from_name: Angela

body:
A good starting point is
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_Wikipedia_hacker. There
is some documentation, in varying levels of completeness, at
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide.

As well as the wikitech-l mailing list that Mark mentioned, there is
an IRC channel at #mediawiki on freenode where you might be able to
get some advice.

Angela.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:16:36 +0200 (MEST), Ting Chen
<wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Timwi and Andre,
>
> Timwi: about the question: Unambiguity traditional -> simplified, as far as
> I know this is to be sure. This was also the way, how they introduced
> simplified characters in the 1960s. But, as you know a language is a living
> thing and as a living thing it breaks out from the rules one tried to set
> for it. So, I am not 100% sure that there would be some new development (for
> example in slams) where exceptions developped.
>
> Andre: surely we can let the character remain simplified and let the user to
> correct it. Perhaps the program can even learn while the user is doing such
> corrections. As far as I know, the ambiguity is not so often. Naturally
> there could be articles where there are more ambiguity because a character
> is very often used in that special article, but I reckon it would be in
> average less the 1 in an article.
>
> Can you give me some links where I can begin with wiki programming? (I am a
> quite skilled Java and C/C++ programmer and I can work with Linux. But I
> need some startpoint. Thanks.)
>
>
> Greetings.
> Ting.
>
> --
> +++ Jetzt WLAN-Router f?r alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++
> GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James Marshall

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

body:
Thanks again for the support to those who support me, and also to those
who don't but are dealing with this respectfully (i.e. just about all of
us by now).  I didn't know if using this list would be more productive
than my earlier experience, but I'm glad it has been.  I'll try to answer
all the points here in another group-response.  If I miss your point, it's
only because I forgot it, not because I'm avoiding it-- don't be afraid to
ask again!  So, here are some thoughts and specific responses:

Yes, I did see one (1) request in one (1) early edit summary to take it to
the discussion page.  I went to the discussion page, and I saw that that
person (Texture) had not added anything.  Given that s/he was being
insulting and a liar, I didn't think there was a point in starting what I
thought would be either a monologue or a non-rational exchange; maybe I
should have anyway, I don't know.  If nothing else, it would have removed
a gripe against me.  If anyone else had started a discussion there, I
certainly would have continued it.  I checked the discussion page several
times throughout it all, and never saw any new commentary there.

Stormie said the onus is on me as the contributor to start the discussion.
I disagree.  Should every edit be preceded by a discussion?  I would think
the onus to start the discussion would be on the person who is the first
to disagree, thereby making it apparent that discussion is needed.  (Not
that any party can't start a discussion, of course, but since you
mentioned it....)

Furthermore-- and this is true for any such collaboration, not just
Wikipedia-- a deletion is a more drastic change than an addition, and
requires more of an explanation.  To delete something without explanation
is basically censorship; a non-censor's approach would *add* another
viewpoint, or at least reword the existing phrase.  So that's another
reason why I think the onus to justify one's actions was on the others,
because they were the deleters.  Maybe this isn't Wikipedia practice, but
maybe you can see why a newcomer might think it is.

And no, Stormie, I do not see why "the way [I] went about inserting it"
met with such hostility.  I think someone who would react with hostility
to what I did should rethink why they would react that way, IMO.  I did
only reasonable things, and I treated everyone involved at least as well
as they treated me.

As I explained earlier, I firmly think that my addition reduced the
POV-ness of what was there before.

As for my violating the 3-revert rule, I saw the others as being more
guilty of that than I was, even if they were three different people.  I
was just undoing their unjustified, POV deletions, which seemed a lot more
like vandalism than what I was doing.  That's how I saw it, anyway.  If
someone HAD warned me about the 3-revert rule, I would have asked why it
was being applied to me and not the others.

Yes, I remember seeing a lot of specific policy violations.  I'll try to
make a list in a subsequent email, as requested.

I did call Texture a newbie, even though I could tell he'd been around
longer than that.  I called him a newbie because he was acting like one--
misusing the word "vandalism", being insulting, generally non-rational,
etc.  How does he expect to be taken seriously?  Also, since he dismissed
my edits for being a newbie, I wanted to point out that that approach
doesn't work in an egalitarian collaboration.  Does he have any real
experience in that, anyway?  He doesn't seem to.

I would like to think that everyone here is acting in good faith, but it's
hard to think that of someone who's being dishonest.

A couple of people seem to think I'm being a stickler for policy.  But the
policies I'm talking about are basic-- how to edit a page, how and why to
revert (and when not to), what is blocking policy, etc.-- much of it about
basic ways to get along.  From what I've seen, they're actually quite
good, and the system of policies allows the core values of Wikipedia to be
realized (egalitarianism, anyone can add to it, ways of resolving
disputes, various recourses always available, etc.)  I only got concerned
with policy when other people started doing things that seemed
unreasonable, so I sought out what was standard practice in the Wikipedia
world.  Note this:  For newbies, what's written on the policy pages may be
all they have to go on.

Since Timwi wondered, by "double standard" I mean the practice of applying
a set of rules to one set of people, and applying a different set of rules
to another.  Most commonly, the last half translates into "acting as if
the rules don't apply to oneself or one's friends."  (Maybe we need a
Wikipedia page about it.)

That's all for now.  I'll do the policy violations list next, but this has
taken a long time already and I may not get to it tonight.  Thanks for
trying to improve the system-- as you know, this is not really about me,
it's about the Wikipedia system.

Cheers,
James
............................................................................
  James Marshall      james at jmarshall.com       Berkeley, CA      @}-'-,--
                        "Teach people what you know."
............................................................................


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What's the issue?

body:
Denni wrote:

> I don't get it, Timwi.

I might try to clarify anything you "don't get", but I'm afraid you'll
have to come down to a level where we can communicate. English is not my
native language! Things like this:

> if the plaudits I've earned by exemplary performance (no humility here)
> are reflective of what the "average" writer/illustrator gets, then there's a
> pathetically abyssmal level of feedback and encouragement going on.

are incomprehensible to common folk such as myself. :-p Additionally, I
would be grateful if you would reply to the relevant message next time,
to keep it within the proper thread. Thank you.

> As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
> work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
> units - and I'm excited.

This is significantly different from what I was referring to. It is
already technically possible for us to count the number of contributions
(I even keep an approximate value on my user page updated). However, it
is clear to everyone, troll or not, that these numbers don't mean
anything. Anyone can make tens of thousands of edits; the system does
not judge how meaningful each edit is.

And *that* is where the problem comes in. By giving awards to people, we
would be *judging the value* of a contribution. And we're bound to go
horribly wrong. We're going to be biased against obscure topics that
nobody finds interesting; we're going to be biased towards people who
have been here for longer and whom we already appreciate; and we're
going to be biased against people who are not quite as socially
competent as we would like them to be.

You already mentioned that we are here for the fun of it. Yes, of course
we are. Who's denying that? The problem with these awards is that each
award makes *one* person happy, and a *load* of people unhappy. It is
simply no fun to see other people receive awards for something you
personally feel you have done better, more of, or to a greater
degree/extent. People are inevitably going to feel that way. It is well
possible that some people are different, but I think the majority would
*feel* (not think!) that way, no matter how hard you try to say to
yourself that you *should* be happy for other people when they receive a
reward and you don't. It only gets worse over time as you are
continually denied a reward. People are *much* more likely to become
demotivated and gradually (not explicitly!) leave in frustration (and
they may not even be consciously aware that they are leaving *because*
they have been denied a reward, even if that is the case!), than they
are to work *even* harder for something they feel they're already
entitled to.

> the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
> longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
> stronger they get.

I tend to agree with this. We'd just have to work on being more
welcoming. Things like what prompted James Marshall to post here about
being reverted and blocked, simply should not happen. Newbies make a few
mistakes because they are not aware of all our customs, policies,
conventions, rules, taboos, etc. The problem is that this automatically
makes them unpopular. Inventing rewards for our long-time contributors
is not going to fix that (quite to the contrary, it might even make some
awardees feel *even* more superior to "those pesky newbies").

Some of the rules we have seem unwelcoming to newbies. Unfortunately, we
can't easily find out which ones they are, because all we ever see from
a person that is driven away by such a rule, is a single edit from an
anonymous IP adress; usually even one that is waved off as "vandalism"
and reverted. We see more from the people who rebel against the rules,
and these people are not representative of those that have left. If we
were to introduce these awards, those that have left quickly are
unlikely to even take notice of the fact that we are awarding something,
so it's not going to make them stay.

Timwi


from_name: John

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more outing. No more threats. This is not a joke.

body:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have
> to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post
> personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it
> is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a
> flame war.

Just for more information, RK's request has been mentioned on
Talk:Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#User_ZW_must_be_banned_IMMEDIATELY)
and the article in question appears to be the Zionism article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zionism&action=history).

ZW has also made edits on the Anti-Zionism article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anti-Zionism&action=history)
and it's talk page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Anti-Zionism&limit=50&offset=50&action=history).


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Theora and video policy...

body:
Delirium wrote:
> I'm not so sure about mp3.  Certainly there are parties who *claim* it
> is not usable legally, but the software is in fact generally available
> for all operating systems, and to my knowledge there have been no
> lawsuits attempting to put an end to its availability (and certainly no
> successful ones).  The decoder at the very least is almost certainly
> legally okay, and widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and
> even the encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received
> legal threats.
>

BladeEnc has, as far as I can remember.

You?re most possibly right about the decoders.


from_name: Stormie

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
Denni wrote:
> Yeah, when someone bothers to leave me a note about how they liked my
> article or photo, I'm happy, but I consider myself fortunate to have
> huge amounts of experience with both writing and photography; if the
> plaudits I've earned by exemplary performance (no humility here) are
> reflective of what the "average" writer/illustrator gets, then there's a
> pathetically abyssmal level of feedback and encouragement going on.

Hey, I'm delighted if someone leaves me a note praising my stuff! I
don't think anyone's suggesting that that's not wonderful..

> As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
> work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
> units - and I'm excited. Work for SETI? Zero. Their web page (or a
> counting applet attached) counts the returned work units and
> automatically adds access to new certificates as I am eligible for them.
> We have some crackerjack coders here who could, I'm sure, easily
> implement a routine to do such a thing.

..but, frankly, if I got auto-sent a certificate saying that I'd made
1000 edits, it would mean less than nothing to me. Yeah, I was happy
when I hit 1000, I even made sure I picked an especially worthwhile edit
(a nice new article) to bring up the 1000. And then I got a note on my
talk page from Maximus Rex saying "congratulations", and THAT meant 100x
more than any automated thing would.

> I don't know how best this can be done. Do we create a WikiCommittee
> whose job it is to track users and drop comments on their user page? Do
> we ask a codejunkie to write a script to autogenerate certificate
> messages? Help me out here, allies. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
> my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
> longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
> stronger they get.

What we need, quite simply, is for people to drop notes on other users
talk pages saying "hey, that's some great work you've been doing there!"
I've been doing some of that myself, _I_ enjoy doing it, and I'm sure
that the recipients are happy too. So my advice: more of that. Less
talking on mailing lists about awards and certificates, less organising
of committees, just get out there and leave the personal message saying
"well done!"

Cheers!
David... (Stormie)


from_name: Charles Podles

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: No more outing. No more threats. This is not a
	joke.

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Evening RK
>
> May I ask you what type of personal information was
> displayed by user ZW
> and where ?
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> > User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want
> to have
> > to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to
> post
> > personal information about any Wikipedia users,
> whether it
> > is correct or incorrect, especially in the context
> of a
> > flame war.

Like Anthere, I wondered what RK's latest tizzy was
about. It took a few minutes of searching to find it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AZionism&diff=4079131&oldid=4077905

where Zw uses RK's real name, which to forestall
another tirade, I won't mention here. RK's real name
is easy enough to find for those who wish to look for
it:
there are numerous mails on the various lists
(googling mail.wikipedia.org turned up four), not to
mention several Wikipedia pages, which mention his
real name---which, might I add, he revealed of his own
free will.

Robert wrote:
> > In the recent past I already have received a death
> threat
> > from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members
> of the
> > Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what
> some
> > interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr.
> Natural
> > Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was
> Jewish,
> > lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived
> in NY.
> > The threat was clear.

True, but using your real name is hardly the same
thing as threatening to---what was it?---turn
your name and address over to various political
Islamic groups, as EoT did; neither is it similar to
MNH's bluster (he didn't use your real name, did he).

Robert wrote:
> > I am not willing to allow more such threats to be
> made.
> > Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must
> it ever
> > allow private personal information to be put
> online.

Wikipedia shouldn't allow you to make loud demands to
ban other users either, but it does. Unfortunately.

Robert wrote:
> > Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records
> so that
> > such personal information is permanently removed.
> ZW must
> > be banned immediately.

What has he done to deserve banning? Oh, right, used
the name that *you* made public. Gee.
Would you like to file a request with the arbitration
committee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration

Go for it.

Robert wrote:
<snip>

> >But
> > it is now a common pattern for those people who
> hate me to
> > try and expose me, and then threaten me.

A "common pattern", eh? Well, there's
EntmootsOfTrolls, Zw, and. . . hey, MyRedDice used
your real name on a Wikipedia page once! Ban him too!

Robert wrote:
<snip>
> > You don't want Wikipedia to
> work on
> > the level of threats, do you? I merely feel the
> same way as
> > most of you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert (RK)
> >

I agree. I don't want Wikipedia controlled by people
who make threats---this of course includes threats of
banning and threats of legal action (cf.
[[MeatBall:LegalThreat]] and [[Wikipedia:No legal
threats]]). Glad we agree.

--Charles Podles (anyone who uses this name should be
banned!!!! :)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Delirium wrote:

> The decoder at the very least is almost certainly
> legally okay, and widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and
> even the encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received
> legal threats.

As far as I'm aware, LAME is specifically paying the patent royalties.

Decoding MP3 is patent-free, that is correct. Same with GIF.


from_name: Marco Krohn

body:
On Thursday 24 June 2004 20:37, Delirium wrote:

> legally okay, and widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and
> even the encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received
> legal threats.

"have not received" is not much of a guarantee for the future; wasn't it the
same with GIF? Programs using GIF had no legal problems until Unisys decided
to enforce their LZW patent.

If we want to avoid this kind of problems ogg  is IMHO a safer choice - as far
as I know they even spend quite some money to look for possible patent
infringements.

best regards,
  Marco

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Snow

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Power of the Board and wikimedians (was Re:
	Bounties and expenses)

body:
Delirium wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
>> expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to
>> how future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and
>> Jimbo will have several more meetings during the year, but they will
>> probably conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.
>
>This is not how I understood it.  If it were a single meeting, done
>because of convenient circumstances, that would not be an enormous
>issue.  However, the email introducing this issue (the first one with
>the subject "Funding for the newly elected Board Members") said:
>
>"...I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our
>elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work.
>For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the
>Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection
>should be covered by the Foundation as well."
>
Yes, that was Danny's original proposal, but later in the discussion
Andrew (Fuzheado) made a modified proposal to only pay for Angela's trip
to Paris, and you still objected to that. I don't know how you
understood that proposal at the time, but I'm glad that now it sounds
like you don't object to it. The discussion has moved away from these
original ideas (for example, the trustees have declined to have their
internet connections paid for, and indicated that most meetings will
probably take place by IRC). We could reach consensus easier if we let
go of ideas that are no longer being actively promoted.

>This sounded more like a routine budget than an extraordinary one-time
>expense.  Several other people also do seem to explicitly favor regular
>in-person meetings, with the one in Paris being merely the first of
>many, and even an overhead/expenses budget allowed to run as high as 10%
>of our total income.  Those are different sorts of matters than a single
>one-of-a-kind trip.
>
There was also general budget discussion involved, and perhaps it's a
little difficult to sort out when generalities are mixed with specifics
in the conversation. Certainly the Paris meeting should be the first of
many in-person meetings, but primarily because we plan for the
Foundation (and therefore the board) to exist for many years - in fact,
in perpetuity. But this may well be the only in-person meeting of the
board this year.

As for the idea of budgeting 10% to overhead expenses, overhead is
frankly such a loosely defined term as to have little meaning in this
discussion. To many organizations, computer hardware would fall into the
category of overhead, and that's currently what, 90% or more of our
expenses? The real problem is identifying our anticipated expenses and
justifying them. Then it won't look like we're paying for trustee
expenses, or anything else, out of some "slush fund". Obviously the
expense of Angela's trip has been well-justified to the community,
because people have stepped up and donated to support it. To identify
and justify other expenses, we should have a discussion on the
[[Wikimedia budget]] page on Meta.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/2811de12/attachment.htm


body:
Delirium wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
>> expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to
>> how future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and
>> Jimbo will have several more meetings during the year, but they will
>> probably conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.
>
>This is not how I understood it.  If it were a single meeting, done
>because of convenient circumstances, that would not be an enormous
>issue.  However, the email introducing this issue (the first one with
>the subject "Funding for the newly elected Board Members") said:
>
>"...I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our
>elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work.
>For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the
>Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection
>should be covered by the Foundation as well."
>
Yes, that was Danny's original proposal, but later in the discussion
Andrew (Fuzheado) made a modified proposal to only pay for Angela's trip
to Paris, and you still objected to that. I don't know how you
understood that proposal at the time, but I'm glad that now it sounds
like you don't object to it. The discussion has moved away from these
original ideas (for example, the trustees have declined to have their
internet connections paid for, and indicated that most meetings will
probably take place by IRC). We could reach consensus easier if we let
go of ideas that are no longer being actively promoted.

>This sounded more like a routine budget than an extraordinary one-time
>expense.  Several other people also do seem to explicitly favor regular
>in-person meetings, with the one in Paris being merely the first of
>many, and even an overhead/expenses budget allowed to run as high as 10%
>of our total income.  Those are different sorts of matters than a single
>one-of-a-kind trip.
>
There was also general budget discussion involved, and perhaps it's a
little difficult to sort out when generalities are mixed with specifics
in the conversation. Certainly the Paris meeting should be the first of
many in-person meetings, but primarily because we plan for the
Foundation (and therefore the board) to exist for many years - in fact,
in perpetuity. But this may well be the only in-person meeting of the
board this year.

As for the idea of budgeting 10% to overhead expenses, overhead is
frankly such a loosely defined term as to have little meaning in this
discussion. To many organizations, computer hardware would fall into the
category of overhead, and that's currently what, 90% or more of our
expenses? The real problem is identifying our anticipated expenses and
justifying them. Then it won't look like we're paying for trustee
expenses, or anything else, out of some "slush fund". Obviously the
expense of Angela's trip has been well-justified to the community,
because people have stepped up and donated to support it. To identify
and justify other expenses, we should have a discussion on the
[[Wikimedia budget]] page on Meta.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/2811de12/attachment-0001.htm


list: wikimedia-l

body:
Delirium wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
>> expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to
>> how future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and
>> Jimbo will have several more meetings during the year, but they will
>> probably conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.
>
>This is not how I understood it.  If it were a single meeting, done
>because of convenient circumstances, that would not be an enormous
>issue.  However, the email introducing this issue (the first one with
>the subject "Funding for the newly elected Board Members") said:
>
>"...I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our
>elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work.
>For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the
>Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection
>should be covered by the Foundation as well."
>
Yes, that was Danny's original proposal, but later in the discussion
Andrew (Fuzheado) made a modified proposal to only pay for Angela's trip
to Paris, and you still objected to that. I don't know how you
understood that proposal at the time, but I'm glad that now it sounds
like you don't object to it. The discussion has moved away from these
original ideas (for example, the trustees have declined to have their
internet connections paid for, and indicated that most meetings will
probably take place by IRC). We could reach consensus easier if we let
go of ideas that are no longer being actively promoted.

>This sounded more like a routine budget than an extraordinary one-time
>expense.  Several other people also do seem to explicitly favor regular
>in-person meetings, with the one in Paris being merely the first of
>many, and even an overhead/expenses budget allowed to run as high as 10%
>of our total income.  Those are different sorts of matters than a single
>one-of-a-kind trip.
>
There was also general budget discussion involved, and perhaps it's a
little difficult to sort out when generalities are mixed with specifics
in the conversation. Certainly the Paris meeting should be the first of
many in-person meetings, but primarily because we plan for the
Foundation (and therefore the board) to exist for many years - in fact,
in perpetuity. But this may well be the only in-person meeting of the
board this year.

As for the idea of budgeting 10% to overhead expenses, overhead is
frankly such a loosely defined term as to have little meaning in this
discussion. To many organizations, computer hardware would fall into the
category of overhead, and that's currently what, 90% or more of our
expenses? The real problem is identifying our anticipated expenses and
justifying them. Then it won't look like we're paying for trustee
expenses, or anything else, out of some "slush fund". Obviously the
expense of Angela's trip has been well-justified to the community,
because people have stepped up and donated to support it. To identify
and justify other expenses, we should have a discussion on the
[[Wikimedia budget]] page on Meta.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/2811de12/attachment.html>


body:
Delirium wrote:

>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> This is not a precedent that the Foundation will start paying travel
>> expenses for all meetings, because it is also not a precedent as to
>> how future meetings will be held. I'm sure that Angela, Anthere, and
>> Jimbo will have several more meetings during the year, but they will
>> probably conduct these by telephone or IRC or some other means.
>
>This is not how I understood it.  If it were a single meeting, done
>because of convenient circumstances, that would not be an enormous
>issue.  However, the email introducing this issue (the first one with
>the subject "Funding for the newly elected Board Members") said:
>
>"...I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our
>elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work.
>For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the
>Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection
>should be covered by the Foundation as well."
>
Yes, that was Danny's original proposal, but later in the discussion
Andrew (Fuzheado) made a modified proposal to only pay for Angela's trip
to Paris, and you still objected to that. I don't know how you
understood that proposal at the time, but I'm glad that now it sounds
like you don't object to it. The discussion has moved away from these
original ideas (for example, the trustees have declined to have their
internet connections paid for, and indicated that most meetings will
probably take place by IRC). We could reach consensus easier if we let
go of ideas that are no longer being actively promoted.

>This sounded more like a routine budget than an extraordinary one-time
>expense.  Several other people also do seem to explicitly favor regular
>in-person meetings, with the one in Paris being merely the first of
>many, and even an overhead/expenses budget allowed to run as high as 10%
>of our total income.  Those are different sorts of matters than a single
>one-of-a-kind trip.
>
There was also general budget discussion involved, and perhaps it's a
little difficult to sort out when generalities are mixed with specifics
in the conversation. Certainly the Paris meeting should be the first of
many in-person meetings, but primarily because we plan for the
Foundation (and therefore the board) to exist for many years - in fact,
in perpetuity. But this may well be the only in-person meeting of the
board this year.

As for the idea of budgeting 10% to overhead expenses, overhead is
frankly such a loosely defined term as to have little meaning in this
discussion. To many organizations, computer hardware would fall into the
category of overhead, and that's currently what, 90% or more of our
expenses? The real problem is identifying our anticipated expenses and
justifying them. Then it won't look like we're paying for trustee
expenses, or anything else, out of some "slush fund". Obviously the
expense of Angela's trip has been well-justified to the community,
because people have stepped up and donated to support it. To identify
and justify other expenses, we should have a discussion on the
[[Wikimedia budget]] page on Meta.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/2811de12/attachment-0001.html>


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: De-capitalisation-isation

references:
<cb7je6$5jm$1@sea.gmane.org> <cbcea4$aac$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<40DA7F1B.70002@softhome.net>

body:
cookfire wrote:

> The voting page has been moved over to the English Wiktionary by
> Eclecticology.

It seems that he *copied* it over. That's a bad idea. :-P I've replaced
the page on meta with a "this has been moved" page now.

> Now we have a lot of no votes from people I don't see contributing
> all that much on Wiktionary.

Yeah. I'm stupid. I should have started the vote on Wiktionary itself.

Timwi


from_name: Joerg-Olaf Schaefers

body:
Hello Ralesk,

Thursday, June 24, 2004, 8:42:42 PM, you wrote:
...
> BladeEnc has, as far as I can remember.

BladeEnc suxxs anyways:
 http://breakpoint.untergrund.net/miscencode.php  ,)

SCNR,
 Olaf


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:

>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello dear
>all,
>
>
>>Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we
>>have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
>>So, we need some people to take care of financial
>>issues.
>>
>>Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this
>>after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to
>>this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on
>>holidays :-)
>>Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for
>>several months as far as I can remember. I did not
>>hear there were any problems. He also is interested
>>in working on the budget.
>>
>>
>What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
>should be the treasurer or he should be some sort of
>financial clerk?
>
>If the former, then I believe the treasurer should be
>a member on the Board of Trustees.  This fits in with
>the foundation bylaws as they currently stand (
>http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf ).
>Having a treasurer that was not on the board would be
>unusual.  If none of the current five board of
>trustees want to be the treasurer then I suggest that
>steps should be taken to get someone on to the board
>who does.
>
Richard is correct in the sense that the bylaws provide for one of the
Trustees to be designated as Treasurer. However, I don't believe this
means that the Treasurer cannot be assisted by people outside the Board.
So I see no reason Mav can't continue, regardless of what official title
we attach to his work. The Treasurer would then be the primary contact
on the Board for Mav and anyone else working on financial matters for
the Foundation.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/f1802f03/attachment.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:

>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello dear
>all,
>
>
>>Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we
>>have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
>>So, we need some people to take care of financial
>>issues.
>>
>>Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this
>>after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to
>>this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on
>>holidays :-)
>>Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for
>>several months as far as I can remember. I did not
>>hear there were any problems. He also is interested
>>in working on the budget.
>>
>>
>What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
>should be the treasurer or he should be some sort of
>financial clerk?
>
>If the former, then I believe the treasurer should be
>a member on the Board of Trustees.  This fits in with
>the foundation bylaws as they currently stand (
>http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf ).
>Having a treasurer that was not on the board would be
>unusual.  If none of the current five board of
>trustees want to be the treasurer then I suggest that
>steps should be taken to get someone on to the board
>who does.
>
Richard is correct in the sense that the bylaws provide for one of the
Trustees to be designated as Treasurer. However, I don't believe this
means that the Treasurer cannot be assisted by people outside the Board.
So I see no reason Mav can't continue, regardless of what official title
we attach to his work. The Treasurer would then be the primary contact
on the Board for Mav and anyone else working on financial matters for
the Foundation.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040624/f1802f03/attachment-0001.htm


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:

>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello dear
>all,
>
>
>>Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we
>>have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
>>So, we need some people to take care of financial
>>issues.
>>
>>Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this
>>after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to
>>this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on
>>holidays :-)
>>Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for
>>several months as far as I can remember. I did not
>>hear there were any problems. He also is interested
>>in working on the budget.
>>
>>
>What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
>should be the treasurer or he should be some sort of
>financial clerk?
>
>If the former, then I believe the treasurer should be
>a member on the Board of Trustees.  This fits in with
>the foundation bylaws as they currently stand (
>http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf ).
>Having a treasurer that was not on the board would be
>unusual.  If none of the current five board of
>trustees want to be the treasurer then I suggest that
>steps should be taken to get someone on to the board
>who does.
>
Richard is correct in the sense that the bylaws provide for one of the
Trustees to be designated as Treasurer. However, I don't believe this
means that the Treasurer cannot be assisted by people outside the Board.
So I see no reason Mav can't continue, regardless of what official title
we attach to his work. The Treasurer would then be the primary contact
on the Board for Mav and anyone else working on financial matters for
the Foundation.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/f1802f03/attachment.html>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:

>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello dear
>all,
>
>
>>Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we
>>have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
>>So, we need some people to take care of financial
>>issues.
>>
>>Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this
>>after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to
>>this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on
>>holidays :-)
>>Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for
>>several months as far as I can remember. I did not
>>hear there were any problems. He also is interested
>>in working on the budget.
>>
>>
>What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
>should be the treasurer or he should be some sort of
>financial clerk?
>
>If the former, then I believe the treasurer should be
>a member on the Board of Trustees.  This fits in with
>the foundation bylaws as they currently stand (
>http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf ).
>Having a treasurer that was not on the board would be
>unusual.  If none of the current five board of
>trustees want to be the treasurer then I suggest that
>steps should be taken to get someone on to the board
>who does.
>
Richard is correct in the sense that the bylaws provide for one of the
Trustees to be designated as Treasurer. However, I don't believe this
means that the Treasurer cannot be assisted by people outside the Board.
So I see no reason Mav can't continue, regardless of what official title
we attach to his work. The Treasurer would then be the primary contact
on the Board for Mav and anyone else working on financial matters for
the Foundation.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040624/f1802f03/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
Dan Drake wrote

>  (When the user in question
> is likely to be a newbie, from his not having a login name.)

Logged-in users are given much more protection, by WP policy.  This is a
Good Thing.  I don't think any sysop should have any reason for rudeness in
carrying out 'duties'.

Charles


from_name: phil hunt

body:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT), James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com> wrote:
>My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .
>
>Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
>Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
>all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
>(it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor).

I wasn't aware there was a policy on what counts as minor -- can you
point me to this policy?

>You can trace some of the dispute here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history

I've had a look at one of your edits --
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=4234337&oldid=4234278

and this one is IMO an NPOV violation and contains a misspelling.

I actually agree with your POV that Reagan didn't cause the end of
the USSR, however I think the way you worded it was bad, and, as
written, unacceptable to Wikipedia.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Forest Gregg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Query two or more categories

body:
Is there a way to query two or more categories. Something like
/Category:Philosophers:Dwarves that would return all dwarvish philosophers. I
think I saw a notice that a feature like this was implemented.

Thanks,

Forest Gregg


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What's the issue?

body:
On Thursday 24 June 2004 21:30, Timwi wrote:
> > As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
> > work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
> > units - and I'm excited.
>
> This is significantly different from what I was referring to. It is
> already technically possible for us to count the number of contributions
> (I even keep an approximate value on my user page updated). However, it
> is clear to everyone, troll or not, that these numbers don't mean
> anything. Anyone can make tens of thousands of edits; the system does
> not judge how meaningful each edit is.

This could be solved by awarding users with, for example, most articles that
made it to the main page. They are already pre-selected by humans as good
articles.

> And *that* is where the problem comes in. By giving awards to people, we
> would be *judging the value* of a contribution. And we're bound to go
> horribly wrong. We're going to be biased against obscure topics that
> nobody finds interesting; we're going to be biased towards people who
> have been here for longer and whom we already appreciate; and we're
> going to be biased against people who are not quite as socially
> competent as we would like them to be.

OTOH, I couldn't agree with this more.

> You already mentioned that we are here for the fun of it. Yes, of course
> we are. Who's denying that? The problem with these awards is that each
> award makes *one* person happy, and a *load* of people unhappy. It is

I don't think it is so. I don't see how someone receiving an award would make
me unhappy.

> simply no fun to see other people receive awards for something you
> personally feel you have done better, more of, or to a greater
> degree/extent. People are inevitably going to feel that way. It is well

OTOH, this does make sense.


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
Catherine Munro wrote:

>
> I'll admit, my editing tends to go in spurts:  I'll spend a day or two
> creating swathes of new text (creating or greatly expanding articles)
> -- then I'll spend another three to ten days doing "housecleaning" -
> typo patrols, Cleanup pages, disambiguation, lately the Orphaned
> Categories page.  Why?  Because I hope against hope that the major
> contributions I made will be at least be noticed to the extent that
> someone fixes a typo or adds an external link, and I wait, patiently
> checking my watchlist, for a few days before I'm convinced (and
> discouraged) that a new article has vanished into the ether.  It
> certainly feels like the housework gets more credit; at least, I'm
> more likely to get feedback when I clean up someone else's article.
> (I know, I know about article ownership.)   I'm not exemplary about
> complimenting people either (and it's always easier to do so via the
> edit summary than actually going to their user page), but I'll make
> more of an effort.  I just wanted to add my two cents -- I've been a
> steady editor for a year and a half, and I know exactly what others
> are saying about feeling like giving up sometimes because no one
> notices what you do unless you're a troll, or deliberately seek out
> controversial areas, or participate in every policy discussion.

I know what you mean - sometimes new articles generate interest from
other people, sometimes not. I've written a bunch of stamp stuff
partly in the expectation that there would be visitors coming because
of WP mentions in the philatelic print media, but there haven't been
many, so realistically I'm doing it for my own entertainment right now.

Also, I've found that it may be several months before anybody "notices"
new material, so I think of those as seeds planted without knowing the
germination period. Even if it takes a year, WP is still further ahead
because of the bits I added before.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

body:
James Marshall wrote

> In any case, it's true that I
> did not start a discussion on the talk page, but neither did anyone else.

Well, try it.  You'll learn more about wiki process, rather than 'policy',
by seeing what happens.  Rather than working on reasons to be annoyed, which
do come up on Wikipedia, you could assume that it works - that there is some
reason why people come here.

Charles


from_name: Finlay McWalter

body:
moink wrote:

> I would like to respectfully argue that rude behaviour is not limited
> to newer administrators.  In fact, in my opinion, some of the most
> frequently discourteous administrators are some who have been around
> for a very long time.

Hmm. That's odd.  Just as soon as I read Moink's post, this odd red
light on my palm (which curiously I'd never noticed before) started to
flash.  I wonder what that means.  Something good, probably.

:)

FIn

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Names.php

body:
Names.php currently specifies "zh-cfr" for the Minnan pedia even though
the subdomain is "minnan".  Can this be fixed so people will be spared
the need to guess when linking over to Minnan?  Thanks.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] authority

body:
> 1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
> 2) Protect the article
> 3) Block him
> Can you think of another alternative?

While I agree with Martin Harper that there *were* other alternatives, and I
even tried one myself (qualifying the statement of prosperity as the
opinions of only some, which seems to have stuck), I think this is also a
good place for some type of mini-block.  Blocking a newbie like this from
just that single article, or even from all of the article-space, but not the
talk space and user talk space would have been much better.  In this case
perhaps it wasn't necessary, but it's quite likely that a new user might not
even find the talk space without a bit of direction.

In this case we had a persistant person who managed to find the mailing list
to discuss the problem, and that's fortunate.  But it would be nice if
blocked users could participate on at least a single page so that they had
some sort of public forum to discuss their block.

Finally, I'd like to say that looking at the edits it doesn't appear that
they were made in bad faith.  Yes, they could be characterised as POV, and
yes, the situation could have been handled much better by the blocked user.
But the situation could have been handled much better by a number of other
parties too.  Remember, no users, including administrators, have the right
to tell other users what to do or not do.  Admins should look at
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]] every once in a while, where it says that "
Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody
else in terms of editorial responsibility."  The new user without an account
has just as much of a right to tell a sysop to "please not...whatever" as
the sysop has to tell him or her.

Anthony


body:
Stormie wrote:

> Serious question: what would you have done? This anon user was clearly
> displaying his intent to continually revert an article, without ever
> discussing it, and ignore all attempts to converse with him on the
> issue.

It is not clear that he knowingly ignored all attempts to converse with
him (or, for that matter, all other anons, since so many of them never
see the messages on their User talk pages). The only attempts *others*
made to converse with him was via his User talk page, and the messages I
saw there were pretty disrespectful and unwelcoming (they're all like
"Stop it, you idiot").

What nobody has tried, although I would have thought it was obvious, was
to ask him *in edit summaries* (he obviously looked at those) to discuss
things on the article's talk page.

If you actually read James' edit summaries, you will see that he became
frustrated because people were not explaining their edits in their edit
summaries (they were just like "reverting" etc.). How could he possibly
be more explicit without also being disrespectful? Clearly, we weren't
being very welcoming to him at all.

Everyone involved seems to have thought of him as a bad-faith vandal. Is
it so hard to see that he was acting in perfectly good faith?

Sigh.
Timwi


from_name: Martin Harper

body:
> This anon user was clearly displaying his intent to continually revert an article, without
> ever discussing it, and ignore all attempts to converse with him on the issue.

This anon user was clearly displaying his intent to justify his addition in edit summaries,
and in responding to the edit summary of Jiang, for example. "All attempts" apparently
didn't extend to such obvious places as [[Talk:Ronald Reagan]]. [[User
talk:24.4.202.208]] is short and mostly threats.

> As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:

> 1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
> 2) Protect the article
> 3) Block him
> Can you think of another alternative?

Several.

1) Discuss. Drop a note on the Talk page. Refer to that note in the edit summary of your
revert (ie "revert - see Talk page for rationale"), since you know he's reading edit
summaries.
2) Leave it a day, or a week, or a month. The phrase "at least for the wealthy" in an
article on Reagan is hardly disastrous, and won't bring Wikipedia into disrepute. A
pause for reflection may have unexpected benefits for both sides.
3) Compromise. Find a wording that satisfies both of you.
4) Research. Find some statistics demonstrating the economic fortunes of various
socio-economic classes under Reagan. Add a new section to the article on the subject.
5) Clarify. Replace the woolly and misleading sentence being criticised by the anon user
with something specific and factual. Eg: "GDP under Reagan increased by 13%".
6) Delete. Just delete the whole sentence, for now.

Some of these will require some actual work, I'm afraid. Better article at the end of the
day, though - and if you can satisfy both you and the anon user, you've just increased
the degree to which the article is written from a neutral point of view. Something to aim
for.

-Martin


from_name: Timwi

body:
Hi, James.

I'm glad to see you haven't given up and are still with us. I hope you
will be able to forgive the people who seemed to be working against you
at first, and I'm sure you'll find there's a lot of fun to be had at
Wikipedia!

Please remember that everyone involved is human, and hence fallible;
even someone who blocks you from editing is doing so in good faith from
his point of view. I'm sure that Texture and Oberiko will be happy to
learn from this situation, and treat the next newbie with more respect.

Now, about what you wrote I have mixed feelings...

* On the one hand, I'm pretty sure a lot of people here will think of
   you as having little credibility if you, as a newbie, keep insisting
   that we are not following our own policy.

* On the other hand, however, you are not the first one I see react in
   this way, so I'm beginning to think that at least from an outside
   point of view, there must be substance to it.

Hence, to resolve this, I would strongly suggest that you show us
exactly the "policies" you think were violated (give us links to policy
pages and quote the relevant paragraphs verbatim), and explain in detail
why you think Texture and/or Oberiko were violating it.

For example, you mentioned that addition is encouraged and deletion is
discouraged; I can't imagine there is such a general statement anywhere,
because deletion is sometimes necessary (e.g. when reworking an article
or when removing patent nonsense) and addition is sometimes pointless
(again, patent nonsense would be an example). So, where did you find
that "policy"?

I think we should all have a critical look at this, rather than just
waving it off as "oh, it's just a newbie". In general, we should all
care more about what sort of impression we and our policies make on newbies.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Blocked"?

body:
--- Koltwills at aol.com wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I'm new to Wikipedia.  I've made a few posts. Still
> don't know my way around
> the neighborhood.
>
> I'm up crunching a couple of deadlines, but I'm
> bored, so I return to a
> wikipedia listing I hated, but changed only the
> first sentence (too
> preoccupied/impatient to go any further).  I spend
> some time making the edit -- only to find
> I've been blocked.  (Annoying.  Lost everything.)
>
> What's that about?
>
> While I may have ruffled a few feathers with my
> first few posts
> ("motherfucker"/talk), I don't believe I've violated
> any rules.
>
> The message I received was:
>
> "Autoblocked because your IP address has been
> recently used by 'Hephaestos
> vs. Dallabnikufesin'. The reason given for
> Hephaestos vs. Dallabnikufesin's
> block is as follows: 'Vandalism, clearly aimed at
> user:Hephaestos'. "
>
> So, what's this "vandalism" crap?  More importantly,
> how do I get unblocked?
>
> Peace.
>
> deeceevoice

Without knowing the username or the anonymous IP
address under which you were editing at the time of
the block, it's hard for anyone to say with certainty.

My wild guess is this: [[User:Hephaestos vs.
Dallabnikufesin]] is probably the latest incarnation
of the peristent vandal [[user:Michael]], who has a
strange fixation with Hephaestos's user page. Michael
sometimes uses AOL; from your e-mail address, I guess
that you also use AOL. If Michael was editing from an
AOL IP address when he was blocked, and you happened
to get the same IP address when you logged in, you
would also be blocked.

. . . but that's just a wild guess. Perhaps you have
some more information that might help? The username or
IP address you were using at the time of the block
would be most helpful.

--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
Stormie wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>>What nobody has tried, although I would have thought it was obvious, was
>>to ask him *in edit summaries* (he obviously looked at those) to discuss
>>things on the article's talk page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=4235469&oldid=4234848
>
> 14 edits before this all devolved into blocking, Texture said, in an edit
> summary, "please discuss on talk page".

That was 18 hours before James added the bit that started it all. I
don't think James was expected to notice it or feel addressed by it.


body:
Stormie wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>>That was 18 hours before James added the bit that started it all.
>
> it wasn't "18 hours before James added the bit that started it all".

I'm sorry, I checked again and realised I'm wrong on this -- apologies.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Finances

body:
--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> In either case, Mav has been enthusiastic, knowledgable and
> responsible in the role, and something that he has given his time to.

Thanks. :)

> We would all do well to have him oversee financial matters however the
> community or the Board decide that role should be defined.

Ant already answered how but I'll add this bit: A financial officer will be
responsible for making detailed reports and presenting summaries at board
meetings while the board treasurer will be responsible for overseeing the
financial officer and for spearheading financial policy. If appointed by the
board, I will accept this position.

Also, IMO, any appointed officer should be confirmed by an up or down vote of
the membership (either within a certain amount of time from the appointment or
at the next quarterly meeting of the foundation). But work can begin as soon as
the appointment is made (just as executive appointments work in the real
world).

In a sense Jimbo has already appointed me for this role by obtaining all the
info he needed to do a background check on me and later sending me a bunch of
Wikimedia's bank statements and asking me to draft a budget. But a formal
appointment and a confirmation vote is still needed.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Finances


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: logo updates, Translators: new message
	'fileexists'

body:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 19:23 +0100, Timwi wrote:
> Gabriel Wicke wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about simplifying logo updates by simply using
> > $wgLogo = $wgUploadPath.'/b/bc/wiki.png';
> > This way all the users need to do is uploading the image to Image:Wiki.
> > png. The image should probably be protected, but that's up to the
> > sysops.
>
> Is it currently possible to protect an image? Does that actually prevent
> new uploads (as opposed to preventing edits to the description page)?

It indeed wasn't, but i just coded it.

While i was at it, i also added a warning that is triggered if the
filename already exists. Translators:
'fileexists'            => 'A file with this name exists already, please
check $1 if you are not sure if you want to change it.',
($1 = link to the existing image page)

The warnings are now listed as an ul with class warning, some red
exclamation mark icon could be added in front of the li's with css, a
nice small project for somebody willing to experiment with the user css
(and finds a nice icon ;-). Desktop icon themes like the kde crystal
might have nice ones we could use.

Cheers
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
Life is tough.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:03:41PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> >The decoder at the very least is almost certainly
> >legally okay, and widely available in players like winamp and xmms, and
> >even the encoders, like LAME, are rather common and have not received
> >legal threats.
>
> As far as I'm aware, LAME is specifically paying the patent royalties.

<quote>
Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your
software may require a patent license in some countries.
</quote>

> Decoding MP3 is patent-free, that is correct. Same with GIF.

<quote>
PC Software applications which incorporate mp3 / mp3PRO decoding
(player, decoder) and software applications incorporating mp3 /
 mp3PRO encoding capabilities (encoder, ripper, recorder, jukebox).
[...]

    mp3 patent-only license
This patent-only license is needed in case the mp3 software is
developed in-house or licensed from a third party.
Decoder                 . US$ 0.75 per unit or US$ 50 000.00 one-time paid-up
Encoder / Codec         . US$ 2.50 per unit

Note: This license does not cover the right to distribute,
broadcast and/or stream mp3 / mp3PRO encoded data. These rights are
covered by the licenses described under Electronic Music
Distribution / Broadcasting / Streaming.
</quote>

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Dunno about any problems with GIF *decoding*, but you surely cannot *create*
compressed GIFs without paying.

Peter


body:
Stormie wrote:

> Any chance we can put this behind us and move forwards?

If we do that, it's going to happen again and again with more and more
newbies.

We *must* find out why newbies react in certain ways. James is *by far*
not the only newbie who seems to think we're violating our own policies,
or applying double-standards (I'll just copy that wording without
actually knowing what it means). There *must* be a reason why everyone
thinks this, and if James is willing to help us discover this, we should
listen. Once someone becomes a Real Wikipedian?, they lose the Newbie's
Perspective?, and then it becomes easy to think that newbies are just
dumb and stupid.

Timwi


from_name: James Marshall

subject:
Policy violations (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of blocking policy
	by user "40277")

body:
Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent
unpleasantness.  Some are more important than others, and some are
stronger cases than others.  But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc
format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:

First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies
encouraging additions and discouraging deletions.  To clarify, I didn't
mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some
additions are bad.  But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various
newbie and policy pages.  I'll see if I can find the references again.

... OK, here are some:

. the advice to "Be bold in updating pages" and the page thereof seem to
    favor additions.
. "Editing Policy"
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AEditing_policy)
    emphasizes additions over deletions throughout the text.
    The section "On editing styles" discourages deletions without
    preserving what's deleted plus comments why it was deleted.  It
    says "whatever you do, try to preserve information".
. on "Wikiquette", it says "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend,
    edit, discuss."
. there is a general desire to end up with content that is the superset
    of all relevant viewpoints.

---------

Now, the violations, with the requested complete quoting and explanation:

1) On "Blocking policy"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy), it lists
specifically when sysops are permitted to block users.
  Oberiko violated this when s/he blocked me, since none of the reasons
applied.

2) On "How to revert a page to an earlier version"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHow_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Revert_wars_considered_harmful),
the section "Explain reverts" details just that policy.  It says that one
of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is "Always explain your reverts"
(though that does not show up on the actual policy and guidelines page).
  This was violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang for most of the times
they reverted my addition.

3) On "Dealing with vandalism"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADealing_with_vandalism), it
defines vandalism:  "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change
to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of
replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other
wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the
encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
  The page goes on to list examples of non-vandalism, and types of
vandalism.
  Texture repeatedly called my addition vandalism, which it clearly is not
according to this page.  Even after I called him on it, and pointed him to
this page, he didn't answer my charge, and persisted in calling my text
"vandalism".  I don't see how he could be acting in good faith here.
  Texture then used the "vandalism" charge to justify his other
policy-violating actions, such as deleting without explanation, or calling
his deletion "minor".

4) I can't remember where I originally saw this, but on "Minor edit"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMinor_edit) it says that
"Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and
even more so if it involves the deletion of some text."  (third paragraph)
  Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang all marked their deletions as "minor", which
violates the quoted policy twice.  I don't know why they did this; you
experienced users would know the benefit of it better than I do.

5) On "Policies and Guidelines"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines) under
"Key Policies":

a) "1) Avoid bias.  Articles should be written from a neutral point
of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and
sympathetically."
  Texture and Oberiko were not fair or sympathetic toward my view, and
enforced their own POV my removing my edit that had reduced the POV-ness
(as others besides me have pointed out).

b) "4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many
different countries and cultures, and have widely different views.
Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in
building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette,
Dispute resolution."
  Nothing Texture or Oberiko did was respectful to me; see my user page
and the Reagan history page for examples.

6) On "Policies and Guidelines", under "Specific guidelines to consider":

a) "Please do not bite the newcomers", and the page linked to
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers).
  Texture and Oberiko violated this in a few ways, some of which are
listed on the page linked to ("understand newcomers' value...", "try not
to make hostile comments...", "assume good faith", arguably others).

b) "Avoid blanket statements"
  The sentence I was appending to (and which Texture and Oberiko reverted
to) is a blanket statement, if we take "United States" to mean the
citizens of the United States.

7) On "Avoiding common mistakes"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAvoiding_common_mistakes):

a) "Deleting useful content. Just because something is written poorly
  doesn't mean it lacks a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph
  tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. ... [long
  paragraph]"
b) "Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see
  above). Remove the bias and keep the content."
c) "Deleting without justifying. Except in the most obvious cases,
  deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the
  edit "Summary" or on the talk page. If the justification is presented in
  the Talk page, it's sufficient to write "See talk" in the edit summary
  box."
-----
  All of these were violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang when they
deleted my addition.

8) On "Wikiquette" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiquette),
under "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette":

a) "Assume the best about people whenever possible."
  Texture and Oberiko assumed I was malicious (or so they said; I think
  they were just being partisan).
b) "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss."
  Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang reverted and deleted without discussion.
c) "Be polite."
  Examples of their impoliteness are on my talk page, in edit summaries,
  and in the reason Oberiko gave for blocking me.
d) "Don't ignore questions."
  Questions I asked in edit summaries and on Texture's talk page were
ignored by Texture, which I see s/he's done elsewhere too.

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

Phew.  Hope that helps.  I'm feeling pretty glazed now.  I'll catch up
with you all later.

Best,
James
............................................................................
  James Marshall      james at jmarshall.com       Berkeley, CA      @}-'-,--
                        "Teach people what you know."
............................................................................


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure you realize how big the world is---a day of driving or on a
> train covers a miniscule fraction of the world.  Covering even 80% of
> Wikimedians within a day's train or car distance would require on the
> order of hundreds of meetings.  In the US alone, it would require
> meetings in:
> * Some city in the northeast (Boston, NYC, etc.)
> * Seattle
> * Chicago
> * One of San Francisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego
> * Phoenix
> * One of Houston, Austin, or Dallas
> * Atlanta
> * Denver
> * Somewhere in Florida

My partner and I have driven all over the western part of the U.S. so I'm well
aware of travel times (Sacramento to Yellowstone in 17 hours, Sacramento to the
Grand Canyon in 14 - no problem at all when you have more than one driver). For
example, a single meeting in Northern California/Southern Oregon would cover
the entire western seaboard of the U.S. and much of the interior west. A few
more meetings would cover the rest of the nation. Part of the meet-up process
will be to carpool, expanding the range that any auto can cover in a day.

> Of course we would also need meetings in Canada, 2-3 countries in
> northern europe, 2-3 countries in eastern and southern europe, Korea,
> the PRC (at least a few cities), the ROC, Singapore, South Africa,
> Israel, Turkey, Russia (probably multiple cities), Egypt, Brazil,
> Argentina, Australia ... and those are just a bare-bones start.

So why the defeatist attitude? Just because the Olympics can only be in one
nation every four years does not mean that rotating where it is held is a bad
idea (same thing for EVERY international organization that rotates where its
meetings are held). The foundation will persist for a very long time, giving
ample opportunity (4 times a year every year) for all regions of the world to
be covered. As with the Olympics, we could have competitions about where to
have the next meeting; chapters would have to demonstrate that they can secure
the facilities necessary to conduct the meeting and perhaps even help with the
travel expenses of the trustees. I foresee these meetings as opportunities to
energize the membership and act as launching pads for fund drives and special
projects.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Bounties and expenses


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Categories in 1.3beta

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> If a person (or anything else) is known under multiple names, is it be
> possible to add it to categories with them and will it appear there multiple
> times? If not, should it be possible?

It is possible to add a redirect to a category, and the redirect still
works.


from_name: Koltwills at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Blocked"?

body:
Greetings.

I'm new to Wikipedia.  I've made a few posts. Still don't know my way around
the neighborhood.

I'm up crunching a couple of deadlines, but I'm bored, so I return to a
wikipedia listing I hated, but changed only the first sentence (too
preoccupied/impatient to go any further).  I spend some time making the edit -- only to find
I've been blocked.  (Annoying.  Lost everything.)

What's that about?

While I may have ruffled a few feathers with my first few posts
("motherfucker"/talk), I don't believe I've violated any rules.

The message I received was:

"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by 'Hephaestos
vs. Dallabnikufesin'. The reason given for Hephaestos vs. Dallabnikufesin's
block is as follows: 'Vandalism, clearly aimed at user:Hephaestos'. "

So, what's this "vandalism" crap?  More importantly, how do I get unblocked?

Peace.

deeceevoice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040625/14eaddbf/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What's the issue?

references:
<40DA89AC.D73BBAAC@shaw.ca> <cbfa58$vtv$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<200406242244.29072.smolensk@eunet.yu>

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> On Thursday 24 June 2004 21:30, Timwi wrote:
>
>>>As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
>>>work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
>>>units - and I'm excited.
>>
>>This is significantly different from what I was referring to. It is
>>already technically possible for us to count the number of contributions
>>(I even keep an approximate value on my user page updated). However, it
>>is clear to everyone, troll or not, that these numbers don't mean
>>anything. Anyone can make tens of thousands of edits; the system does
>>not judge how meaningful each edit is.
>
> This could be solved by awarding users with, for example, most articles that
> made it to the main page. They are already pre-selected by humans as good
> articles.

If you award *users* for what an *article* achieves, then minor
contributors to the article in question are going to feel left out.

In fact, I think the Featured Articles system is pretty clever in this
regard: it rewards the articles directly, the people only indirectly; it
judges the value of an article, but not that of a contributor. This way
every contributor to a Featured Article can be correspondingly proud
because they know their contribution helped make it Featured, and it
provides just the right incentive to do exactly what we should be
focussing on: writing good articles (as opposed to amassing awards).

Incidentally, I'm a little annoyed that an article I wrote has been
rejected from being Featured solely because it is an obscure topic. But
that's fine; I can still be proud that I've written this article, and
others can judge for themselves whether they think it's good or not. If
there had been a reward in it for me, personally, I'm sure it's clear I
would be quite a lot more annoyed for having been denied it, especially
if others got it just because their favourite topics are less obscure.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: No more outing. No more threats. This is not a joke.

body:
Robert wrote:

> I do not want to have to threaten legal action  [...]
> Wikipedia must not allow death threats

Incidentally, Wikipedia also disallows legal threats.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] clamping image upscale values

body:
Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?

One wrinkle a vandal figured out today was altering the image markup on
[[en:User:Hephaestos]] to produce a massive image.  Done prolifically, I
figure there's some potential both to DOS the server that does the
scaling, and to similarly slow visitors' browsers.

I can't see much reason to allow scaling of images to beyond a few
thousand pixels.

FIn
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


from_name: Anthere

body:
Evening RK

May I ask you what type of personal information was displayed by user ZW
and where ?

Robert wrote:
> User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have
> to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post
> personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it
> is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a
> flame war.
>
> In the recent past I already have received a death threat
> from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the
> Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what some
> interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural
> Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish,
> lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY.
> The threat was clear.
>
> I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made.
> Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever
> allow private personal information to be put online.
>
> Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that
> such personal information is permanently removed. ZW must
> be banned immediately.
>
> I take my personal safety, and the safety of my family,
> very seriously. I do not want to have to initiate legal
> action against anyone here in order to protect myself. But
> it is now a common pattern for those people who hate me to
> try and expose me, and then threaten me. If Wikipedia
> doesn't take action to stop such outing and threats, then
> Wikipedia effectively becomes to party to them, as it
> enables them to occur without disability.
>
> This shouldn't be controversial to any sane person. If any
> of you are here privately, then you do not want your
> private information outed, and you do not want to be
> threatened. You don't want people to out your name, then
> maybe your address?  You don't want Wikipedia to work on
> the level of threats, do you? I merely feel the same way as
> most of you.
>
>
>
> Robert (RK)
>
>
> =====
> "No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything.  A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack?  [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] wikilegal-l, please stop using it

body:
There are a certain number of people, who are
apparently still sending their mails to wikilegal at
the same time than foundation-l.

For reasons I do not understand, this breaks the gname
structure, and mails with wikilegal header can not be
answered directly. They are just rejected by gname.

I would be glad if people could look at their
settings. It might be that some are starting with
wikilegal, while others are just answering to a mail
sent at the same time to wikilegal and foundation-l

It would be very beneficial to *stop* sending mails to
wikilegal. It breaks thread structure. Thanks :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: clamping image upscale values

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Finlay McWalter wrote:
>
>> Is there a ceiling on the size to which an image may be upscaled?
>
>
> If you scale an image larger than its actual pixel size, the image isn't
> thumbnailed to that size; rather the larger size is simply put on the
> <img> tag's width and height attributes, so it displays larger in the
> browser.
>
> This might be annoying, but won't eat up server time.

Thanks, that greatly reduces the scope of evil :)

Still, it's possible to make images with a horizontal dimension of at
least 10 million pixels, which gives even a nice modern browser
significant problems (and rather impressively grants NS4 the capacity to
reboot my machine outright).

Later,
FIn

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's the issue?

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> Catherine Munro wrote:
>
>> I'll admit, my editing tends to go in spurts:  I'll spend a day or
>> two creating swathes of new text (creating or greatly expanding
>> articles) -- then I'll spend another three to ten days doing
>> "housecleaning" - typo patrols, Cleanup pages, disambiguation, lately
>> the Orphaned Categories page.  Why?  Because I hope against hope that
>> the major contributions I made will be at least be noticed to the
>> extent that someone fixes a typo or adds an external link, and I
>> wait, patiently checking my watchlist, for a few days before I'm
>> convinced (and discouraged) that a new article has vanished into the
>> ether.  It certainly feels like the housework gets more credit; at
>> least, I'm more likely to get feedback when I clean up someone else's
>> article.  (I know, I know about article ownership.)   I'm not
>> exemplary about complimenting people either (and it's always easier
>> to do so via the edit summary than actually going to their user
>> page), but I'll make more of an effort.  I just wanted to add my two
>> cents -- I've been a steady editor for a year and a half, and I know
>> exactly what others are saying about feeling like giving up sometimes
>> because no one notices what you do unless you're a troll, or
>> deliberately seek out controversial areas, or participate in every
>> policy discussion.
>
>
> I know what you mean - sometimes new articles generate interest from
> other people, sometimes not. I've written a bunch of stamp stuff
> partly in the expectation that there would be visitors coming because
> of WP mentions in the philatelic print media, but there haven't been
> many, so realistically I'm doing it for my own entertainment right now.
>
> Also, I've found that it may be several months before anybody "notices"
> new material, so I think of those as seeds planted without knowing the
> germination period. Even if it takes a year, WP is still further ahead
> because of the bits I added before.

I've noticed Stan's philatelic efforts, and I mostly agree with what he
has done.  In this context, that's the problem.  (Sorry Stan, but I
really do want to respond more fully about the numbering question.)
I've often seen Catherine's names in article histories, but Unlike
Stan's, I can't remember a single identifiable instance.  They must be
terribly non-controversial.  The housework does not necessarily get more
"credit", but it does get more attention.  The kind of attention that
you would get if you did good work on something related to the
Israel/Palestine conflict would not be worth it, because it would be
lost in controversy.  In a more local context, it's the murders that get
the headlines, even though our personal interest in a particular murder
is seldom more than vicarious.  Keep up the good work Catherine.

Ec


body:
James Marshall wrote:

>Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent
>unpleasantness.  Some are more important than others, and some are
>stronger cases than others.  But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc
>format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
>
>
>First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies
>encouraging additions and discouraging deletions.  To clarify, I didn't
>mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some
>additions are bad.  But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various
>newbie and policy pages.  I'll see if I can find the references again.
>
>... OK, here are some:
>
(long snip)

Please stop obsessing on this.  Notwithstanding the truth and validity
of what you say people only go so far in reading this kind of stuff.
Those who frequent the mailing lists have heard it all before, and can
become impatient when it comes to reading these long diatribes of
defence.  They are counterproductive to your cause.

You would do better to simply devote your time to editing real
articles.  Avoid hot-button items until after you have become better
known, or have some track-record in less controversial areas.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Re (finances)

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:
> --- Anthere
<anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
wrote: >
>
>>>What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
>>>should be the treasurer or he should be some sort
>>
>>of
>>
>>>financial clerk?
>>
>>No. The treasurer is a board position. But the board
>>is empowered to
>>delegate activity to identified persons or to
>>committees.
>>Mav would be financial officer, and report to the
>>Board.
>
>
> That clears it up a bit.  Your original message did
> not go into much detail as to what exactly the role
> was.  Personally I didn't see that there would be
much
> financial work to do.  So it did seem to me to be a
> bit redunant have both a treasurer and a financial
> officer.
>
> But then again I am not familiar with intimate
details
> of the foundations financial dealings. Would you be
> able to further describe this financial officer role
> and how it differs treasurer?

If Mav were on the board, I guess there would be
perhaps no financial officer for a while. But I
suppose he would have got some help from other people
anyway.

In the current situation, neither Angel or I are
expert on financial matters. I would also add that
there is a lot to do, and no way we can do everything
alone. So, it is probably best that we focus on what
we may do best and are most interested in doing, while
delegating to other people the other issues. There are
plenty of motivated participants ready to give a hand,
why would we deny them doing this if they can probably
do it better than us ?

That does not mean we are not interested, nor
completely clueless. I had some training in accounting
while a student, in agricultural business. And I
practiced a bit.

There are few things as neat as classifying a cow,
which may be bought as a young (hence an expense),
then sold for her tender meat (become a revenu), or
switch to become a tool (producing milk), or become a
tool which produce a future tool (giving birth to
future cows), or end up as bad meat. Every couple of
months, cows change categories :-)
Good grief, they can even die and disappear from the
accounts for free, or be burned because of a bad
disease (so, actually cost you money). Does not make
it easy to calculate amortization....

Anyway. The treasurer will look more at the big
picture, while the financial officer will more focus
on  giving detailed and clear report, which will allow
the board to take informed decisions. It is also the
duty of the officer to warn the treasurer when money
is running out unexpectedly.

This is an example of what the officer will provide
(is already...) :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_bank_account_history_for_2004

The officer should also keep track of all details, so
as to be ready in case of an audit. He may also help
in setting up a comprehensive budget, according to
directions given by the board (or make suggestions,
which may be supported by the board, then developped
by the officer). It is then the board role to ensure
the officer have all the necessary information.

Example : I suggested to JeLuF a few days ago to set a
  page where developer team would try to indicate the
needs in terms of hardware :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
The treasurer might ensure that this page is kept up
to date, perhaps ask someone to take the
responsability for it to be exact. This information
will be precious for the officer to set the budget.

Another example is organisation of the due system. The
treasurer might organise it, set the policy about it,
then have it approved by the community and the board.

Once the fee system policy is ready, the officer can
organise the budget using the estimation of membership
revenu.

After the due system has been implemented by a
developer team and is in working order, the officer
will be responsible of making detailed report month
after month about income from fees. Or about the way
the fees are used.
It may also take care of managing membership :-)

The treasurer might decide with the board, that some
of the detailed information should be displayed on the
wikimediafoundation website, for transparency and
information to members. He will then rely on the
treasurer to provide relevant gathered data to offer
to public scrutiny :-)

Of course, the officer might need help and counselling
to do all this, hence the financial committee is much
needed :-)

In short, the treasurer will try to look at the big
picture and make sure the officer can get all what is
needed. The officer will try to ensure that everything
is done properly and legally, and will give feedback
on the general situation. The treasurer should check
back.

Suggestions are always welcome. Budget should be a
common effort, with participation of all those
involved in *spending* the money, and all those
involved in *gathering* it.

I mostly think the relationship between the treasurer
and the officer will be a symbiotic relationship. Both
need and complete the other one.

This aside from legal considerations of
responsability, where Michael could probably give more
details.

>>>I believe it is important to get a set accounts
>>
>>drawn
>>
>>>including a balance sheet and statement of income
>>
>>and
>>
>>>expenditure.  Then have them audited by a
>>
>>chartered
>>
>>>accountant.  Because often when applying for
>>
>>grants
>>
>>>they will request an audited set of accounts.
>>
>>Might you explain what you are thinking of, when you
>>mention "a
>>chartered accountant" ?
>
>
> A chartered accountant is an accountant who is a
> member of institute of accountants for their
country.
> Seeing as Wikimedia is US based I probably should
have
> used the US equivalent term which is certified
> accountant.  The thing is anyone can call themselves
> an accountant, while to call yourself a
> chartered/certified accountant you have to have
passed
> some exams and have a certain amount of work
> experience.

Understood.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Foundation-l] Re (finances)


from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Award system

body:
> This could be solved by awarding users with, for
> example, most articles that
> made it to the main page. They are already
> pre-selected by humans as good
> articles.
>

I strongly dislike this idea, for two reasons.  First
of all, it kind of implies ownership of articles.
I've never written a featured article, but I've done
major copyedits to some of them.  This seems to imply
that my cleaning is less valuable than other work. It
implies that one author or several "own" the article,
and that I'm around as a junior partner.

That leads to my second objection.  It would be hard
to build any kind of award system that didn't reward
one type of editing over another.  For instance, I'm
not a huge fan of writing articles.  I've not started
nearly as many as some here, and the ones I have
started are, for the most part, not as detailed.  On
the other hand, I'm right up there in terms of
NPOVing, cleaning up phrasing, activity on cleanup, RC
Patrol, etc.  How can we avoid bias in awards such
that one type of activity (say, activity on
[[Wikipedia:Cleanup]]) isn't rewarded more or less
heavily than another (say, writing detailed
biographies of historical figures).

IMO, any kind of award system we adopt (if any) should
be strictly informal--if we adopt one at all.  Given
that our other major problem seems to be excluding new
users, maybe we shouldn't have this at all.  I'm not
sure this is necessary, but if it is, it should be
strictly limited.

=====
"The difference between extra-marital sex and extra marital sex is not to be sneezed at."

--George Will, on hyphen use

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Philip Newton

body:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:43:50 +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:

> Dunno about any problems with GIF *decoding*, but you surely cannot *create*
> compressed GIFs without paying.

Not quite true. You cannot create *LZW compressed* GIFs without paying a
royalty.

There was a library floating around that would create GIFs that do not
use LZW compression yet can be decoded by any standards-compliant GIF
decoder (the compression was not as good, though). But that's marginal.

Cheers,
Philip


from_name: Stormie

body:
Dan Drake wrote:
> Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a
> revert war..

The sysop in question's only participation in the edit war was to revert
our anon user's _11th_ and _12th_ insertion of the offending phrase. The
way you say that makes it sound like he war actively involved in the
POV-feuding.

> and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action
> under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
> that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?

The comment was a bit flip, but obviously a reference to the fact that
the user had ignored the two messages posted to his talk page, and
continued to revert and revert and revert, with no attempt at
conversation beyond a mischievous attack on Texture which certainly made
it seem to ME that he was no newbie.

Serious question: what would you have done? This anon user was clearly
displaying his intent to continually revert an article, without ever
discussing it, and ignore all attempts to converse with him on the
issue. He was showing signs of being a troll rather than an honest
newbie. As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:

1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
2) Protect the article
3) Block him

Can you think of another alternative? Or do you just think that #2 is
the better of the options?

Cheers!
David...


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances

body:
Richard Gallagher wrote:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello dear
> all,
>
>> Regardless of the way we decide to spent money, we
>>have some in bank. It comes in. It comes out.
>>So, we need some people to take care of financial
>>issues.
>>
>>Mav has renewed his interest in taking care of this
>>after the elections. Angela and I are favorable to
>>this. I will not speak up for Jimbo... as he is on
>>holidays :-)
>>Mav has been taking care of Wikimedia accounting for
>>several months as far as I can remember. I did not
>>hear there were any problems. He also is interested
>>in working on the budget.
>
>
> What exactly are you suggesting?  That Maveric149
> should be the treasurer or he should be some sort of
> financial clerk?

No. The treasurer is a board position. But the board is empowered to
delegate activity to identified persons or to committees.
Mav would be financial officer, and report to the Board.

> If the former, then I believe the treasurer should be
> a member on the Board of Trustees.  This fits in with
> the foundation bylaws as they currently stand (
> http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf ).
> Having a treasurer that was not on the board would be
> unusual.  If none of the current five board of
> trustees want to be the treasurer then I suggest that
> steps should be taken to get someone on to the board
> who does.

5 people can't assume everything that needs to be done. Not only
"assume" (in terms of time) but also have the expertise to do it. This
is why delegation is good. Why advice is good. Why having a wide range
of opinions from knowledgeable people is good. That goes for finances,
just as public relation activities, fundraising etc...
And that is why any wikipedian help is welcome :-)

> If the later, then I believe the the foundation is not
> big enough to warrant a clerk as well as a treasurer.
> And the treasurer should handle the bulk of financial
> dealings.
>
>
>>Other people might be interested as well to
>>participate in financial issues. In particular, the
>>perspective of a professionnal on legal issues or on
>>accounting would be most welcome. I think we should
>>thrive to have teams as much as possible, and people
>>with various perspectives, as it is more productive
>>and usually more successful. A group of 3-5 people
>>would be neat :-)
>>
>>So, if someone is interested in being part of the
>>financial committee, please speak up :-)
>>
>>Criticism and/or nomination may be public or
>>private.
>
>
> I will put my hand up for such a committee.

I personally do not know you. So, I will listen what other people will
say :-)

> I believe it is important to get a set accounts drawn
> including a balance sheet and statement of income and
> expenditure.  Then have them audited by a chartered
> accountant.  Because often when applying for grants
> they will request an audited set of accounts.
>
> Richard (aka Popsracer)

Might you explain what you are thinking of, when you mention "a
chartered accountant" ?

In all cases, I invite you to consult my user page on meta.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Anthere.
It hosts a collection of links which might be of interest to you.
In particular, do not forget to check out
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grants.

Thanks :-)


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Finances