from_name: herostratus at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] a perhaps instructive tale

body:
A small but perhaps instructive example of the law of unintended consequences:

Short version:
1) If I read it correctly, an administrator spotted a pedophilia userbox in userspace and deleted it with an edit summary of "WTF? NO!"
2) This resulted in the destruction of a small but carefully constructed attempt to remove POV (mostly pro-pedophile POV) from article space -- probably not what that administrator desired.

Long version:
1) On December 31 2005 the article "Childlove movement" was put up for AfD.  It survived (albeit with two name changes; it is now called "Pedophile activism") on January 6 2005.
2) Unhappy with what I considered an overly pedophilia-friendly point of view in the article, I began to look at some of the source materials and talk to a couple of editors about making a project space to work on this and related articles.
3) On January 20 2006 I created a project (WikiProject Pedophilia) in my userspace and began to populate it  with links, references, and so forth.  I defined the project scope as "...to get articles on the subject out of protection, disputation, and tagged status and create excellent, encyclopedic articles which have broad consensus and may remain stable.", and the first task as "...to work on, first, developing an agreed-upon stable sourced terminology."
5) On February 7 2006, having aquired a new prospective editor who had found the project the hard way, and having the project pages in reasonable shape, I moved the project pages from my userspace to Wikipedia:WikiProjects. (In doing so I made two egregious errors, but that is not germane here.)
6) Meanwhile -- this is key -- some kind of idiotic wheel war was going on, of which I was vaguely aware, about a pedophilia template in userspace, which was apparently started by a couple of hothead admins.
7) On February 7 2006 WikiProject:Pedophilia was put up for MfD and was subjected to sharp criticism, with a great deal of reference to #6 above, and will certainly not survive (and even if does, no editors remain whom I am certain are non-POV, and no sane neutral person would likely join now). I think at least some of my colleagues where reacting somewhat emotionally, perhaps not even realizing that project was basically created to *oppose* pedophile POV in article space (a worse danger than whatever goes on in userspace IMO), and that this tendency was significantly exacerbated by the wheel war.

It's NOT a big deal, but just a small example of how ill-considered actions can lead somewhere else in the system to results opposite of what was intended.  Complex systems work like that, so please try to consider your actions carefully, thanks.

(details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia)


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Perverted justice article updated

body:
"Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f1c3529e0602082322j4bc07eeeua6ce2bc6eddd9b2b at mail.gmail.com...
> http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11
> Contains corrections to "factual errors" - haven't had time to read it
> yet.

Old news by now: the original press release is dated 12th December 2005, and
the rebutal followed shortly thereafter.

Don't you just love it when web pages have dates to tell you just how far
out of date they are?

Oh, wait: that page has nothing of the sort! 'Today we were sent the
following "Press Release"...' is less than helpful :-( and none of the
corrections or comments are dated either.

Honestly, some people have no standards :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the News

body:
On 2/9/06, Jake Nelson <duskwave at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just watched a roughly 5-minute segment on the local news (WCCO 4, the
> Minneapolis-St Paul CBS affiliate) about the Congressional edits, very
> focused on Norm Coleman. Pretty good piece, very favorable to us (pretty
> negative on Coleman) - but ended with a jab at Jimbo: (quoting as best I
> can from memory) "There's an ironic twist in this story: Wikipedia's
> founder, Jimmy Wales, has been known to edit his own bio."

Yeah, like the time he removed any reference to his decision to not
seek a fourth term...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why has everything gone to hell?

body:
On 2/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>You use Gmail.  Gmail has a spell check facility.  Please use it, we'd
>all appreciate it!

Nah, save the beautiful prose for Wikipedia articles.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Perverted justice article updated

body:
http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

Contains corrections to "factual errors" - haven't had time to read it yet.

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: Nathan Carter

subject: [Foundation-l] Thomas est né - Thomas is born

body:
Congratulations to Anthere and may Thomas lead a happy and healthy life :)

Delphine M?nard wrote:

>Bonjour,
>
>Thomas Devouard, le fils de Florence (Anthere) est n? hier soir. Il
>p?se 3,4 kg et mesure 51 cm. Il dort beaucoup et est bien sur le plus
>beau b?b? du monde (dixit sa maman). Comme le dit la formule
>consacr?e, la maman et le b?b? se portent bien.
>
>Thomas Devouard, Florence's son (Anthere) was born yesterday. He
>weighs 3,4 kg and is 51 cm tall. He sleeps a lot and is of course the
>most beautiful baby in the world (says his mother). As the saying
>goes, both mother and baby are doing great.
>
>
>Delphine
>--
>~notafish
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
To even consider that the guidelines are draconian also implies that
they have been tried before. The question is that do such ideas work.
The reply obviously is not everybody agrees that they work, and they
don't want to go backwards repeat history.

We need new ideas and new systems developed to handle information
without censorship and to put a definite bounds on "disreputable," as it
(by past experience) may deemed to mean one thing or another thing from
time to time. It is a decision by ArbCom, but it is not stable in
implementation.

Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
>>We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
>>correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
>>disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
>>the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
>>"disreputable" until I am blocked.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. That will certainly help the situation.
>
>There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being
>written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be
>solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
>
>Steve
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked username

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm

> On 2/8/06, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That would likely be [[User:Thejesusgod]].
>
> If that's true, that would imply he believes himself to be
> jesus and/or god, which is no doubt offensive to devout
> Christians. Why not simply choose a different name?

In my experience, the more devout the Christian, the more strongly they
believe in the second coming. Let us not be too quick to crucify
[[User:Thejesusgod]].

Pete, pointing out that it's only February


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
> > No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
> > banned just for being a paedophile.

> I thought that's what started this whole mess.

Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or
she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts
criticism.

Pete, pointing out the bizarre but crucial details


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
>> Was deleted by [[User:Philwelch]].
>>
>> NSLE
>
>
> If you have any doubts as to whether it should be deleted, it can
> go on
> [[WP:MFD]].

No it can't. If it's recreated I'll delete again. And I don't care
who gets in my way!

(sarcasm, clearly, but there are far too many people who do have this
mentality and take it seriously)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
Ah thanks. On reading it, it looks like a load of junk anyway. They
condemn pedophiles, but are so casual with their use of the term that
they ended up calling an anti-pedophile crusading "evangelical
Christian" a pedophile?

Yawn.

Steve

On 2/9/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:f1c3529e0602082322j4bc07eeeua6ce2bc6eddd9b2b at mail.gmail.com...
> > http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11
> > Contains corrections to "factual errors" - haven't had time to read it
> > yet.
>
> Old news by now: the original press release is dated 12th December 2005, and
> the rebutal followed shortly thereafter.
>
> Don't you just love it when web pages have dates to tell you just how far
> out of date they are?
>
> Oh, wait: that page has nothing of the sort! 'Today we were sent the
> following "Press Release"...' is less than helpful :-( and none of the
> corrections or comments are dated either.
>
> Honestly, some people have no standards :-)
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: Fixng double redirects (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] acronym sweep needed)

body:
On 2/9/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> What the hell are you doing? You only have to edit each of the ten
> redirects that formerly redirected to cock (chicken) and change them to
> #REDIRECT [[rooster]].

LOL I never thought of that. Perhaps the "move page" help text could
be a little bit clearer. In this case I think there were only a couple
- the "ten" figure I referred to was the number of original articles
linking to [[cockerel]] (which itself redirected to [[cock (chicken)]]
and then to [[rooster]].

Apparently the simple concept of "fixing double redirects" was a
little too succinct for me.

Steve


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
>
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that
> someone breaks
> > > US law should be forbidden as well.
> >
> >
> > Like "This user smokes weed"?
>
> Yes.  It's a line.  It's arbitrary.  It's needed.

I hate to be a curmudgeon - no, really! - but paedophilia isn't actually
illegal under US law. Not unless you act upon the impulse. I mean, the bible
says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your
heart, but I think US law demands the action as well as the thought.

And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?

I'm just wondering where to draw the line, and whether it should be straight
or curly-wurly.

Pete, anxious to comply


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown

> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was
> mentioning.
> > All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically
> correct, or you
> > risk a block.  That is, if this precedent does get set.
>
> You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to
> free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids
> communication and makes people happy.  You never did have the
> right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has
> always been unacceptable.
>
> There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.

A common example is that while you have a right to freedom of speech, you
don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be
removed. After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual
freedoms get sacrificed for the common good. This is going to apply to any
community above a certain size, and I would find it hard to imagine any
community similar to this one where putting an "I am a paedophile" poster up
on your front door is not going to provoke righteous outrage from a fairly
large proportion of the community.

If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn,
then we should accept it. We can discuss the precise location of the line,
but I still think it needs to be drawn.

Pete, walking a fine line


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge

> >>>I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that
> someone breaks
> >>>US law should be forbidden as well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Like "This user smokes weed"?
> >>
> >>
> >Yes.  It's a line.  It's arbitrary.  It's needed.
> >
> But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking
> weed is legal.

The line is arbitrary. But it makes more sense than "imposing" Danish or
Chinese or Neopolitan or Thai upon all Wikipedia, given that WP is located
in the US and most editors are US.

Pete, Hungary


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why did Raul654 restore a nonsense edit?

body:
On 2/9/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should reconsider how we go about fast-reverting people. He
> was a bit trigger-happy there.

Banning people wouldn't have any effect if they are able to continue editing
without any actions taken against them. Seeing as Raul is the featured
article director, I can only assume this was an unfortunate accident. He
wouldn't knowingly reinstate vandalism to an article.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
On 2/9/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Was deleted by [[User:Philwelch]].
>
> NSLE

If you have any doubts as to whether it should be deleted, it can go on
[[WP:MFD]].

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
"Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:f1c3529e0602090113u3f1c4bd9j953c1657bffe4ec3 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 2/9/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people who have seen
> > fit
> > to ignore the vandalism fight.  Some because they're simply better at
> > other
> > things and find it a waste of theirs and others time to devote
> > themselves to
> > something they're not as good at, some because they've done it for a
> > while

> And speaking for myself, it's like choosing not to join the brigade of
> people putting out fires with buckets of water until people install
> smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, and until the brigade is
> equipped with decent fire engines and hire powered hoses.

On that basis, you could view the CVU as being the Wikipedia equivalent to
the Ankh-Morpork Watch[1].

Which isn't actually such a bad thing, when you consider just how similar
Wikipedia can be to Ank-Morpork...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh-Morpork_City_Watch


subject:
[WikiEN-l] More editing of user pages,
	please (was Arbcom has completely lost its mind)

body:
On 2/9/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Matt Brown wrote:
>
> >You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
> >speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and
> >makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything you
> >pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
> >
> >
> It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced
> by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's
> user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL
> and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars
> incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be
> an administrator to help out, either.
>
> And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under
> which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the
> three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual
> preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages
> should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on
the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
links I need to work effectively will remain?
If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more
disputes (which are now confined to other  pages). If there's things clearly
unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive
things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those
who break those rules.

Mgm


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>
>>This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I lose, my right
>>honerable opposition shall likely successfully endeavour to severely reduce copyright
>>checks on the english wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>
>I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and incorrect use of fair
>use provisions are NOT a concern for the foundation at this moment in time?
>
>Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as disruptive on
>en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given to the community. I shall
>concede this point to my opposition, and request for copyright checks on
>en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>
>sincerely,
>	Kim Bruning
>
>
>
I don't think that this is necessarily apathy on the part of people on
this mailing list, just that many list readers feel that most copyright
issues have been dealt with more or less adequately on the various
Wikimedia projects.  If you see improper fair use, mark it up with
appropriate editing tags and bring it to the attention of the
administrators of the various projects.  If you have a problem with some
admins not "getting it" and ignoring your complaints, bring it up on the
community forums first.  You might be pleasantly surprised by the
response you get, particularly if you mention specific fair use
problems.  For example:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks%3AVotes_for_deletion#Images

deals with several copyright infringement issues I have been dealing
with.  I think this is more of an issue of education rather than
specific apathy on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation board.

I don't know what is going on with en.wikipedia as I am only an
occasional editor/contributor there and I've given up trying to keep up
with the Village Pump.  It just isn't my thing, although I do
occasionally take a peek every once in awhile.  If you can give some
specific details over what is happening, I would like to know some
details.  You asked for some stats and I gave them to you, for what I
could offer.  As far as copyright checking being seen as disruptive, I
would have to agree to a certain extent.  I also don't think you should
be so draconian as to suggest that every article on Wikipedia must have
a specific outside reference to every fact, and unless you can prove
that it is an original composition or copied with permission under the
GFDL (or compatable terms) that you should assume that it is a copyright
violation.

On this issue, trust the community.  I think they will get it right, and
it doesn't require outside intervention on the order you are asking.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Matt Brown wrote:
> >
> > >You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
> > >speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and
> > >makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything you
> > >pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
> >
> > It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced
> > by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's
> > user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL
> > and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars
> > incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be
> > an administrator to help out, either.
> >
> > And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under
> > which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the
> > three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual
> > preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages
> > should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.
>
> It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on
> the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
> would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
> links I need to work effectively will remain?
> If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more
> disputes (which are now confined to other  pages). If there's things clearly
> unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive
> things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those
> who break those rules.

I agree with Matt and especially with Michael.

I don't think setting down hard guidelines as to what is and is not
acceptable is sufficient; it invites ruleslawyering. I don't advocate
disruptive editing of user pages, such as changing the text someone
has written to make it untrue, and I don't think anyone else is
either. But the current culture is such that many people think no one
else should be allowed to touch your user page, even if you have on it
material which is disruptive, offensive, or otherwise generally not
acceptable to the rest of the community.

User pages don't belong to the user, they belong to the project. It's
been generally beneficial to let people have a fair bit of leeway with
this, as Matt said: it aids communication and makes people happy. But
ultimately, if you want unrestricted free speech, this isn't the
place; it belongs on your own personal website. If you want to be part
of this project, you are expected to follow community standards, and
if you don't like them, to try to change them rather than act against
them.

Rants, polemics, attacks, these don't aid communication; they pit
people against each other. Shiny little boxes claiming that some
particular political figure is an idiot, that some religious
philosophy is stupid, that some sexual orientation is immoral, that
some nation shouldn't exist, that some other user is a menace to the
project -- all of which I have seen in the past few weeks -- start an
argument that no one else can respond to, because it's on your user
page that no one can touch.

*Most* people have pages that are completely fine. I like seeing what
people choose to say about themselves and their work, and how they
choose to say it. I think we should continue to have user pages, and
continue to give people a fair bit of leeway with what they choose to
say on them. Removing someone's toolbox links, breaking their
formatting, putting attacks or POV or untruths or even some minor but
unnecessary change that the user doesn't like on someone's user page
should be simply reverted. In most cases what the user prefers should
be what stands. But when you're informed that the content of your page
is not acceptable, you should be expected to change it or to let
others do so, and yes, to run afoul of site policy if you continue to
refuse.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking
"To enjoy freedom, we must control ourselves." - Viriginia Woolf


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
>
> On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be
> > drawn, then we should accept it.
>
> Have you considered it may be possible for the ArbCom to
> bring disrepute on Wikipedia through bad decisions?

The example of the US President is before us. It pains me to see a great
liberal democracy being vilified around the world, but there it is. If the
people elect the government, then the people shouldn't complain too loudly
about the consequences of their actions. Bide their time and wait for the
next chance.

I think the ArbCom gets things wrong pretty often, actually. But in
hindsight, I can't say I blame them - the job involves a lot of stress and
time, especially when it is unpaid.

What would you have to replace the current management structure?

Peter, seriously


subject: [WikiEN-l] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
On 2/9/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people who have seen fit
> to ignore the vandalism fight.  Some because they're simply better at other
> things and find it a waste of theirs and others time to devote themselves to
> something they're not as good at, some because they've done it for a while

And speaking for myself, it's like choosing not to join the brigade of
people putting out fires with buckets of water until people install
smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, and until the brigade is
equipped with decent fire engines and hire powered hoses.

Yes, that's a bit snobby. But hopefully I'm helping the project in other ways.

Steve


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] So much for GFDL compatibility with cc-by-sa

body:
On 2/9/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> >     http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
> Hoi,
> You misrepresent what is said in the article. RMS does not say anything
> about /specific /licenses. He says something about "Creative Commons"
> being seen as one license. As many people do not appreciate the
> difference between the different CC licenses he prefers to not use them
> all. Given his principled point of view and him championing his license,
> that is understandable and reasonable.
>
> When you imply that not favouring Creative Commons licenses for a well
> reasoned argument means that you cannot think about how a /specific
> /Creative Commons license can be aligned with the GFDL is not giving RMS
> the credit that is his due. You are aware that RMS is not doing things
> on his own, some of the best minds in the business are part of a team
> that he represents.

And in this case RMS is very much dead on target...

Consider for a moment the FreeSounds
(http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/legal.php) project which believes it's
building something of commons style repository of audio samples which
are free to use... The solicit input from the world.. It's really
great.  They advertise that the content is creative commons licensed
loudly.

Except... it's Sampling+ licensed. The license grant of sampling+ is
in many regards less free than what historic interpretation of fair
use would allow in the US. It's impossible to make Free content (in
the GFDL or CC-BY-SA sense) which uses sampling+ content without
breaking the sampling+ license.

Most of the work on the site is just little tidbits gathered up by
people, most of the samples alone have no commercial value. Had they
instead required the samples to be 'dual PD / X11' licensed, they
would have very few less.

The resulting confusion caused by CC's mix of vastly different
licenses has cause a project which had the potential to increase the
free content out there to actually decrease it.


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black
> hole. Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out.
> When it comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the
> implementation of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement
> them. This results in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This
> in turn results in people telling organisations that use Wikipedia
> content that they cannot use the content as is.
>
It doesn't help in this case that Juriwiki-l is a closed member-only
list.  There are some good reasons for this, and for most purposes I
would agree that it is a good idea to keep it closed.  It is just that
for issues of this nature that debate and public discussion is needed,
particularly because it is policy issues (or implementation of policy)
that is being discussed.

As far as telling people if they can or can't use copyrighted content
(and Wikipedia is copyrighted content), you can offer a complaint if you
care to, but the person who is doing the infringement can accept or
reject that advise.  So far I don't know of a single situation where
formal courtroom legal action has taken place over Wikipedia content in
regards to somebody violating the GFDL provisions of its use.  Most
violators know they have screwed up and take the violating content down
or conform to the GFDL, because it is usually incredibly easy to comply
with the terms of the GFDL.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
Yah but rules are only applied based upon a) Who you are; b) who your
friends are; c)  your ideological purity.

nobs

On 2/9/06, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free
> encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
On 2/9/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > jayjg wrote:
> >
> > >On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>It's been suggested in the past
> > >>that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >It has? By whom?
> > >
> > >
> > I don't recall by whom, but fortunately I don't have to go digging
> > because Jimbo just suggested it again.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> Awhile ago there was someone who posted on an external neo-nazi
> discussion board about editing, who was subsequently blocked on
> wikipedia. Big discussion on the mailinglist ensued.
>
> Don't remember what he was called though.

That was user Amalekite / [[Alex Linder]], and he was blocked for
endangering Wikipedians (he also suggested ways of subverting Wikipedia
using sockpuppets and proxies).  Nevertheless, he wasn't blocked for simply
being a neo-Nazi/white supremacist; neo-Nazis/white supremacists regularly
post on Wikipedia.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Wheel war" (Worst. Userbox. Ever.)

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Spade
>
> The power imbalance on the wikipedia is poisonous. Frankly it
> reminds me of this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
>
> I'd prefer a library where I respectfully interact with
> others who enjoy books of reference.

Hear hear!

For some folk, I contrast the humble promises before adminship with the
swaggering, arrogant behaviour afterwards. Admins should be role models for
the rest of us, and while mostly they are, there are a few individuals who
are not overly inspiring.

Pete, not naming any names, oh no


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] WMF lawyer on copyright: if in doubt, delete.

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 09/02/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Like this is news?
>>
>
>It's not news, but it's rather nice to be able to point and say "Look,
>our *lawyer* says we should be doing this!"
>
If you look at the whole thread, it's not really a legal opinion;
all he's saying is that the issue of copyright should be taken
seriously, which is a long ways from saying whether we're allowed
to have even short quotes of copyrighted text in articles.

(We don't even have a way to identify copyrighted quotes
that might need to be scrubbed out.)

Stan


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Somehow the 30 odd policies and nearly 200 guidelines specifically
> relating to editing got overlooked.

I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free
encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.

-Phil


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of The Cunctator
>
> On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
> >
> > > On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was
> > > mentioning.
> > > > All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically
> > > correct, or you
> > > > risk a block.  That is, if this precedent does get set.
> > >
> > > You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any
> "right" to free
> > > speech, but because it helps the project; it aids
> communication and
> > > makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything
> > > you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
> > >
> > > There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
> >
> > A common example is that while you have a right to freedom
> of speech,
> > you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
> >
> > If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it
> > should be removed.
>
> The reason you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is not
> because it causes disruption and offense, but because it
> could cause a panicked stampede, leading to real physical harm.

IOW, disruption and offence.

> Which doesn't apply to Wikipedia.

We should browbeat and harass people rather than physically smack them over
the head?

> People are entirely too touchy here.
>
> > After all we are a community, and sometimes small
> individual freedoms
> > get sacrificed for the common good.
>
> Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the
> long run.

If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate
goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find
the common good?

Wikipedia is not an iron-fisted dictatorship under the heavy hand of Jimbo,
nor is it a theocracy under the all-seeing gaze of the ArbCom. Usually the
community sorts things out at street corner level and it is only the problem
cases that come to the attention of admins, the ArbCom and as a last resort,
Jimbo.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a lot more common sense and a lot fewer rules,
but I suspect that common sense doesn't scale, judging by the way things are
going here.

Pete, commoner


body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Seems reasonable to me - to exclude their input would be to create a
> deliberate bias. Would we allow relatives of victims of Auschwitz to
> edit, but not relatives of Nazis who worked at Auschwitz?

That's a slippery slope. I mean, yeah, I'd rather not block either
side. But if it comes to a point where we block Nazis, am I going to
shed too many tears? No. No, I'm not.

-Phil


body:
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That was user Amalekite / [[Alex Linder]], and he was blocked for
> > endangering Wikipedians (he also suggested ways of subverting Wikipedia
> > using sockpuppets and proxies).  Nevertheless, he wasn't blocked for
> simply
> > being a neo-Nazi/white supremacist; neo-Nazis/white supremacists
> regularly
> > post on Wikipedia.
>
> Seems reasonable to me - to exclude their input would be to create a
> deliberate bias.

In reality, though, neo-Nazis/white supremacists have a great deal of
difficulty editing, mostly because they cannot seem to comprehend or abide
by content policies like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].  As well, the
interaction policies like [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seem to elude them.
Given their views, none of this surprises me.

Would we allow relatives of victims of Auschwitz to
> edit, but not relatives of Nazis who worked at Auschwitz?

Not sure how either group would be relevant, since Wikipedia considers
personal experience to be a kind of original research, which is not
permitted in articles.

Jay.


body:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on
> the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
> would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
> links I need to work effectively will remain?
> If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get more
> disputes (which are now confined to other  pages). If there's things clearly
> unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive
> things, we should simply state those outright and take action against those
> who break those rules.

By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they
cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.

Editing other people's user pages at other times doesn't seem to have
much benefit. If someone writes on their page their beliefs and
standards (as Jimbo does), and someone else edits that, what does the
page mean afterwards?

Steve


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Johannes Ernst

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID Support

body:
I'm sitting in a workshop on user-controlled identity at Harvard as I
write this ... and the discussion here resonates a lot.

I'd have to concur with Brion here. Anything related to digital
identity has technical, but also economical, political and *in
particular* personal/social impact. For example, recall the
collective outcry when Yahoo made the -- technically, economically --
reasonable argument that Flickr users should use their Yahoo account
to identify themselves to Flickr in the future.

We are not just talking about identifiers here in a technical sense,
but about a public Persona that identifies the registered mediawiki
user as a member of a particular "tribe" ... and we techies should
never try to get between a person and their tribe, because we'll
always lose ;-)

On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:34, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>> Really? I'd think that an Interwiki-namespaced username would
>>> solve that
>>> problem nicely,
>>
>> No, it solves a different problem.
>>
>>> without requiring a big name-clash-fixing step when the
>>
>> That step is inherent in the requirement of a single namespace.
>
> Sorry to be short about this, but we've had enough fights over this
> issue in the
> past, and as far as I'm concerned the decisions have been made.
> I'll get flak no
> matter whether I implement the previously-agreed conversion
> specification or
> something new, so it's lose-lose for me personally. ;)
>
>
> However to summarize, my view on why a single namespace is Good
> includes a few
> points:
>
>
> * Encourages community cohesiveness across diverse projects:
>
> Many people are active in multiple projects. While they may be
> numerically a
> minority, these are among the most active contributors, and thus
> key to the
> projects' success.
>
> One of the things making it hard now to pop over to another
> projects is that you
> have to register another account; if you instead have a "foreign"
> account saying
> you're from another web site, this makes you stand out even more as
> not belonging.
>
> We want the Wikimedia projects to be able to share people and
> content easily and
> freely. Being an equal user on every project helps break down those
> borders,
> where having a freakish foreign username would build them up.
>
>
> * Related to that, we have projects specifically for sharing:
>
> Commons and Meta are important. They should be as closely
> integrated as possible
> to make media content sharing and community-wide issue discussion
> as easy to
> dive into as possible. Being given a foreign name when you go there
> makes it a
> foreign place instead of just a special part of the wiki.
>
>
> * Avoids the 'tld problem':
>
> Even though we all know top-level domains in the DNS system are
> supposed to be
> disambiguators, everybody ends up trying to register their name in
> every
> possible domain -- if you don't, the others mostly go to squatters,
> SEO scum,
> and phishers who have no legitimate claim to the name.
>
> The disambiguators are unsatisfying, and aren't necessarily enough
> to pass
> casual inspection -- especially when you legitimately have a
> hundred accounts
> named 'Angela' or 'Brion Vibber' which _mostly_ are the same person
> already.
>
> It makes more sense in my view to recognize that the disambiguators
> don't work
> that well when they're needed and make more trouble when they're
> not, and just
> jump straight to a single namespace.
>
>
> When we add OpenID/whatever in the future later, that'll allow
> identification
> from 'foreign' sites in a limited way which is useful. (Eg a post
> on the
> LiveJournal article claiming to be from Brad Fitzpatrick could be
> verified as
> really having from from Brad's LJ account, and a post on LJ about
> Wikipedia
> claiming to be from Jimbo Wales could be verified as really coming
> from Jimmy's
> Wikimedia account.) But that works because it's *all about* the
> boundary, and
> drawing attention to the foreign boundary is what you want in that
> case. That's
> not, I think, what we want inside Wikimedia.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
  http://netmesh.info/jernst


body:
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In reality, though, neo-Nazis/white supremacists have a great deal of
> > difficulty editing, mostly because they cannot seem to comprehend or
> abide
> > by content policies like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].  As well,
> the
> > interaction policies like [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seem to elude
> them.
> > Given their views, none of this surprises me.
>
> Any more so, than say, religious fanatics or pokemon fans?

"Religious fanatics" are a rather broad group with disparate views, and I
don't know how one would measure these things anyway.

Jay.


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipubs Project Proposal.

body:
Hoi,
It is not nice to say "RTFA" but it is said that the software DOES
meet the requirements. Now there is information that would be nice to
have; things like GPS information. It is also nice to know for pubs
what they have on draught. This is something where a database makes
sense.. So yes, the software may suffice but it is not difficult to
come up with functionality that would enhance the product.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/9/06, Nathan Carter <magnaboy at westnet.com.au> wrote:
> What sort of information is on the site that could not be published on
> Wikipedia, a project already ran by the Foundation?
> Cheers,
> Nathan
>
> admin at wikipubs.org wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
> > prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
> > was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
> > requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
> > project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased
> > when I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
> > discussion as project proposal.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > James.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a perhaps instructive tale

body:
<herostratus at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:020920060758.15423.43EAF629000358B400003C3F22070245539C9A9B0E9D9B9C019D0A08 at comcast.net...
>A small but perhaps instructive example of the law of unintended
>consequences:
>
> Short version:
> 1) If I read it correctly, an administrator spotted a pedophilia userbox
> in userspace
> and deleted it with an edit summary of "WTF? NO!"
> 2) This resulted in the destruction of a small but carefully constructed
> attempt to
> remove POV (mostly pro-pedophile POV) from article space -- probably not
> what that
> administrator desired.
[snippety-snip]
> It's NOT a big deal, but just a small example of how ill-considered
> actions can lead
> somewhere else in the system to results opposite of what was intended.
> Complex
> systems work like that, so please try to consider your actions carefully,
> thanks.
> (details:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia>)

This was not in the least helped by the fact that one of the userboxes
purported to be for the use of members of that WikiProject. It was created
by one of those already under the spotlight under WP:POINT for creating (and
re-creating? I can't recall) pedophilia userboxes and was therefore targeted
for extreme destruction almost immediately.

Given the recent sh*tst*rm[1] this would seem to be a subject area which
**needs** more careful scrutiny, and a WikiProject to oversee NPOV would
appear to be a good idea.

Perusal of the MfD page linked above would seem to indicate that some people
need to calm down and maybe reconsider their votes having taken a cold
shower?

In the meantime, it might be a good idea if some people not already uncalm
coud pay it a visit...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
[1] yes, I know "storm" isn't obscene, but it looks more symmetrical, m'kay?
:-)


from_name: Patrick, Brad

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the place
where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.

Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.

-Brad

Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
Fowler White Boggs Banker
501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
Suite 1700
Tampa, FL  33602-5239
(813) 228-7411 main
(813) 222-3336 direct
(813) 229-8313 fax
bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
wikipedia.

The lack of response is deafening! :-P

I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
foundation at this moment in time?

Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given
to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg
(www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Josh Hoyt

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID Support

body:
On 2/9/06, Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us> wrote:
> I'd have to concur with Brion here. Anything related to digital
> identity has technical, but also economical, political and *in
> particular* personal/social impact.

I think there is general agreement on this point. As I stated earlier,
my interest in helping with applying the technology of OpenID to
Wikimedia's single-sign-on problem is independent of the decisions
that the organization makes about the user experience. To re-iterate,
I believe that OpenID is an appropriate technology regardless of what
namespace or identifier policies are in place.

Essentially, OpenID can be used without URLs as identifiers for
Wikimedia sites because those sites will already know where to go to
complete the authentication.

> We are not just talking about identifiers here in a technical sense,
> but about a public Persona that identifies the registered mediawiki
> user as a member of a particular "tribe" ... and we techies should
> never try to get between a person and their tribe, because we'll
> always lose ;-)

This is an interesting statement, because as far as I can tell, the
decision of the Wikimedia foundation has been to unify the namespaces
(thus getting "between a person and their tribe"). I note this not to
criticize the decision, but just as further evidence that the issues
are complex.

Josh


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 2/9/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
>
> >On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>It's been suggested in the past
> >>that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >It has? By whom?
> >
> >
> I don't recall by whom, but fortunately I don't have to go digging
> because Jimbo just suggested it again.
>
> -Mark
>
Awhile ago there was someone who posted on an external neo-nazi
discussion board about editing, who was subsequently blocked on
wikipedia. Big discussion on the mailinglist ensued.

Don't remember what he was called though.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New diff extension

body:
"Tim Starling"
<t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in
message news:dsfaip$87l$1 at sea.gmane.org...
> I've made a new diff extension, called wikidiff2. It uses the same diff
> algorithm that we've been
> using in PHP, ported to C++. I've done some benchmarks on test sets which
> require lots of word-level
> diffs. For the lines "a b c d" -> "a b c e" repeated many times, on srv31,
> the timings are:
>
> PHP DifferenceEngine: 10230us per line
> wikidiff (old C++ extension): 379us per line
> wikidiff2 (new C++ extension): 11.5us per line

Just to double-check (3 sig-figs since that's all we've been given in some
cases):
PHP: 97.8 lines/s
wikidiff: 2640 lines/s
wikidiff2: 87000 lines/s

Strewth! Unless there's something devastatingly wrong with your coding, this
would seem likely to make a huge impact on performance.

Is this currently a serious bottleneck?

What is the next bottleneck that needs consideration?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


body:
Not everything that is on Wikipedia is by virtue of it simply being
there, magically transformed into GFDL, as you indicate.  That is the
essential problem, and the fallacy (some) users erroneously believe.  So
long as there are uploads, there will be copyvio.  It must be dealt with
accordingly.

To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
actual systemic copyvio problem.

-Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: juriwiki-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:juriwiki-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: juriwiki-l at mail.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

Hoi,
The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.

Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
use the content as is.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
needs to be available under this license. When people license things
under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
for GFDL publication.

My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
correct in what I just said.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
> copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the
> place where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>
> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>
> -Brad
>
> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
> Fowler White Boggs Banker
> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
> Suite 1700
> Tampa, FL  33602-5239
> (813) 228-7411 main
> (813) 222-3336 direct
> (813) 229-8313 fax
> bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>
> wikipedia.
>
> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>
> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
> foundation at this moment in time?
>
> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given

> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>
> sincerely,
> 	Kim Bruning
>

_______________________________________________
Juriwiki-l mailing list
Juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/juriwiki-l

This email and its attachments are strictly intended for use and viewing
by the sole addressee(s) on the juriwiki-l mailing-list.

They cannot be published outside of this list without the prior
authorization of their author(s).

They may contain legally privileged and/or confidential or proprietary
information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or
this email has been sent to you through inadvertence, mistake or
negligence, or you have otherwise received this email without the
knowledge, authority and consent of the sender, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, forwarding, distribution or copying of this
email, and/or any attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you believe
you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
juriwiki-l mailing list by writing to juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org and
permanently delete the original email and any attachments and discard
any copies or printouts of this email and any attachments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


body:
Quote should include...[insert]..."in accordance with existing copyvio
policy."  See en:wp:Copyvio.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

On 2/9/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com> wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

I hereby promise to quote you on that!

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
On 2/9/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> While checking out the new shiny proposed deletion, I came across
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberalundergrnd
>
> Whats the process for dealing with this sort of User: space
> abuse?

WP:NOT free webhosting.

Ask them to remove it, and if they don't, then remove it yourself.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Inappropriate material on website

body:
(Reply copied to the sender, in case you don't read the mailing list.)

Katie Husband wrote:
> I think your website has a problem with inappropriate material. There are
> some sexually explicit articles, with graphic pictures. This should not be
> allowed, as children are able to access them. These pages should only be
> accessible to people over 18.

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia's content is not censored for the
protection of minors.

This is essentially because our (admittedly ambitious) project is to
document all human knowledge in a fair and unbiased manner. This means
that our encyclopaedia does contain content that some groups may find
objectionable.

Our content is carefully assessed and debated by our volunteer
contributors and we try to ensure that graphic pictures such as you
refer to are only included in appropriate articles.

You can read more about this at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer>.

Best wishes,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] My 3rr block

body:
On 09/02/06, Brad Smith <bs_politic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I'm not sure if my other message came through.  Sorry if this is a repeat.
>
> I am appealing my recent block, which was for removing the following from the Safe Sex article's talk page:
>
> "I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics"
>
> I hope my block will be undone, and that I will be vindicated.  I believe some Catholic wikipedians considered my actions a challenge to their faith, which is unfortunate as I too am Catholic (albiet lapsed).  Thank you!

This block appears to be in order.  The context, omitted in the
complaint, was that it was a 3RR violation, which should have been
explained - see [[WP:3RR]].  The comment was removed either in part or
in full 6 times within an hour!

In any case there was more of the comment being removed repeatedly
than is quoted here, and I think in its context the full comment
certainly didn't warrant removing, your purported offence
notwithstanding.

Have a nice day,
Abi


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Floricic vs. Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. - preliminary
	results

body:
Hi.

The preliminary injunction is no more. The Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
did not agree with the argument of the parents' lawyer that simply
telling the civil name of the dead hacker Tron is violating rights.

The press release about this decision is at
http://www.kammergericht.de/presse/PM04_2006.htm

Okay, this is a good day and I hope that the parents will no longer
follow the legal path in their struggle to deal with the loss of their
son. At least not against Wikipedia.


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we
> should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are*
> policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they
> should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in
> particular about the project.
>

Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.

-Phil


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID Support

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I'd think that, since single-signon between wikis is a feature useful
> only for a minority of registered Wikimedia users (how many actually log
> into more than one Wikimedia wiki, ever? 10-20%, maybe? how many log
> into more than, say, 5 wikis? Or log into more than one wiki on a
> regular basis? 2%? 0.2%?), it'd be a good political idea to minimize the

It is my experience that people who learned English as a second language
often edit on regular basis both their language and English Wikipedia. I
have no idea how much of them are there, but certainly more than 2%.

Also, it is likely that whatever the percentage is, it will increase
after single sign-on is introduced. We want to encourage people to
upload to Wikimedia Commons...

> I think that if we use Interwiki prefixes on the UI side, OpenID becomes
> that much easier. A user could login to French Wikibooks as
> /wp:en:User:EvanProdromou/ or whatever, and the UI translates that into
> the right OpenID URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EvanProdromou)
> and goes through the OpenID two-step to get credentials checked. Under
> the covers, the OpenID stuff would get worked out right, but we could
> use simpler Interwiki strings for the UI.

I could agree with this however. I see no problem on the user side with
prefixes.


from_name: admin at wikipubs.org

body:
Hi,

Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased when
I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
discussion as project proposal.

Cheers,
James.


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] They love us! They really love us!

body:
>
> >http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:SAWW
> >
> >
> >- d.

Apparently I'm not notorious enough to warrant a mention yet, heh. Must get
more CABALly.

NSLE


subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
Was deleted by [[User:Philwelch]].

NSLE

On 2/9/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > While checking out the new shiny proposed deletion, I came across
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberalundergrnd
> >
> > Whats the process for dealing with this sort of User: space
> > abuse?
>
> WP:NOT free webhosting.
>
> Ask them to remove it, and if they don't, then remove it yourself.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] So much for GFDL compatibility with cc-by-sa

body:
    http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771

Who was the main sticking point in discussions so far? Oh yes, that's right.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bike sheds and stop energy

body:
     http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
     http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy

>From http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-February/msg00115.html
- which you should also read.

This is why, although process is *useful*, it should not be regarded
as *important* in itself. The aims are *important*.

(That doesn't mean the ends justify the means; it does mean the means
need more justification than just happening to be there and are liable
to change as needed, rather than as can't be absolutely resisted.)

- d.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] My 3rr block

body:
On 2/9/06, Brad Smith <bs_politic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I am appealing my recent block, which was for removing the following from the Safe Sex article's talk page:
>
> "I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics"

In general, you shouldn't remove text from talk pages. Since the text
isn't particularly offensive or libellous, removing it just looks like
a sneaky way of trying to influence the discussion.

By all means rebut the point, by adding your own comments, but just
don't remove them.

(a block for one offence seems a bit harsh...presumably someone will
investigate)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ambi's two week block of Bobblewik

body:
On 2/9/06, bobble wik <bobblewik at mail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia says "a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants." I am confused as to why you think that applies to me.

That definition seems a little narrow to me. Anyway.

> Editors that agree with the MoS should be permitted to act on it.

Sure, until people tell them to stop.

> Editors that disagree with it should be encouraged to get it changed.

In an ideal world. The MoS is a guideline, not a policy.

>It is bizarre to have MoS guidance that cannot be implemented because
some admins disagree with it and block editors rather than obtain new
MoS wording.

No, it's a wiki.

Steve


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's yet another problem with the CVU. Every Wikipedian should be
> > considered part of the collection of people who subscribe to the idea
> > of keeping Wikipedia clean and neat. It's detrimental to have some
> > people say "This is my job" because then everyone else goes "Goody!
> > Now I don't have to worry about it."
> >
> Also, you appear to be part of the "Goody! I don't have to worry about it."
> crowd, after looking at your edits before and after what is an apparent
> wikibreak.

Wikibreak? What is that? And what edits are you talking about? You're
wrong, by the way.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Throwing out the first ball

body:
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay Converse wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
> >>
> >>Wikipedia.  And
> >>
> >>>to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
> >>
> >>indivisible,
> >>
> >>>with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
> >>>
> >>>(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on
> >>>anything.)
> >>
> >>TINC.
> >
> >
> >
> > What?
> >
>
> Exactly.
>
ObHeh: Heh.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
On 2/9/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Awhile ago there was someone who posted on an external neo-nazi
> > discussion board about editing, who was subsequently blocked on
> > wikipedia. Big discussion on the mailinglist ensued.
> >
> That was user Amalekite / [[Alex Linder]], and he was blocked for
> endangering Wikipedians (he also suggested ways of subverting Wikipedia
> using sockpuppets and proxies).  Nevertheless, he wasn't blocked for simply
> being a neo-Nazi/white supremacist; neo-Nazis/white supremacists regularly
> post on Wikipedia.
>
No neo-Nazis or pedophiles have been blocked because of who they are.
A neo-Nazi was blocked for posting on Stormfront a list of editors he
thought were Jewish. Another was blocked for posting on his user page
an enormous photograph of himself in a uniform making a Nazi salute.
Some have been blocked for anti-Semitic abuse. And someone has been
blocked for posting a pedophile user box on his user page. These are
all provocative acts that have nothing to do with writing an
encyclopedia. People are being blocked for provocation, not for who
they are.

Sarah


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] OpenID Support

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> I'd think that, since single-signon between wikis is a feature useful
>> only for a minority of registered Wikimedia users (how many actually
>> log into more than one Wikimedia wiki, ever? 10-20%, maybe? how many
>> log into more than, say, 5 wikis? Or log into more than one wiki on a
>> regular basis? 2%? 0.2%?), it'd be a good political idea to minimize the
>
> It is my experience that people who learned English as a second
> language often edit on regular basis both their language and English
> Wikipedia. I have no idea how much of them are there, but certainly
> more than 2%.
>
> Also, it is likely that whatever the percentage is, it will increase
> after single sign-on is introduced. We want to encourage people to
> upload to Wikimedia Commons...
>
>> I think that if we use Interwiki prefixes on the UI side, OpenID
>> becomes that much easier. A user could login to French Wikibooks as
>> /wp:en:User:EvanProdromou/ or whatever, and the UI translates that
>> into the right OpenID URL
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EvanProdromou) and goes through
>> the OpenID two-step to get credentials checked. Under the covers, the
>> OpenID stuff would get worked out right, but we could use simpler
>> Interwiki strings for the UI.
>
> I could agree with this however. I see no problem on the user side
> with prefixes.
Hoi,
Authentication is a hot topic, one of the more recent interesting bits
of information can be found here:
http://dystopics.dump.be/2006/02/04/the-mysteries-of-x-google-token-and-why-it-matters/
It is not YADIS or OpenID but I think that it may point to thinks that
are in the future, but it is certainly interesting particularly when you
realise the connection to Yabber clients for Gtalk.

Thanks,
   GerardM


body:
Yeah, more users should have admin powers.

On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
>
> > Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool
> > ?  It offers a filtered list of RC; with the ability to view the diffs
> > all-in-one-page, and convieient revert and rollback buttons...  Is that
> > hose high powered enough for you?
>
> Unfortunately I don't see the revert button, and rollback doesn't work
> if you're not an admin. Also the warn button doesn't work if the user
> doesn't already have a talk page. But the idea is good (I think I've
> played with it before actually).
>
> I sort of like the basic format of CryptoDerk's vandalfighter tool
> better, but it's sort of about garden hose level now. If it
> automatically showed diffs, and let you warn/revert with a single
> click, that would be the firehose I'm looking for.
>
> > Admittedly, we haven't got sprinkler systems, AFAIK (although blocks
> > might count, I suppose), but the rest is there...
>
> Yeah, would it be that much of a stress on the servers to check edits
> against a regex and automatically quarantine them if they matched
> certain basic patterns?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Floricic vs. Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. - the earth
	never stops spinning

body:
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69391

is a pretty accurate summary of what was happening today.

AP is reporting that Friedrich Kurz has announced to appeal against
today's decision. So far, the story isn't over yet - unless a
lightning of some sort of devine insight strikes Berlin and the
parents stop authorizing these futile attempts.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] So much for GFDL compatibility with
	cc-by-sa

body:
David Gerard wrote:
>     http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
>
> Who was the main sticking point in discussions so far? Oh yes, that's right.
>
>
> - d.
Hoi,
You misrepresent what is said in the article. RMS does not say anything
about /specific /licenses. He says something about "Creative Commons"
being seen as one license. As many people do not appreciate the
difference between the different CC licenses he prefers to not use them
all. Given his principled point of view and him championing his license,
that is understandable and reasonable.

When you imply that not favouring Creative Commons licenses for a well
reasoned argument means that you cannot think about how a /specific
/Creative Commons license can be aligned with the GFDL is not giving RMS
the credit that is his due. You are aware that RMS is not doing things
on his own, some of the best minds in the business are part of a team
that he represents.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Throwing out the first ball

body:
Jay Converse wrote:
> On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
>>
>>Wikipedia.  And
>>
>>>to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
>>
>>indivisible,
>>
>>>with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
>>>
>>>(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on
>>>anything.)
>>
>>TINC.
>
>
>
> What?
>

Exactly.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060209/d5be735f/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why has everything gone to hell?

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 2/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Running everything a put into the article namespace through a
>>spellcheacker take long enough.
>
>
> You use Gmail.  Gmail has a spell check facility.  Please use it, we'd
> all appreciate it!
>

Like everything else in Gmail, I suspect it doesn't work as it's
supposed to...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060209/d51179ed/attachment.pgp


references:
<C00E9FEC.135FA%wgfinley@dynascope.com>	<43E948E8.2020004@hackish.org>
	<43EA3624.2070506@telus.net>

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> W. Guy Finley wrote:
>>
>>> Stupendous, molesting children is "embarrassing".  Don't think I
>>> could have
>>> seen a bigger understatement or marginalization of the issue all
>>> day.  This
>>> just in "American Bishops Find Pedophiliac Priests to be 'embarrassing'"
>>> Yeah, that would go over well.
>>
>>
>> No; someone *claiming* to be a pedophile, almost certianly falsely, is
>> "embarrassing".
>>
>> In any case, there are plenty of things people find really offensive.
>> Try telling someone in Saudi Arabia that we allow unrepentant
>> homosexuals on the site (homosexuality has status in law actually more
>> severe than pedophilia), and then see if they want their kids to read
>> it.  Or even in the enlightened west, you might find a lot of people
>> shocked that we allow open Satanists!
>
>
> Or Stalinists?
>

Wikipedia is Communism! We are the NEW BABYLON! We operate under a
Totalitarian Unificationist Left-wing Objectivist Jewish Micronation
Terrorist point of view! (Thanks to Michael Snow for the last one)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060209/cb7a6ab7/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] FA bot attacks -- anybody around with checkuser?

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/8/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked
>>>>>all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger
>>>>>than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.
>>>>
>>>>More popular. Not bigger.
>>>
>>>We're not bigger than AOL? Hell, we're bigger than Jesus Christ!
>>
>>
>>Mr. Lennon has a point.
>>
>>Actually, think about it.  We may not be bigger than AOL, but we sure as
>>hell are big enough that if we were to appeal to AOL at some level, there'd
>>be a decent chance of them listening.  Heck, with all the media attention
>>Wikipedia seems to get every time it farts, you can imagine the headlines...
>>"AOL refuses to help Wikipedia" or something...
>>
>>Or am I just wishful thinking here?
>>
>
> media attention to the china issue has been limited.
>

Yeah, but that's China. Relatively few people care. But if America
Online, (insert various jingoistic patriotic bullshit here) was not
cooperating with a website which promotes Free Speech (insert various
references to US legalalistic cruft here), then oh noes!!1! We might
even get the ACLU involved.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060209/57393f63/attachment.pgp


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject:
[WikiEN-l] More editing of user pages,
	please (was Arbcom has completely lost its mind)

body:
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little
> corner on
> > the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
> > would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
> > links I need to work effectively will remain?
> > If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get
> more
> > disputes (which are now confined to other  pages). If there's things
> clearly
> > unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive
> > things, we should simply state those outright and take action against
> those
> > who break those rules.
>
> By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they
> cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.
>
> Editing other people's user pages at other times doesn't seem to have
> much benefit. If someone writes on their page their beliefs and
> standards (as Jimbo does), and someone else edits that, what does the
> page mean afterwards?
>
> Steve

My point exactly. Like with deletion templates, you should be able to trust
what's in someone's userspace as their opinion. Allowing editing without
VERY strict rules will give POV pushers, vandals and people with an axe to
grind free play.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] being blocked

body:
On 2/9/06, Jake Spady <jspady at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I (24.66.94.140) have been been blocked by Hall Monitor for alleged
> vandalism after supposedly being warned.  All I ever do is fix spelling and
> grammar on entries I randomly read and have never been "warned" on account
> of my not being a member.  I want this to go away.  Please feel free to
> email me or whatever.  I'm curious as to what happened.  Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Jake,

In the block message Hall Monitor asked your system administrator to contact
him. In all likelyhood the block is due to someone else on the network
repeatedly abusing. If I remember correctly, it has been going on for 4
months, so it needs to be addressed.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] being blocked

body:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On 2/9/06, Jake Spady <jspady at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I (24.66.94.140) have been been blocked by Hall Monitor for alleged
> > vandalism after supposedly being warned.  All I ever do is fix spelling and
> > grammar on entries I randomly read and have never been "warned" on account
> > of my not being a member.  I want this to go away.  Please feel free to
> > email me or whatever.  I'm curious as to what happened.  Thanks
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> Jake,
>
>
> In the block message Hall Monitor asked your system administrator to
> contact him. In all likelyhood the block is due to someone else on the
> network repeatedly abusing. If I remember correctly, it has been going on
> for 4 months, so it needs to be addressed.
>
> Mgm
>
>

monitorhall at gmail.com is the address you need to contact.


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.

There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees
with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the
assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a
DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!

We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at
short notice might be good too.

- d.


from_name: Delirium

body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>No neo-Nazis or pedophiles have been blocked because of who they are.
>A neo-Nazi was blocked for posting on Stormfront a list of editors he
>thought were Jewish. Another was blocked for posting on his user page
>an enormous photograph of himself in a uniform making a Nazi salute.
>Some have been blocked for anti-Semitic abuse. And someone has been
>blocked for posting a pedophile user box on his user page. These are
>all provocative acts that have nothing to do with writing an
>encyclopedia. People are being blocked for provocation, not for who
>they are.
>
That seems a false distinction to me---you're defining "provocation" as
"stating who they are", but only for certain classes of users (saying
you're a Satanist, Republican, or gay is ok, saying you're a neo-Nazi
isn't).

In any case, do you consider any of these provocative?  They certainly
offend me, and are completely unrelated to writing an encyclopedia:

-- [[User:Striver]]: Numerous attacks on the United States; a bunch of
9/11 conspiracy theories

-- Many of the ~200 users including the userbox [[Template:User
freedom]] ("This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV,
and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using
userboxes and user categories should not be banned")

-- Explicit attacks on others' beliefs, such as the ~20-30 users
attacking "Randroids" in one form or another, often accompanied by an
X'd out photograph of Ayn Rand, a bunch of anti-Scientology users, and
so on.

--
[[User:Cognition#Gallery_of_beast-men.2C_cultists.2C_fascists.2C_and_colonialists]]

I could go on and on.

-Mark


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] nobs on moderation

body:
I haven't shaken the dust from my shoes yet...just a reed shaken with
the wind....

nobs

On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
>
> > nobs03 wrote:
> >
> > >Yah but rules are only applied based upon a) Who you are; b)
> > who your
> > >friends are; c)  your ideological purity.
> >
> >
> > I've put nobs on moderation after one querulous trolling post
> > too many. nobs: quit whining or your posts will be discarded.
>
> I can vouch for this. David's a fair man, but hard.
>
> Peter (Skyring)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
"Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm

  Jon

David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
  The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.

There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees
with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the
assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a
DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!

We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at
short notice might be good too.

- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Bike sheds and stop energy

body:
On 2/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>      http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
>      http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy

Thank you very much for posting those. A valuable way of seeing a
common problem.

My solution normally is to ignore stop energy unless it has stop authority.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow (Financial Times and BBC
	today)

body:
Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste:

  http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html

  Jon

Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
  "Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm

Jon

David Gerard wrote:
The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.

There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees
with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the
assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a
DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!

We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at
short notice might be good too.

- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now
---------------------------------


body:
Mindspillage wrote:

>I don't think setting down hard guidelines as to what is and is not
>acceptable is sufficient; it invites ruleslawyering. I don't advocate
>disruptive editing of user pages, such as changing the text someone
>has written to make it untrue, and I don't think anyone else is
>either. But the current culture is such that many people think no one
>else should be allowed to touch your user page, even if you have on it
>material which is disruptive, offensive, or otherwise generally not
>acceptable to the rest of the community.

I find it hard to see why people would need more in the way of a
guideline than the relevant paragraph from [[WP:NOT]]:

"*User pages.* Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are
used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you
are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one
of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages
should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for
effective collaboration."

So let's run userboxes past that test.

* Babel boxes: yep.
* Location boxes: yep.
* Nationality boxes: probably. (I live in the UK but I can give an
Australian perspective, at least as of 2002.)
* Firefox/Opera/IE boxes: possibly (good for browser issues).
* "du-1:his user does not wish to speak or hear *dumbass*, but is
resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an
environment of massive collaboration." - probably not as a template,
which is why the one on my page is substed. But I put it there as a
restatement of what I say a lot, that on Wikipedia working effectively
with people you think are complete idiots is *not optional*.
* "This user is a critic of Scientology." I probably wouldn't use this
myself. It indicates an area of knowledge but also indicates a strong
POV in a way that may unduly alienate other editors.
* "This user is Catholic." I don't think this passes the test. It
states a POV but doesn't actually indicate a depth of knowledge.
* "This user is a Jesuit priest." This might be useful - indicates a
depth of knowledge as well as a belief - but would probably go better
in article text.
* "This user is a pedophile" - um, no.

- d.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why did Raul654 restore a nonsense edit?

body:
On 2/9/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should reconsider how we go about fast-reverting people. He
> > was a bit trigger-happy there.
>
> I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you aren't trolling. This is past
> ridiculous.

In principle, I'm with The Cunctator here.

However, a quick look at the user's contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orange_Flowerpot
...reveals three taunting edits to Raul's and Snowspinner's user
talks, followed by the legitimate reversion of vandalism, followed by
an edit with the summary "Wikipedia is Communism."

The point of this is that I can see how Raul would have made the mistake.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com