languages?
>
> Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is
> available in 14 languages.

If someone can read enough English to upload media using a completely
untranslated interface, I would hope they also know enough to
understand the copyright notice. If everything else were translated,
that would be another matter entirely.

And how do you know that you don't get uploads from people speaking
only Tibetan? Do you ask every uploader?

>
> > What about the unwritten ones?
>
> It would be a bit hard to have a wiki in an unwritten language.

If you're clever and innovative, there is a way to do pretty much anything.

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: geni

body:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/
>
> How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
> languages?

Because we don't get uploads from most of them. [[Special:upload]] is
available in 14 languages.

> What about the unwritten ones?

It would be a bit hard to have a wiki in an unwritten language.

--
geni


body:
Apparently, it's more important to them to use their own spelling rules.

Perhaps we should start a new English Wikipedia for hXc kids who want
to TyPe In AlTcApS tO mAkE a PoLiTiCaL sTaTeMeNt? (which is exactly
what it seems like people using nas^a niva are trying to do)

Mark

On 28/03/07, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is so /horrible/ about the official orthography that you can't use it?
> >
> > Your language needs help. I think at this point you need to forget
> > your divisions, and do whatever is necessary to keep above water,
> > which for me seems to be adopting official orthography and pitching in
> > tothe new be.wp.
>
> That's exactly what I'm preaching to those guys for years. It's not
> that the standard (official) version is that good, it's just the
> language. But it's widely accepted, and that's the very final "it".
>
> ---
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
On 3/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not have done with it and call it com-org?
>
>
> Too much like [[Sea Org]], then people really will think we're a cult ...
>

That was my point. This squashing names together was starting to have
Scientology vibes.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Because you were unwilling to compromise.

You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a
non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the
one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.

Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety.
This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go
back.

Mark

On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
> somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
> want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
> revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
> Is it possible?
> Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
> us.
>
> Ihar Hrachyshka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

body:
That article sucks royally.  More eyes, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan

The major problem is that the "controversy" (which I have largely
removed now) is reported only in one local tabloid, with a single
reprint cited.  It does indeed look as if we are being used to promote
a vendetta.

I have asked on Talk for reliable secondary sources for the
significance of the allegations.  A Wall Street Journal profile would
be nice...

My Factiva subscription gives precisely zero hits on McMahan outside
of the campaign by the Broward New Times.  Not one.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 29/03/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> > Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add
> > all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why
> > so?

> I've been thinking about the same thing myself. Should BLP guidelines
> apply to the "recently deceased"? They are the most likely to have
> plenty of living relatives to get pissed at you and a lawsuit from
> someone's estate is just as bad as one from the someone.

You can't libel the dead, however pissed the estate is. (c.f.
[[Bare-faced Messiah]].)

The issue is having a good encyclopedia article. In fact, the recently
dead tend to have very good articles ... because the obituaries are
great sources.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-03-29

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20799).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  17 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
I apologise if that seemed rude.

But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the
last year, including this mailinglist.

The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old
community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps
they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?

Mark

On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because you were unwilling to compromise.
>
> You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a
> non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the
> one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
>
> Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety.
> This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go
> back.
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
> > somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
> > want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
> > revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
> > Is it possible?
> > Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
> > us.
> >
> > Ihar Hrachyshka
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure. No problem. So here's my question. Why is Teresa Nielsen
> Hayden, the former managing editor for the biggest science fiction
> publishing imprint on the US, ever an unreliable source for a
> question about publishing? Or, put another way, what is it about
> Movable Type that somehow corrupts her words when her speaking the
> exact same text aloud at a transcribed lecture or in an interview
> would be OK?

Your implication that she is always a reliable source about publishing
is as misguided as the assertion you are arguing against, that she
never is. A big problem is that you fail to distinguish that for which
she is a reliable source.

Her blog is *always* a great source for her opinion. It may or may not
be a reliable source for fact, and is probably not most of the time,
no matter how often she's actually right.

As to your point about where her words are published, yes it does make
a difference. When what she says comes from an interview and is
published by an intermediary, we have that intermediary's reliability
to hang our hat on. When what she says is delivered in a lecture, we
have the host's reliability to hang our hat on.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

references:
<W981729922225361175098291@webmail20>
	<fbad4e140703281254t2b2e8513qec9beaa801e8f48@mail.gmail.com>
	<p1ll03p0853hra3r5datcbjharkk8thi52@4ax.com>
	<fbad4e140703281510u56577ae9o3fdfb59aa082e6ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<bfrl03tbcpd3hrrs9a5oibijabgsn9hsmv@4ax.com> <460AFC00.50004@shaw.ca>

body:
On 29/03/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
> >> how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
> >> press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.

> > The press?  A bunch of dunces.  They print all kinds of crap.  But -
> > if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to
> > be at least marginally careful.

> Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer
> lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being
> targeted directly as well?

Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual
Editor of considerable experience.

Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is
unconvincing as an argument.

- d.


from_name: doc

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
David Gerard wrote:
>
> Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual
> Editor of considerable experience.
>
> Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is
> unconvincing as an argument.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
Why did my case study get hijacked by another blog thread? The
Smallville Gazette was not a blog.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Article hit rates -- research at the University of
	Minnesota

body:
Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> Dear Wikitechnicians,
>
> My name is Reid Priedhorsky, and I'm a Ph.D. student at GroupLens
> Research, which is the human-computer interaction group at the
> University of Minnesota.
>
> We are currently working on some research which is investigating
> Wikipedia contribution and vandalism. To this end, statistics on the
> view rate of different articles would be extremely helpful to us --
> something along the lines of Leon Weber's WikiCharts tool, but with a
> larger limit (ideally all 1.7 million articles).

Producing such statistics will be a Google Summer of Code project this
summer. If you can't wait that long, then we can give you a sampled,
anonymised log stream to analyse.

-- Tim Starling


body:
zomg ur rite davd, ths is actuly my natve language + i demnd a wkpdia in it nw

On 29/03/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should start a new English Wikipedia for hXc kids who want
> > to TyPe In AlTcApS tO mAkE a PoLiTiCaL sTaTeMeNt? (which is exactly
> > what it seems like people using nas^a niva are trying to do)
>
>
> lol i thk we nd txt.wp.org 2 nabl kids 2 wrt wkpda in thr own lang :)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
I wasn't aware it was read-only.

I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will
not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about
teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.

But I do wish you luck.

As far as what happened to the media, that is beyond me.

Mark

On 29/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
> No problem. BUT: I, Yury Tarasievich, Zolotariow, Maxim Litvin and
> other real contributors of new Bel-Wiki doesn't support such FORM of
> solving the problem. Anyway, if Wikifoundation can't revert changes so
> can we make something to give the old be-Wikipedia a domain with full
> read-write access? Also we need to restore their media-gallery.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I apologise if that seemed rude.
> >
> > But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the
> > last year, including this mailinglist.
> >
> > The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old
> > community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps
> > they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Because you were unwilling to compromise.
> > >
> > > You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a
> > > non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the
> > > one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
> > >
> > > Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety.
> > > This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go
> > > back.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
> > > > somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
> > > > want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
> > > > revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
> > > > Is it possible?
> > > > Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > Ihar Hrachyshka
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are
welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.

Mark

On 29/03/07, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Stop trolling please, and if you have two personalities, you need to see
> a doctor... ;o)
>
> Yann
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Well, I can't read Mark's mind, but my guess is that he was trying to
> > be ironic and was in fact using that phrase to refer to the Langcom,
> > as did Arbeo in the title of the thread.
> >
> > -Node
> >>
> >> Mark Williamson schrieb:
> >>> It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short)
> >>> won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised
> >>> messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some
> >>> other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] GFDL-wikititle updated (resolves importDump.php
 failures with enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps)

body:
The updated gfdl-wikititle program has been posted to:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gfdl-wikititle

This program is released under the GNU GPL version 3.   This release
corrects failures with importDump.php and will remove and fix
corrupted article titles in the XML dumps provided by the Foundation.
At present, two articles in the enwiki-20070206 dumps will cause
importDump.php to fail in MediaWiki 1.9.3 and prevent the XML dumps from
being imported into MediaWiki and to fail with NULL title
errors.   The problem appears to be related to titles which A) exceed
256 bytes in length and B) also contain multi-part paths.   This same
bug manifests from MediaWiki 1.7.3 through MediaWiki 1.9.3. versions
with the enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps.

This tool allows the XML dumps to be imported into MediaWIki 1.9.3
(which routinely fail on most Linux distros) by removing corrupted
titles.  This tools also supports insertion of interwiki links back into
the originating Wikipedia language site for each dump to provide a GFDL
compliant link back to the original article and its edit history and
authors.  I have also updated

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps

with instructions on how to get around the problems with importing the
dumps.

There were two titles which caused the failures:

Article number 2698248:
<title>Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Volume One (The
Byrds)</title>

(I have censored the actual text in this article title and replaced it
with X characters as it is inappropriate language to post to a public
mailing list.

Article Number 4443711:
<title>Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Former
(XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) by Ashley
Giles and Bradley Hogg.</title>

It may be prudent to consider a filter to remove titles longer than 256
characters when the dumps are made which contain multi-part paths.
There were two titles in the last dumps and they both cause
importDump.php to fail with NULL title errors.

Jeff


subject:
[Wikitech-l] GFDL-wikititle updated (resolves importDump.php
 failures with enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps)


body:
If only I were a panglot.

Mark

On 29/03/07, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a wiki, go ahead and fix it.
>
> On 3/29/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > How is that site valid if it's not written in all 6000+ world
> > languages? What about the unwritten ones?
> >
> > On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was
> > > legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read.
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
On 29/03/07, Monk <monkbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will
> > not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about
> > teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.
>
> The problem is, that Moldavian Wikipedia didn't have enough
> contributors and content, and was put read-only just because it was
> filled with spam; Belarusian wikipedia has large number of active
> contributors.

It had more contributors and content than does the Afar Wikipedia (aa.wp)...

And where is this spam? I never saw such things.

> But now we have only politically-rigged wikipedia in active state, but
> actual Belarusian wikipedia is frozen. I don't feel it to be right.
> First of all wikipedia which is about knowledge should be put in work;
> and I am not sure that wikipedia that is about politics (current
> be.wiki) should work under WMF logo.

Well, according to the other side, it is your Wikipedia which was
politically rigged. Theirs is written in the official variety, the one
taught in schools. I do understand that it can be seen as a support of
the current government, but I don't see how your version is any _less_
"politically rigged". If anything, it seems to be much moreso.

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


body:
That is your opinion.

As I said before, you are welcome to add me to your killfile.

I personally think it's trolling that you are telling me my messages
are not constructive. Did you think it would be constructive to tell
me that, or are you just trying to make me angry at you? I'm not sure
why you would think I would take your opinions into consideration
after you have called me a troll many times in the past.

Mark

On 29/03/07, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I am not trolling. If you do not appreciate my messages, you are
> > welcome to add me to your killfile so that you may not read them.
> >
> > Mark
>
> Of course, trolls never admit that they are trolling.
> Any way, there may be a disagreement about the language policy, but your
> comments are not constructive.
>
> Yann
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Robert Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
 Policy)

body:
Peter van Londen wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> There is one very simple argument, nobody likes to hear but it is valid:
>
> In principle all the content on whatever project must have the possibility
> to be reproduced, used (non-commercially but also commercially) and to be
> altered/changed. Free content licensed with GFDL or CC-BY-SA X.X do fit in
> this picture.
>
> The people reusing the content on wikimedia-site _can_ use Fair Use pictures
> under the same conditions as certain wikimedia-projects do, but they
> _cannot_ change the (copyrighted) fair-use pictures provided in the same
> document for example, as they could with all texts and with pictures with
> accepted licenses. (valid for countries which allow fair use)
>
> Therefore fair use pictures do not fully comply with the conditions under
> which the text is offered. It should be clear for the content-reusers that
> fair-use pictures have to be handled differently as the text. Fair Use
> pictures are not free content.
>
> Kind regards
> Londenp
>
There are disclaimers on Wikibooks (and Wikipedia) that say just as
much, that fair use content must be dealt with on a different basis.
Although I would also have to add that you also have to treat images
under other licenses like the Creative Commons licenses under separate
terms than the main text of the article/book as well.  Fair use isn't
unique here either for this sort of concern about different conditions
for reuse.  And nobody is calling for an elimination of CC licenses on
Commons either.  Or images released under the terms of the GPL.

A minor issue that does exist on Wikimedia projects is that the image
license only appears if you click on the image itself and go the the
"main" image page instead of seeing a reference to the content license
inside of the article.  Perhaps it would be useful on the copyright
pages that mention suggested steps to meet the legal requirements of the
GFDL, that it would also be recommended that you review the copyright
licenses of each image that you intend to redistribute, and that you
maintain those same license terms for any of those images that you
copy.  I'm fairly certainly that many of the Wikipedia mirrors don't
take that extra step, but then again many mirrors don't include the
images at all either.

I'm curious how the static Wikipedia on DVD does this in terms of noting
the image copyright licenses.  Thinking aloud about how "printed"
Wikibooks are also put together, I'm curious about what sort of
bibliographic standard could be put together that would list the license
credits of all images used in a book, and how to automatically generate
that sort of appendix.  For now, I can only think of a manual method of
generating a list of "credits" that would identify under what licenses
each images has been used.  Of course "opaque" distributions of GFDL'd
content require some sort of electronic access to the original source
material, which in this case would be the URL to Wikibooks and you could
obtain the licensing information in a round-about manner.  I don't think
it is a legal requirement to disclose that multiple licenses have been
used on image content, but it would represent scholarly honesty in doing so.

-- Robert Horning


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
I find the idea of a global arbitration committe
disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or not.

Can we not work on a global mediation committee as a
more solid solution?

BirgitteSB

--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> First of all this is an unusual situation. The
> language committee has been
> given the task to decide things that have to do with
> languages. We have
> published what our basic guide lines are. A language
> has to have some status
> and based on this we make a decision.
>
> For the Belarus language uses the code be and bel
> are available. There was a
> group of people who high jacked these codes and did
> not allow people to use
> the official orthography. There was a really vibrant
> incubator project for
> the Belarus language as officially written in
> Belarus. Given the guide
> lines, the old project was parked under a different
> code that is conforming
> to the standard.
>
> When you say that there is a dead lock in the
> creation of projects, you are
> mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus and
> this is what is required.
> We do allow for languages to be started in the
> Incubator, but we cannot
> promote them to full projects until there is a
> message file. This is
> probably some four minutes of work per language.
> Until there is a message
> file, and the first amount of effort has gone in
> localisation, people can
> work in the Incubator. The only thing that is dead
> locked is the promotion
> to full project status.
>
> When you state that it would be preferable that
> people collaborate, you are
> right. People did choose not to do that. Might was
> right, and possession was
> 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent
> with the way the Wikimedia
> Foundation works and consequently there was a need
> for a solution to this
> knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this
> way. Given that it has not
> been deleted has more to do with the fact that we
> allow for a procedure that
> is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> committee'  and with the wish
> that people finally decide to collaborate than with
> the fact that we should
> allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> motivated projects are anathema
> to the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know if this is the right place for my
> complaint, but I was
> > taken by complete surprise by what has happened to
> the Belarusan
> > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing
> bewiki (in "classical"
> > orthography by the incubator project in
> ("normative" orthography).
> >
> > For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
> request to close the
> > existing bewiki
> > (cf.
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> ).
> > To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
> > wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal
> and debate.
> >
> > Second, given the deadlock in the new languages
> creation process, I am
> > more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an
> exception was
> > possible.
> >
> > Third, the most desirable path to be taken would
> have been to have a
> > single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as
> enwiki accepts both
> > British and American English. Have there been
> serious efforts in this
> > direction, prior to the current decision? A
> Belarusan user says at
> >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> >
> > ,----
> > | That was the only cause, by which it was used
> mostly in be.wiki; but
> > | both systems were allowed to be used, and
> so-called "current" variant
> > | was also used there by minority which preferred
> it, and they didn't
> > | have any obstacles to contribute; administration
> welcomed contributors
> > | in all grammar versions.
> > `----
> >
> > If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of
> the old bewiki was
> > inevitable.
> >
> > Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
> don't believe that the
> > closure of the existing project was necessary. The
> proponents of the
> > Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
> bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have
> existed in
> > parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the
> current one is even
> > uglier.
> >
> > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
> transparency. At
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > I read:
> >
> > ,----
> > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
> created at
> > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board
> of trustees on
> > | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> > `----
> >
> > I would say, that those who take such a drastic
> decision, that risks
> > to deter a large number of committed authors,
> should be required to
> > deliver a full explanation of their decision. The
> above brief
> > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> >
> > And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
> > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki
> has been frozen, but
> > no decision has been taken concerning its future.
> This is just totally
> > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board
> of trustees make a
> > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should
> make a /full/
> > decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially
> leaves the existing
> > conflict open.
> >
> > Forth,
> >
> > --
> > http://www.infoe.de/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
I am afraid I must disagree.  Abitration in general is
often entered into voluntarily.  I cannot see what
abitration has to do with final appeals either.  Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of its
projects that might need to be appealled.

You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue.
However there are many ways to approach any problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
direction I cannot support WMF taking.

BirgitteSB

--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The notion of something like a global arbitration
> committee IS that it is to
> be disturbing. Only when there is something of so
> much gravitas that
> something like the end of a living project is
> considered, it provides a
> final way to address an issue. The last thing you
> want is to get to the
> stage where such a body gets involved !!
>
> The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have known
> for a very long time that
> there point of view is unpalatable to many and that
> it goes completely
> against how things are done in all other projects.
> When asked, the language
> committee has advised and the board has decreed. For
> such issues it is good
> to allow for one last and final appeal because some
> of the reactions show
> that some people did not even want to consider that
> their actions were seen
> in such a stark light.
>
> With arbitration committees it is not about agreeing
> voluntarily to
> recognising its authority. The choice is more one of
> having an appeal or not
> having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision once
> made would be final.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I find the idea of a global arbitration committe
> > disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the
> projects
> > would voluntarily agree to enter it's
> juristiction.
> > And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really blur
> the
> > issue of whether WMF has control of content or
> not.
> >
> > Can we not work on a global mediation committee as
> a
> > more solid solution?
> >
> > BirgitteSB
> >
> > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > First of all this is an unusual situation. The
> > > language committee has been
> > > given the task to decide things that have to do
> with
> > > languages. We have
> > > published what our basic guide lines are. A
> language
> > > has to have some status
> > > and based on this we make a decision.
> > >
> > > For the Belarus language uses the code be and
> bel
> > > are available. There was a
> > > group of people who high jacked these codes and
> did
> > > not allow people to use
> > > the official orthography. There was a really
> vibrant
> > > incubator project for
> > > the Belarus language as officially written in
> > > Belarus. Given the guide
> > > lines, the old project was parked under a
> different
> > > code that is conforming
> > > to the standard.
> > >
> > > When you say that there is a dead lock in the
> > > creation of projects, you are
> > > mistaken. There is a message file for Belarus
> and
> > > this is what is required.
> > > We do allow for languages to be started in the
> > > Incubator, but we cannot
> > > promote them to full projects until there is a
> > > message file. This is
> > > probably some four minutes of work per language.
> > > Until there is a message
> > > file, and the first amount of effort has gone in
> > > localisation, people can
> > > work in the Incubator. The only thing that is
> dead
> > > locked is the promotion
> > > to full project status.
> > >
> > > When you state that it would be preferable that
> > > people collaborate, you are
> > > right. People did choose not to do that. Might
> was
> > > right, and possession was
> > > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is inconsistent
> > > with the way the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation works and consequently there was a
> need
> > > for a solution to this
> > > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be this
> > > way. Given that it has not
> > > been deleted has more to do with the fact that
> we
> > > allow for a procedure that
> > > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > > committee'  and with the wish
> > > that people finally decide to collaborate than
> with
> > > the fact that we should
> > > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > > motivated projects are anathema
> > > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if this is the right place for my
> > > complaint, but I was
> > > > taken by complete surprise by what has
> happened to
> > > the Belarusan
> > > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
> existing
> > > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > > ("normative" orthography).
> > > >
> > > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal
> > > request to close the
> > > > existing bewiki
> > > > (cf.
> > >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > > ).
> > > > To me it seems that the closure of a large,
> active
> > > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior
> proposal
> > > and debate.
> > > >
> > > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
> languages
> > > creation process, I am
> > > > more than surprised, that for the new bewiki
> an
> > > exception was
> > > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
> would
> > > have been to have a
> > > > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
> just as
> > > enwiki accepts both
> > > > British and American English. Have there been
> > > serious efforts in this
> > > > direction, prior to the current decision? A
> > > Belarusan user says at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > > >
> > > > ,----
> > > > | That was the only cause, by which it was
> used
> > > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > > | both systems were allowed to be used, and
> > > so-called "current" variant
> > > > | was also used there by minority which
> preferred
> > > it, and they didn't
> > > > | have any obstacles to contribute;
> administration
> > > welcomed contributors
> > > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > > `----
> > > >
> > > > If this is true, I don't see, why the closure
> of
> > > the old bewiki was
> > > > inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I
> > > don't believe that the
> > > > closure of the existing project was necessary.
> The
> > > proponents of the
> > > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested
> > > bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
> have
> > > existed in
> > > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but
> the
> > > current one is even
> > > > uglier.
> > > >
> > > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of
> > > transparency. At
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > > I read:
> > > >
> > > > ,----
> > > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been
> > > created at
> > > > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the
> board
> > > of trustees on
> > > > | recommendation by the language subcommittee.
> > > > `----
> > > >
> > > > I would say, that those who take such a
> drastic
> > > decision, that risks
> > > > to deter a large number of committed authors,
> > > should be required to
> > > > deliver a full explanation of their decision.
> The
> > > above brief
> > > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > > >
> > > > And lastly, if I understand the announcement
> at
> > > > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
> bewiki
> > > has been frozen, but
> > > > no decision has been taken concerning its
> future.
> > > This is just totally
> > > > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
> board
> > > of trustees make a
> > > > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
> should
> > > make a /full/
> > > > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
> essentially
> > > leaves the existing
> > > > conflict open.
> > > >
> > > > Forth,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.infoe.de/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia

body:
I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects
that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.

Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name.  My
main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of
specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki
type "Arbitration Committee".  I don't think the WMF
can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings
without crossing the line of controling the content.

I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions.
A community is either supported by WMF servers or not.
 Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is
in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings
outside of "Yes" or "No".  As long this route of
appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.

BirgitteSB

--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final
> appeal" that would work
> for me too.
>
> What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not
> represent; what
> be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project
> did not represent the
> Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it
> is proven to have
> content that is systematically incompatible with for
> instance the NPOV
> notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage.
> It should be abundantly
> clear that what the core values are of, for instance
> Wikipedia, are not
> things that can be disregarded by a community. When
> they want to have a
> Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it
> on their own servers
> without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to
> it.
>
> It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here
> too the board has laid
> down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room
> is finite. As a
> consequence this is not a departure from how things
> were done, a committee
> as I suggested would only take on issues that have a
> gravitas where without
> such a procedure a project would be deleted or where
> a large part or all of
> the content gets removed because of whatever the
> reasons are that make it
> deemed to be necessary.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am afraid I must disagree.  Abitration in
> general is
> > often entered into voluntarily.  I cannot see what
> > abitration has to do with final appeals either.
> Or
> > when WMF started making rulings on the content of
> its
> > projects that might need to be appealled.
> >
> > You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
> > problem.  I am not doubting you on that issue.
> > However there are many ways to approach any
> problem,
> > and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
> > direction I cannot support WMF taking.
> >
> > BirgitteSB
> >
> >
> > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The notion of something like a global
> arbitration
> > > committee IS that it is to
> > > be disturbing. Only when there is something of
> so
> > > much gravitas that
> > > something like the end of a living project is
> > > considered, it provides a
> > > final way to address an issue. The last thing
> you
> > > want is to get to the
> > > stage where such a body gets involved !!
> > >
> > > The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
> known
> > > for a very long time that
> > > there point of view is unpalatable to many and
> that
> > > it goes completely
> > > against how things are done in all other
> projects.
> > > When asked, the language
> > > committee has advised and the board has decreed.
> For
> > > such issues it is good
> > > to allow for one last and final appeal because
> some
> > > of the reactions show
> > > that some people did not even want to consider
> that
> > > their actions were seen
> > > in such a stark light.
> > >
> > > With arbitration committees it is not about
> agreeing
> > > voluntarily to
> > > recognising its authority. The choice is more
> one of
> > > having an appeal or not
> > > having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
> once
> > > made would be final.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I find the idea of a global arbitration
> committe
> > > > disturbing.  I cannot imagine that all the
> > > projects
> > > > would voluntarily agree to enter it's
> > > juristiction.
> > > > And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
> blur
> > > the
> > > > issue of whether WMF has control of content or
> > > not.
> > > >
> > > > Can we not work on a global mediation
> committee as
> > > a
> > > > more solid solution?
> > > >
> > > > BirgitteSB
> > > >
> > > > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > First of all this is an unusual situation.
> The
> > > > > language committee has been
> > > > > given the task to decide things that have to
> do
> > > with
> > > > > languages. We have
> > > > > published what our basic guide lines are. A
> > > language
> > > > > has to have some status
> > > > > and based on this we make a decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the Belarus language uses the code be
> and
> > > bel
> > > > > are available. There was a
> > > > > group of people who high jacked these codes
> and
> > > did
> > > > > not allow people to use
> > > > > the official orthography. There was a really
> > > vibrant
> > > > > incubator project for
> > > > > the Belarus language as officially written
> in
> > > > > Belarus. Given the guide
> > > > > lines, the old project was parked under a
> > > different
> > > > > code that is conforming
> > > > > to the standard.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you say that there is a dead lock in
> the
> > > > > creation of projects, you are
> > > > > mistaken. There is a message file for
> Belarus
> > > and
> > > > > this is what is required.
> > > > > We do allow for languages to be started in
> the
> > > > > Incubator, but we cannot
> > > > > promote them to full projects until there is
> a
> > > > > message file. This is
> > > > > probably some four minutes of work per
> language.
> > > > > Until there is a message
> > > > > file, and the first amount of effort has
> gone in
> > > > > localisation, people can
> > > > > work in the Incubator. The only thing that
> is
> > > dead
> > > > > locked is the promotion
> > > > > to full project status.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you state that it would be preferable
> that
> > > > > people collaborate, you are
> > > > > right. People did choose not to do that.
> Might
> > > was
> > > > > right, and possession was
> > > > > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
> inconsistent
> > > > > with the way the Wikimedia
> > > > > Foundation works and consequently there was
> a
> > > need
> > > > > for a solution to this
> > > > > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
> this
> > > > > way. Given that it has not
> > > > > been deleted has more to do with the fact
> that
> > > we
> > > > > allow for a procedure that
> > > > > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > > > > committee'  and with the wish
> > > > > that people finally decide to collaborate
> than
> > > with
> > > > > the fact that we should
> > > > > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > > > > motivated projects are anathema
> > > > > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >      GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know if this is the right place
> for my
> > > > > complaint, but I was
> > > > > > taken by complete surprise by what has
> > > happened to
> > > > > the Belarusan
> > > > > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
> > > existing
> > > > > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > > > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > > > > ("normative" orthography).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no
> formal
> > > > > request to close the
> > > > > > existing bewiki
> > > > > > (cf.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > To me it seems that the closure of a
> large,
> > > active
> > > > > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior
> > > proposal
> > > > > and debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
> > > languages
> > > > > creation process, I am
> > > > > > more than surprised, that for the new
> bewiki
> > > an
> > > > > exception was
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
> > > would
> > > > > have been to have a
> > > > > > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
> > > just as
> > > > > enwiki accepts both
> > > > > > British and American English. Have there
> been
> > > > > serious efforts in this
> > > > > > direction, prior to the current decision?
> A
> > > > > Belarusan user says at
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages#Lack_of_transparency
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ,----
> > > > > > | That was the only cause, by which it was
> > > used
> > > > > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > > > > | both systems were allowed to be used,
> and
> > > > > so-called "current" variant
> > > > > > | was also used there by minority which
> > > preferred
> > > > > it, and they didn't
> > > > > > | have any obstacles to contribute;
> > > administration
> > > > > welcomed contributors
> > > > > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > > > > `----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is true, I don't see, why the
> closure
> > > of
> > > > > the old bewiki was
> > > > > > inevitable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even if the two camps cannot be
> reconciled, I
> > > > > don't believe that the
> > > > > > closure of the existing project was
> necessary.
> > > The
> > > > > proponents of the
> > > > > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had
> requested
> > > > > bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > > > > than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
> > > have
> > > > > existed in
> > > > > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
> but
> > > the
> > > > > current one is even
> > > > > > uglier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
> of
> > > > > transparency. At
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusian_normative
> > > > > > I read:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ,----
> > > > > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
> been
> > > > > created at
> > > > > > | be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > > > > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > > > > | be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
> the
> > > board
> > > > > of trustees on
> > > > > > | recommendation by the language
> subcommittee.
> > > > > > `----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would say, that those who take such a
> > > drastic
> > > > > decision, that risks
> > > > > > to deter a large number of committed
> authors,
> > > > > should be required to
> > > > > > deliver a full explanation of their
> decision.
> > > The
> > > > > above brief
> > > > > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And lastly, if I understand the
> announcement
> > > at
> > > > > > http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
> > > bewiki
> > > > > has been frozen, but
> > > > > > no decision has been taken concerning its
> > > future.
> > > > > This is just totally
> > > > > > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
> > > board
> > > > > of trustees make a
> > > > > > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
> > > should
> > > > > make a /full/
> > > > > > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
> > > essentially
> > > > > leaves the existing
> > > > > > conflict open.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forth,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.infoe.de/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > > > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> >
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html


subject: [Foundation-l] Belarusan Wikipedia


from_name: Seth Finkelstein

body:
> Vee
> Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed
> to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I
> am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to
> [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting
> his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's
> merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his
> PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.

	I endorse this viewpoint.

	Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS

	It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic
standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them
the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*.

	It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise
accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth.

	It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute
resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of
developing some mutual understanding from the discussion.

	It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing
harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka
("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed
to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0").

	If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from
not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear.

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php


from_name: Florence Devouard

subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: posting on foundation-l]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: posting on foundation-l
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:42:42 +1000
From: Robin Shannon <robin at shannon.id.au>
To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org

g'day,

I have tried to send the following email about a possible abuse of
trademark to foundation-l 3 times but it keeps getting rejected. Could
you please forward it to the list (or other appropriate person) for
me.

Thankyou,
-rjs.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robin Shannon <robin at shannon.id.au>
Date: 29-Mar-2007 09:37
Subject: Possible abuse of Wikipedia trademark
To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org

I don't pretend to understand trademark law, but in this month's issue
of cleo <http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/> there is a section called
"cleo's guy wikipedia" or something to that effect. Basically it is a
bunch of articles along the line of "if a guy says this he really
means this". Anyways, it has nothing at all to do with wikipedia
except for the use of our name.

I'm not sure if this is the right list to bring this up but since
wikilegal was closed down i guess it must be.

Paz,
-rjs.

--
Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au>
Jab me: <FIRSTNAME at LASTNAME.id.au>
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
     --- George Bush


from_name: bobolozo

subject: [WikiEN-l] More concerns about wide scale article protection

body:
[[Special:Statistics]] has a list of the top 100 most
viewed articles on en.Wikipedia.

9 of the top 10, and 15 of the top 20 articles, are
currently semi-protected.  Of the 5 that aren't, 2
have been sprotected for major portions of the last
month, 2 for short portions of the last month, and
only one has never been protected.

In addition, pick most any highly notable subject, and
you'll find the article is sprotected.  God, Satan,
Islam, Buddhism, United States, and so on.  Any major
topic you look at, if they're not protected currently,
they have been recently.

We seem to be sliding towards a policy of
semi-protecting all high traffic articles.

I got [[God]] and [[Giraffe]] unprotected by
requesting it be done, and a day later, they're both
protected again.  In looking at those who vandalized
those pages, what I found is that almost all of them
vandalized a bunch of other articles at the same time.

My belief is that semi-protecting our major articles
does nothing to lower the overall amount of vandalism
- it just spreads it around.  Instead of messing up
our most popular pages, they just click on unpopular
ones and mess those up instead.

I suppose the positive side of semi-protecting all
popular articles, as we're leaning towards, is that it
makes life easier for the editors who watch those
articles.  The rather more substantial negative side
to it is that it takes the vandalism which would have
certainly have been caught and fixed quickly, and
moves it off to low interest pages where it might sit
for days or weeks or longer before anyone sees it.

I believe this policy we're leaning towards, of
sprotecting all popular articles, is a bad idea, as it
basically makes no sense.  If we aren't going to let
new editors edit articles, we might as well just come
out and admit that's what we're doing and sprotect the
whole database.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121


body:
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> What is so /horrible/ about the official orthography that you can't use it?
>
> Your language needs help. I think at this point you need to forget
> your divisions, and do whatever is necessary to keep above water,
> which for me seems to be adopting official orthography and pitching in
> tothe new be.wp.

That's exactly what I'm preaching to those guys for years. It's not
that the standard (official) version is that good, it's just the
language. But it's widely accepted, and that's the very final "it".

---


from_name: Sean Whitton (Xyrael)

body:
We now have an IRC channel at #wikimedia-cpg if anyone is interested.

--Sean/Xyrael

On 3/29/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 28/03/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not have done with it and call it com-org?
> >
> >
> > Too much like [[Sea Org]], then people really will think we're a cult ...
> >
>
> That was my point. This squashing names together was starting to have
> Scientology vibes.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
?Sean Whitton (Xyrael/xyr)
sean at silentflame.com
http://xyrael.net/


from_name: Anthony

body:
Can someone point me to a page explaining the details of Brandt's ban?

Anthony


body:
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps we should start a new English Wikipedia for hXc kids who want
> to TyPe In AlTcApS tO mAkE a PoLiTiCaL sTaTeMeNt? (which is exactly
> what it seems like people using nas^a niva are trying to do)

lol i thk we nd txt.wp.org 2 nabl kids 2 wrt wkpda in thr own lang :)

- d.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Foundation-l] board resolution

body:
About the board resolution and wikiquote.

It says that now projects can't hold nonfree content unless they
develop an exemption policy.

Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?


subject: [Foundation-l] board resolution


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:49:07 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
wrote:

>Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is
>unconvincing as an argument.

Just as well I didn't, then.

It is, however, a primary source.  Which secondary sources have picked
this up?

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


from_name: Denny Colt

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Brandt elsewhere (was Daniel Brandt & other banned
	users posting still)

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Brandt_posting_HERE

And now Brandt is accusing Thatcher131 of Libel on the Banning Policy page.

- Denny


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
> The updated gfdl-wikititle program has been posted to:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gfdl-wikititle
>
> This program is released under the GNU GPL version 3.

GNU GPL version 3 has not been released yet. Please don't use draft
licenses.

> The problem appears to be related to titles which A) exceed
> 256 bytes in length

The page_title field is limited to 255 bytes; you should probably check
if your namespaces are set up properly. If they are not, the
'Wikipedia:' portion will be injected into the main title instead of
being used in the namespace as designed.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGC7z8wRnhpk1wk44RAlfbAKCW5BsiRKnT5mnISA4GK2vEVoCmZwCcDAcY
tlKpvjJcr1tb+t9SQJwBcnk=
=91B5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bruce McMahan

body:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:27:43 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>Erm... Alternative Press != tabloid. They don't = Washington Post
>either, but they're not completely dismissable. Broward Palm Beach
>News has video, for God's sake - this isn't the Enquirer.

Fine, but it's still a primary source, and I have not yet found any
secondary sources which have picked this up as significant.  Like
Zeleny's allegations over Min Zhu, really.

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


from_name: Ihar Hrachyshka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old

body:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community
somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't
want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should
revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community.
Is it possible?
Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between
us.

Ihar Hrachyshka


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/03/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me
> > >> how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the
> > >> press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
>
> > > The press?  A bunch of dunces.  They print all kinds of crap.  But -
> > > if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to
> > > be at least marginally careful.
>
> > Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer
> > lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being
> > targeted directly as well?
>
>
> Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual
> Editor of considerable experience.
>
> Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is
> unconvincing as an argument.

The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
> - as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference.  So we
> fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the
> editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should
> work well enough.

In this case it's obvious the authors are experts on the subject and there's
no doubt they are who they say they are. (The blog is directly linked to a
website that is an authoritive source on the subject) Whatever these blog
authors write is kept in check by the organization they work for. That to me
sounds like editorial control.

Mgm