subject: [WikiEN-l] We need your advice!

body:
On Sunday 30 May 2004 00:33, Kurt Jansson wrote:
> The English Wikipedia has much more experience in these things, good and
> bad, and we would very much like to profit from that. It would be very
> helpful if some of you could write a few paragraphs about your
> experience with trolls, how you handle them, how you enforce a user ban,
> and what your experience with the mediation and arbitration committees
> is. We could adopt mechanisms that work and avoid mistakes you might
> have already made.
>
> I think the best thing would be to put you reports on meta, but I can't
> make up a good name for the page at the moment. Of course you don't have
> to write in German, most of us have no problem reading English, but
> writing is a different matter. Thanks for your effort!

Shouldn't such a document kept secret?


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Klingon

body:
Hi,

with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?

Please allow me to remind you again that people are waiting to ACTUALLY
CONTRIBUTE to the damn thing.

Thanks,
Timwi


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Locked

body:
Fennec Foxen wrote:

> The most visible new feature is the new
> MonoBook skin, though categorizations and revamped templates are also
> of note.

Oh, categories are live now?

Then someone should probably (a) update [[Wikipedia:Category]] (that's
ancient!), and (b) create some categories for us to put articles into :)

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: We need your advice!

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:

> The English Wikipedia has much more experience in these things, good and
> bad, and we would very much like to profit from that. It would be very
> helpful if some of you could write a few paragraphs about your
> experience with trolls, how you handle them, how you enforce a user ban,
> and what your experience with the mediation and arbitration committees
> is. We could adopt mechanisms that work and avoid mistakes you might
> have already made.

Hm. This seems like something that nobody can really write from an NPOV.
Some people will tell you the arbritration committee was a fantastic
idea, others will condemn it as a horrible mistake...


subject: [WikiEN-l] English grammar (was: We need your advice!)

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

> Please, please, native english writers: a lot of people who read
> these lists are from foreign countries/languages. Keep things simple,
> and don't use strange words or constructs just to be cute.

Well, "strange words" are easy to look up in a dictionary, but I do
completely agree with you with regard to constructs. However, it is
non-trivial for a native speaker to determine what sort of grammar is
"simple" and what isn't. A sentence like "Trolls and vandals are
something to look out for on Wikipedia" seems pretty simple and standard
for English speakers, but is actually quite hard for learners to parse.

Timwi


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Klingon Wikipedia

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:

> It's just too easy to start a wiki on your own. There are a few
> Wiki farm providers who give free or paid service.

That's a very lame excuse to support a fork.

(OK, it's not really a "fork", but the Walloon Wikipedia has shown how
undesirable such a situation can become.)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

references:
<c9c2pa$vhb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<99rq828hpVB@erik_moeller>	<20040530103559.GA23713@localhost.localdomain>
	<c9crvb$mbf$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Peter Danenberg wrote:
>
>          Support (18)                          Non-support (3)
>
>>      --------------------------------------------------------
>>      Jimmy Wales                             Erik Moeller
>>      Timwi                                   Ivan Krstic
>>      Ray Saintonage
>>      Andre Engels
>>      Mathias Schindl
>>      Tim Starling
>>      Peter Danenberg
>
>        Rholton                                 Chameleon
>        Mark Richards
>        Sanders muc
>        Marnanel
>        Kukkurovaca
>        TUF-KAT
>        Eclecticology
>        Ronline
>        Philip Newton
>        Andr? M?ller
>        Waerth

Yes I voted for, but I don't need to have my vote counted twice.  17-3
is still respectable. :-)
Ray Saintonge = Eclecticology


from_name: Fennec Foxen

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need your advice!

body:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 06:05:42 -0600, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> A few thoughts. Clearly communicate with those who are "trolling" or
> edit-warring the nature of your difficulties with whatever they are doing.
> Give them a fair opportunity to change what they are doing, with edit
> warriors generally that involves them communicating better with their
> opponents and getting down to the business of looking up the facts, trying
> to find ways to satisfy both viewpoints, etc.

This is excellent advice.

My personal input on this matter: Trolling should be considered
harmful. It disrupts the wiki. However, simply calling someone a troll
is itself harmful, for there is far too much latitude in such a word,
and the trolls themselves will use it to speak of their detractors.

Instead, clearly identify the problem behaviors. Disrupting policy
pages like Votes for Deletion with absurd deletion requests?
Nominating nonsense candidates for administrator? Engaging in personal
attacks on other editors? Harassing editors or administrators by
questioning every single thing they do? Reverting random (or
nonrandom) edits without explaining or coming to a consensus on the
talk page? Doing stuff like this repeatedly?

Then, you need to have some way for the community to decide whether a
user needs to be banned/censured/etc. Establish reasonable guidelines
there to prevent sock puppets, or allow an elected group.


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Case - Sensitivity for Wiktionaries

body:
Ronny Raschkowan wrote:

> So I went here to ask you, what you would think about an case
> sensitivity for _all_ Wiktionaries.

Strong support.

It is often important to distinguish them: In German, "ungar" and
"Ungar" mean vastly different things: "uncooked" and "Hungarian",
respectively. ;-)

It is also extremely useful to distinguish words from different
languages, like English "kind" and German "Kind".

But most of all, I think it is important for people trying to learn
about a language to know whether or not a particular word requires
capitalisation. For many Germans, it is hard to understand that names of
languages (like "English") are capitalised in English even when they are
adjectives.

Timwi


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Timwi-
>
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
>>>>Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I see no such majority support.
>>>
>>>
>>Are you blind?
>>
>>
>See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as
>"supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result.
>Furthermore, it is obvious that a page about artificial languages would
>primarily attract people interested in artificial languages, of which
>there are many on Wikipedia thanks to our generous policy with regard to
>conlangs. If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports
>Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about it.
>This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the current
>impasse.
>
>
It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong.  When you use a
vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the
majority. Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited
to things that matter to everyone.  Most of us aren't really concerned
with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia.  We're content to
let them do their thing.  If we need to inform ourselves enough to make
a proper vote on everything that is proposed for a vote, we would never
get anything done.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Ray-
>
>
>>Yes I voted for, but I don't need to have my vote counted twice.  17-3
>>is still respectable. :-)
>>
>>
>I never cease to be fascinated by how much people are willing to
>perpetuate a lie if it serves their own purposes.
>
>
I never suggested that there was an ulterior motive to counting my vote
twice.  My comments on the mailing list appear with my real name, and on
meta with my pseudonym.  It's an easy mistake for the person tabulating
the "votes" from both places not to know that the two names represent
the same person.   A simple mistake is far from being a lie.

Ec=Ray


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Ray-
>
>
>>It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong.  When you use a
>>vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the
>>majority.
>>
>>
>As opposed to a tyranny of the minority?
>
Tyranny relates to the imposition of the tyrant's will on the activities
of others.  As long as the pro-Klingon minority does not require that
others participate in Klingon activities they are not being tyrannous.

>>Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited
>>to things that matter to everyone.  Most of us aren't really concerned
>>with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia.  We're content to
>>let them do their thing.
>>
>>
>
>If you (and I'm using the singular here) are content to "let them do their
>thing" then I fail to see why you would not vote in favor of a Klingon
>Wikipedia. The "never get anything done" argument is quite absurd given
>how much time we have now wasted on a discussion whose only effect appears
>to be to harden the respective positions.
>
My comments here and on Meta are my vote.

It's not just the Klingon discussion.  We can all survive one or two of
these without serious damage.  The problem comes when we are confronted
with a multitude of demands to vote across a broad range of subjects,
many of which would otherwise be totally infamiliar.

Ec


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from
	an outside GFDL source?

body:
> We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that
> license. Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has
> already stated that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of
> thing.

Exactly - our only way out of the license issues we currently have is to
persuade the FSF to change it - a new license would apply to all *existing*
articles without requireing an additional statement from the authors.
However, if I remember correctly, we had some discussion in Germany some
yeras ago that this particular point of the GNU Licenses (that the author
license it's wark under whatever license the FSF will change it's current one
into) would not be legal according to german law. I don't know if and how
this was settled and if that's still an issue; I just wanted to mention that
we possibly could run into difficulties here. But it's a very minor risk in
my opinion, so it should not stop us from these talks with the FSF.

Uli


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Klingon

body:
Timwi-

> Hi,

> with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
> Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?

I see no such majority support. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not built on
majority support, but on the consensus principle whenever possible. I'm
sure lots of people want to work on lots of things. That doesn't mean
Wikipedia is the right place to do that. In the case of Klingon, it isn't.
I may change my mind once an actual Klingon shows up. Regardless, I have
no problem with a vote on the matter and will accept the result.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Multiple categories

body:
I have made a patch which enables display of all articles that belong to
multiple categories. Thus, for example, Category:Female/Orthodox/Saint would
return all female orthodox saints (that is, all articles which are
categorised with at least [[Category:Female]], [[Category:Orthodox]] and
[[Category:Saint]]).

I am not sure would this make for much greater database load, but that remains
to be seen in practice. Line if(strchr($t,"/")) { and corresponding else
block are actually not needed but I have left them because I figure that
display of a single category is slightly faster this way, and that at that
point it would be easier to turn off this feature if needed. It should also
be easy to limit to number of categories if that turns out to be neccesary.

Index: Parser.php
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/includes/Parser.php,v
retrieving revision 1.135
diff -u -3 -p -r1.135 Parser.php
--- Parser.php  15 May 2004 00:29:07 -0000      1.135
+++ Parser.php  30 May 2004 09:11:00 -0000
@@ -318,7 +318,21 @@ class Parser

                # FIXME: add limits
                $t = wfStrencode( $this->mTitle->getDBKey() );
-               $sql = "SELECT DISTINCT cur_title,cur_namespace FROM
cur,categorylinks WHERE cl_to='$t' AND cl_from=cur_id ORDER BY cl_sortkey" ;
+               $t = preg_replace("'/+'","/",$t);
+               if(strchr($t,"/")) {
+                       $ta = explode("/",$t);
+                       $tt="cur"; $tw="";
+
+                       $i=0;
+                       foreach($ta as $v) {
+                               $tt.=",categorylinks as cl$i";
+                               $tw.="cl$i.cl_to='$v' AND
cl$i.cl_from=cl".++$i.".cl_from AND ";
+                       }
+                       $tw=preg_replace("' AND
cl[0-9]+[.]cl_from=cl[0-9]+[.]cl_from AND $'U","",$tw);
+                       $sql="SELECT DISTINCT cur_title,cur_namespace FROM $tt
WHERE $tw AND cl0.cl_from=cur_id ORDER BY cl0.cl_sortkey";
+               } else {
+                       $sql = "SELECT DISTINCT cur_title,cur_namespace FROM
cur,categorylinks WHERE cl_to='$t' AND cl_from=cur_id ORDER BY cl_sortkey" ;
+               }
                $res = wfQuery ( $sql, DB_READ ) ;
                while ( $x = wfFetchObject ( $res ) ) $data[] = $x ;


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Klingon

body:
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I see no such majority support. [...] Regardless, I have
> no problem with a vote on the matter and will accept the result.

     Let's tally it up, therefore:

       Support (7)                           Non-support (2)
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Jimmy Wales                             Erik Moeller
     Timwi                                   Ivan Krstic
     Ray Saintonage
     Andre Engels
     Mathias Schindl
     Tim Starling
     Peter Danenberg

where support has been loosely defined as "does not oppose."

     Best, Peter


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] suggestion about templates

body:
I think it is great that we have new advanced features, and the previous
mediawiki system is great in that perspective

but, it is too complicated.

the wiki system should be simple.

A newbie gets here, he looks at the page, click on edit, makes his
changes, save, and hop ! here it is. Amazing and powerful ability for
all of us.

For templates, the newbie edit the page, then wonders where the little
part he wanted to update is; then perhaps figure out that it is this
little {{blahblah}}; then wonder how he may edit it. When he find out,
he has to remember next time. and if he jumps in another language, he
has to figure out which little text to put before the blahblah. And if
he wants to edit it, he must edit the http link itself.

This is too complicated. I think, that just as in any wiki page, there
should be automatically a little "edit" link, as there is for any
section. Click on this little "template edit" and here it is, you access
the edit page.

Of course, sometimes, right now, editors add the little edit link
themselves, but that is not automatic. I think it might greatly improve
ability for all editors to manage these template thingies to have it
automatic.

Additionnaly, to prevent very very newbies to edit templates without
realising these are common to many articles, we could add a little
warning message for all templates, above the edit form. As well as a
reminder of how to add them (the {{}}).

What do you think ? We should really try to keep participate simple.


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects

body:
Daniel-
> It also happens in actual articles. [[Nick Berg]] and [[Abu Ghraib prisoner
> abuse reports]] for example. But I do see a distinction: Articles on
> Wikipedia would synthesize the whole topic while Wikinews articles would
> just cover the breaking news on that topic. However I'm skeptical that the
> average user will grep this distinction, resulting in a content fork for
> recent history.

News articles provide as much information as possible on a single event,
even a single event in a larger story such as the Abu Ghraib scandal.
There would be no Wikinews article called [[Abu Ghraib scandal]]. There
would be a Wikinews article called [[Abu Ghraib contractor faces new
inquiry - May 28, 2004]]. After its release, there would be a fixed time
limit within which we can publish updates to a Wikinews article. Once that
time has passed, any new developments would have to be covered in a new
article, just like in regular news media.

Such articles are intended for someone who is familiar with the big
picture of a situation, but wants to know the most recent development in
as much detail as possible. The half-life of an individual article would
be rather low; after a couple of weeks, it would turn into a source
document, referenced by other Wikinews articles ("Recent stories on this
topic:") and by Wikipedia.

Such developments, in Wikipedia, would often be summarized down to one
paragraph or even one sentence ("Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai was killed by
unknown assailants on May 30, 2004 [1]"), where the Wikinews article would
contain as much detail as possible, quotes from all relevant parties
(which we can freely copy from outside sources), speculation about the
future impact etc.

Furthermore, I anticipate that original reporting will begin as soon as
the Wikinews project is launched, and that is something which Wikipedia
can never do.

> Wikipedia's ability to be up-to-date is one of the most
> cited good things about us and we should be "very" careful not to jeopardize
> that.

I see no such jeopardy. Wikinews and Wikipedia are highly complementary.
Where they do similar things - synthesize information from outside sources
- they do it with a different level of detail and with a different goal.
Wikipedia will benefit greatly from Wikinews just like Wikipedia benefits
from [[current events]] - additional links to non-existent or short
articles will lead to additional detail being added. The articles
themselves are very different in nature, style and scope.

> If and when we get a
> problem with people giving first hand reports, then we can seriously think
> about starting Wikinews, IMO.

That would be a fatal mistake, based on the assumption that people will do
stupid things which are clearly not allowed and not wanted on an
encyclopedia. We should not just start projects to deal with problems on
Wikipedia, we should also start them when there is a clear, separate goal
which is within the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.

An "If and when we get a problem" mentality for starting new projects is
very, very dangerous. Please think about whether that is really the
position you want to adopt.

> I'm sure that will happen someday, but I don't
> think that will be a problem until Wikipedia.org is in the top 100 or so
> list of websites on the Internet.

That may well be the case, if you set the limit "We will start Wikinews
when people start reporting original news on Wikipedia". That would,
however, be a very silly thing to do. In fact, if that is the limit we set
for starting Wikinews, it may very well never come to pass, because any
attempts at original reporting on Wikipedia will be stopped so quickly
that no significant trend to do so can ever develop.

The question we should ask is of course not "When will people start
original reporting on Wikipedia?" but "Can we find enough people already
to do useful original reporting on Wikinews?". I believe we can. Take a
look at Indymedia, which, like Wikipedia, is an international project. It
has a far higher traffic ranking than Wikipedia - about 4000 - yet it
manages to be present at major world events.

Indymedia has an extremely leftist bent and this is reflected by its
choice of topics (protests, scandals, conspiracy theories etc.), but other
than that, it is a good example that grass-roots reporting can work. This
would be our primary competitor when working on Wikinews, not Wikipedia.
And unlike Indymedia, Wikinews would have a Top-500 website that can
infect it with volunteers to do the reporting, and a constant flow of free
images and content that can be used to do so. The summarizing of outside
sources would be primarily a service to cover the things which we do not
cover ourselves.

> We should by then have dozens of
> Wikimedians in each large city of the world and thus have a large potential
> pool of journalists on the ground.

You don't need a large pool of journalists to be useful, a small but
growing pool is already good enough. If in our first weeks our original
reporting only covers Linux conferences, kernel releases and baseball
events, that doesn't matter. That's how Wikipedia started out - we didn't
wait until we had people from all fields of knowledge.

>> You appear to be under the misconception that a license different from the
>> FDL would automatically mean license incompatibility. While this is, to
>> some extent, true in the direction ''FDL text'' => ''text in another
>> license'' (because the FDL requires that all derivative works are FDL-
>> licensed), it is not necessarily true in the direction ''text in another
>> license'' => ''FDL text''.

> Free content is not free when it cannot be freely copied back and forth
> between the source and the derivative work.

It's not that simple. When dealing with licenses, you're dealing with a
mix of freedoms which can be balanced and juggled to reach various goals.

>> This specifically addresses your concern of using Wikinews content to
>> update Wikipedia articles. Given that Wikinews is not intended to be an
>> encyclopedia, I think that background information from Wikipedia is best
>> provided using links, which is not a problem.

> This would be different from a great many news articles I read - the good
> ones always include background information.

That's because in a New York Times article, you have no other choice - you
can't just say "Oh, and if you want to know more about who that cleric is,
check out Wikipedia" because people can't easily get to Wikipedia from the
printed newspaper. Wikinews would include background information, but it
would be typically a summary of Wikipedia - "Nizamuddin Shamzai was a pro-
Taliban cleric who had called for a holy war against the United States;
see the Wikipedia article for details." Thus it would be somewhere between
"no background information" and "the level of background information of a
good printed newspaper article."

Interestingly enough, online news outlets increasingly include links to
Wikipedia.

> That is why I am proposing the creation of a GNU Free Content License that
> invariant-free GNU FDL text can be migrated to. Then the only change in the
> GNU FDL 2.0 that would need to be made is a clause stating that:

> "Any document licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 2.0
> or any later version that does not contain Invariant Sections, Front-Cover
> Texts, or Back-Cover Texts, can be licensed under the GNU Free Content
> License version 1.0 or any later version."

That's all nice and good, but it doesn't address the main problem - all
existing documents which meet these conditions would be affected. How many
of these documents are there? I have no idea. Do you? Unfortunately, there
is no central registry of FDL texts. I believe that the FSF will only
agree to such a change if we can demonstrate that no harm to existing
materials will result.

>> Indeed, and the main question of copyleft vs. public domain / attribution-
>> only licenses is "What is more important to me - enlarging the body of
>> content available under a free license, or making sure that as many people
>> as possbile will be exposed to the content in question?"  The possibility
>> that we may want to answer this question differently for some Wikimedia
>> projects than for others should not be discounted out of hand.

> The point is to expose as many people as possible to the content, yes. But
> that can only be done by having it under a free content license. If we
> release into the public domain, then work on the content gets forked and
> improvements made to the forks can not be back-ported to the original.

That is a prediction which is not necessarily true. Even if it is true,
you appear to assume that the work in question would have been done at all
under a copyleft license. That is doubtful, particularly for Wikinews. The
typical usage example for a Wikinews article would be a daily newspaper
which wants to have an alternative to the Reuters feed. These people would
likely be turned away by the FDL (although not necessarily by the FCL, if
we can make it work), hence no actual contributions would be lost.
However, the level of exposure to the content would be lower -- depending
on which newspaper we are talking about, by orders of magnitude.

Even if we start with the FDL or FCL, we may want to have a clause in our
submission standards that states that content may also be licensed under
any other free content license (as in free distribution and free
modification) chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation in the future - a kind of
"opt-out" clause for the copyleft principle if it can be shown to hurt us
more than it helps us.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> For example, Brion suggested moving conlangs to their own wiki
> separate from Wikipedia. Using an existing wiki like Unilang would be
> another option.

I still hold these options to be the best courses of action. That said,
Erik: let's back down. It appears to me both of us oppose the Klingon
wiki for the same reasons, but I don't think concensus is easily
possible without alienating too many people; utilitarianism dictates
stepping down at this point, I think.

Cheers,
Ivan.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Klingon

body:
Peter-
> where support has been loosely defined as "does not oppose."

Interesting definition. Why do you not define opposition as "does not
support"? Can we count all abstentions in the Board of Trustees election
as votes for me?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki content no longer visible on new template!

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> This has not been fixed. Netscape 7 works but Internet Explorer 5.1 doesn't
> from Macintosh 9 OS (and classic OS).

a) Did you reload the stylesheets?
b) I can't test 5.1, as it's not available for Mac OS X and the Classic
versions claims to be "incompatible" with OS X. I can only test 5.2 and
5.0 (for Classic), which *both work* now.

I need *your* help if you want it fixed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040530/6a399d87/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] contributions to HU wiki

body:
apogr wrote:
> I wonder why Grin, who seems to be in charge of
> editing/revising/censoring wikipedia in Hungarian, has been given the
> privilege and the courage to disqualify any entries that
> a) are not direct translations of a similar entry in the En Wiki
> b) he is not familiar with, as he does not seem to be knowledgeable in
> everything, save GNU technology and practising paranoia.

Everyone has such "privilege", as it's a wiki. Please talk to him yourself.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040530/3b547b0e/attachment.pgp


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [MediaWiki-CVS] phase3/includes Skin.php, 1.183,
	1.184

body:
Jens Frank wrote:
>   	function makeMediaLinkObj( $nt, $alt = "" )
>   	{
> ! 		if ( ! defined( $nt ) )
> ! 		{
> ! 			### HOTFIX. Instead of breaking, return empry string.
> ! 			$s = $alt;
> ! 		} else {

The code that calls makeMediaLinkObj with a NULL should be tracked down
and corrected...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040530/2f856eef/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jay Bowks

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

references:
<c9c2pa$vhb$1@sea.gmane.org> <99rq828hpVB@erik_moeller>
	<c9cs0d$mbf$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
From: "Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> >>with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
> >>Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
> > I see no such majority support.
> Are you ...?

Could we just have a simple show
of support by voting... advertise the
vote, in the different email lists and
in meta then give folks sometime to
think and cast their vote and thus settle
the issue?

This would be more valuable to our
community building than to simply
argue one way or the other. Since
Klingon has an ISO abbrev. And
Google uses it as a choice in its
interface why not, I say, but let's
just have a vote and settle this issue.

Sincerely,
Jay B.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Man, I wish *I* had nothing better to do than argue passionately about
why other people shouldn't be allowed to do something. Unfortunately,
some of us have wikis to run and bugs to fix.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040530/ec88dc73/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>It might be a better idea to follow Brion's suggestion and move the
>conlang wikis to a separate project altogether. That's because a Klingon
>wiki would likely not be just about encyclopedic subjects, but also a
>dictionary, a general history of the language and fictional culture, etc.
>The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" rule is not very applicable to
>conlangs. While I'm not too fond of using Wikimedia resources for people's
>pet projects, there seems to be a significant conlang community within
>Wikipedia and we could honor that fact through a separate wikiproject.
>
>
How will the Esperantists feel about being treated this way?

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Klingon

body:
> Interesting definition. Why do you not define opposition
> as "does not support"?

     Lol; that's making the case, Erik.

     I  happen to be partial to legacy:  it belongs to Unix;
and Klingon is to the twentieth century what Rosencrantz and
Gildenstern are to Denmark:  a worthy postscript.

     Best, Peter


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Wikitech-l] suggestion about templates

body:
Anthere schrieb:

> What do you think ? We should really try to keep participate simple.

Another possibility would be to put links to all the template edit boxes
above the edit box of the article with a short explanation.

Kurt

--
  http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Teile B?cher, Videos und CDs mit anderen!
  http://wikipedia.de    -- Arbeite mit bei der freien Enzyklop?die!
  Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://jansson.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] We need your advice!

body:
Nikola Smolenski schrieb:

> Shouldn't such a document kept secret?

I guess you're thinking about the tactics when dealing with trolls. Yes,
maybe some of them only work if the troll doesn't know about them.
Please feel free to send texts about this to me and I'll share them only
with our trusted users.

Kurt

--
  http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Teile B?cher, Videos und CDs mit anderen!
  http://wikipedia.de    -- Arbeite mit bei der freien Enzyklop?die!
  Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://jansson.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: We need your advice!

body:
Timwi schrieb:

> Hm. This seems like something that nobody can really write from an NPOV.
> Some people will tell you the arbritration committee was a fantastic
> idea, others will condemn it as a horrible mistake...

I know that. Please have a bit of confidence in me, I'll try to make my
own picture out of the puzzle pieces.

Another possibility would be to work on one text and try to make it
NPOV, but that would be more work and some opinions about the topic
might get lost.

Kurt

--
  http://leihnetzwerk.de -- Teile B?cher, Videos und CDs mit anderen!
  http://wikipedia.de    -- Arbeite mit bei der freien Enzyklop?die!
  Kurt Jansson, Wiener Str. 7, 10999 Berlin, http://jansson.de


from_name: Camille Constans

subject: [Wikitech-l] DMA

body:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:49:33 -0700
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> On Monday, I'm planning to go into the colocation facility sometime
> around noon my time (New York City time, Eastern time zone) to try to
> upgrade to the 'ricky special' kernel to get DMA working on the
> remainder of the older 1U machines.
>
> To do this, I have to reboot the machines in turn, changing a bios
> setting, and then booting into the proper kernel.
>
> As I understand it, on the apaches when I do this, it will be more or
> less seamless for website users.
>
> But for other machines (zwinger, for example) it's more complex.  What
> should I do?  Can someone help me?

For zwinger, we could move the nfs stuff to will, as we have to do. So there wont have a downtime
For squids, must to switch ip to another squid, time to reload the squid server
For Suda, let it. As we dont need dma with scsi. And when ariel will replace Suda, we'll be able to reinstall it with a faster scsi array.

Shaihulud


from_name: Ricky Beam

subject: [Wikitech-l] DMA

body:
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>On Monday, I'm planning to go into the colocation facility sometime
>around noon my time (New York City time, Eastern time zone) to try to
>upgrade to the 'ricky special' kernel to get DMA working on the
>remainder of the older 1U machines.
...

I'll plan on being awake by then :-)

Only the machines using SATA need to be touched.  The SCSI based machine
should not be touched -- that kernel doesn't have any support for anything
beyond ICH5 SATA (ata_piix) built (in or as a module)  If you want a
kernel for those machines, tell we what SCSI support you need and I'll
push a new kernel to ftp.  (Note: I cannot build x86_64 kernels. Yet.)

I don't have access to any of the machines to actually change anything, but
I can walk you through most things via IRC if no one else is around.

--Ricky


from_name: Jean-Christophe Chazalette

body:
Exact. I'm confused too so that I haven't translated it In French yet.
villy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board vote translations needed

> --- Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > The interface text for the upcoming Wikimedia Board of Trustees election
> > needs to be translated into as many languages as possible. Instructions
can
> > be found at:
>
> I'm really confused. You gave a list of 22 edit links with one page of
text
> below that. Which one of those 22 edit links does the translated text go??
Does
> the same text get posted in each of the 22 MediaWiki pages?
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Board vote translations needed


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [Wikitech-l] I'l Vote for a Klingon Wikipedia IF . . .

body:
...from the onset one of the two options is accepted:

*Wikiquette as practiced on the other language sites is practiced the same
way there; or
*All behavior on klingon.wikipedia.org is unique to it, & any rules or
agreements concernign what is permitted does not apply anywhere else.

My reason for this is simple: the image we have of the Klingons is that
they are an aggressive, warrior species. I can't recall any description
of how their scholars/researchers/academics behave; for all I know, the
Klingon term for "tenured college professor" can be best translated as
"he with the sharpest batleth". (And take a look at the Klingon programmer's
rules both as a possible source for inspiration, & for a good laugh.)

The point isn't how I think Klingons behave, it's that we may find some
new editors come to the Klingon Wikipedia thinking that since flamewars,
inflexibility, & Denial of Service attacks is how "real" academic Klingons
would do, then they should act the same way. And carry this obnoxious
behavior into the rest of Wikipedia.

I don't care what the decision about Klingon Wikiquette is; it might be a
good thing if all of the editors go about their contributions with the goal
of leaving a trail of the bodies of their opponents as they go about their
work, because that way the Arbitration Committees of the other Wikipedias
could use the option of banishing problem Wikipedians to the Klingon
Wikipedia as a solution for some disputes. But in either case, I don't want
any disruptions to seep from it into our other communities.

</mode=grumpy>
Geoff


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] A question to all board candidates...

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
> In Madagascar, 10 dollars is feeding a full family for
> several months.

And even in Russia many workers make about $100 a month. I'm well aware of that
and of course we would make provisions for nations where the cost of living is
so much less. But due to the very low Internet usage Madagascar, I sadly don't
forsee us having a chapter there any time soon. But we will when we are as big
as National Geographic is now.

> Set the amount of the annual fee at 10 dollars
> whatever the nationality of the member will ensure
> that the participation to Wikimedia information
> spreading *all over the world* is an activity limited
> to "rich members" living in developped countries
> members.

I was thinking more along the lines of setting it at a small amount - the cost
of a lunch for two. I mistakingly put a dollar figure on that to illustrate my
point.

> That goes for local chapter as well as Foundation.

Again, what the local chapter needs in terms of a dues is up to the chapter.
But it is very important that each member actually help further the goals of
the chapter and the foundation. A don't want the chapters to be social clubs -
thus the requirement to contribute at least in some way.

> Our participation from third world countries is
> currently terribly low. Many of those people are among
> those who lack terribly of information. You and I, do
> not need *more* information really, we need perhaps
> better information, we need less biaised information,
> but not *more*. Actually, we have often too much
> information.

That is why I support putting Wikimedia content on donated computers, CDs and
paper. I also support the creation of a Wikimedia University, so that people
from all over the world will have access to very low cost education.

> And as for myself, I consider that the most important
> role Wikipedia in particular, could have, is to bring
> information to those who do not have access to it. In
> our countries, the information will very likely be
> distributed through the internet mostly. That is the
> best way to keep it updated. And that will be cheap.

The Internet infrastructure in those nations needs to be built first. Sadly,
I'm not sure if that is in our short to mid-term mandate, but we could
eventually help it along.

> In less developped countries, the issue is not even
> daily updated information, it is just information in
> itself. And it is more relevant to think that part of
> the distribution will be paper or cd.
> Which means we need people to BE in the country of
> distribution probably. We need physical persons over
> there. These people will have to be members of the
> Foundation so as to participate a minimum to
> discussion and votes on these distribution projects.

Interesting point. We could have volunteer time (when directed at Wikimedia
Foundation-related activities) count toward dues. Yes, I think that is a very
good idea.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: contributions to HU wiki

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:
>> Timwi wrote:
>>> If, as I understand it, Grin is a sysop on HU, then "ordinary users"
>>> are pretty much helpless against him.
>>
>> It is correct what you say.
>
> Right.
>
> Brion, your answer didn't help much in that case. ;-)

There was no mention of abuse of sysop privileges. Any user *can* blank
and suppress others' work (which may well be crap, junk, pseudoscience,
biased tripe, etc). Without specific information, there's nothing to be
done or said.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040530/357b9334/attachment.pgp


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

references:
<c9c2pa$vhb$1@sea.gmane.org> <99rq828hpVB@erik_moeller>
	<20040530103559.GA23713@localhost.localdomain>

body:
Peter Danenberg wrote:

          Support (18)                          Non-support (3)
>      --------------------------------------------------------
>      Jimmy Wales                             Erik Moeller
>      Timwi                                   Ivan Krstic
>      Ray Saintonage
>      Andre Engels
>      Mathias Schindl
>      Tim Starling
>      Peter Danenberg
        Rholton                                 Chameleon
        Mark Richards
        Sanders muc
        Marnanel
        Kukkurovaca
        TUF-KAT
        Eclecticology
        Ronline
        Philip Newton
        Andr? M?ller
        Waerth

(from http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_languages)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
>>Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
>
> I see no such majority support.

Are you blind?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Whitespace problems; please fix parser

body:
Currently we get a lot of big gaps between paragraphs as well as at the
beginning and end of articles. The parser generates things like this:

whenever there is a Category or inter-wiki link on a line of its own.

Please could someone modify the parser so that, after taking out the
category and inter-wiki links, it removes (ignores) all whitespace at
the beginning and end of the article, and reduces sequences of paragraph
breaks to a single one?

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: suggestion about templates

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:

> Anthere schrieb:
>
>> What do you think ? We should really try to keep participate simple.
>
> Another possibility would be to put links to all the template edit boxes
> above the edit box of the article with a short explanation.

I tried to program that once, but it's not that simple. Currently the
edit box just simply displays the source text and that's it. In order to
sift out the {{template}} tags, you have to actually parse the page
again. Yes, I know you could just use a regexp, but then you get
problems with the famous {{blahblah_{{CURRENTDAY}}_{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
thingie.

I think it would be simpler to make it so that things in the Template
namespace can contain something like {{editlink}} to make an edit link.

Alternatively, when transcluding a {{msg}} thingie, the parser could
automatically check whether it begins with either a table or a
. If
the former is the case, it can calculate the number of table cells per
row and insert a row at the top containing something like:

[edit]

If the latter is the case, it can just insert a

[edit]

after the first div.

Of course, this is a bit hacky. I prefer the option where authors can
place the edit link themselves; it gives better control over how things
will appear, and will allow us to cater for aesthetic desires.

Timwi


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Erik Moeller (Eloquence) wrote in part

>Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:

>>??? wrote:

>>>There is even the
>>>question if we really want to force Wikinews users to copyleft their
>>>content, or if the public domain or an attribution license wouldn't be
>>>more practical in this instance.

>>Then that project would not be free content.

>By the definition of the Free Software Foundation, that is correct.
>However, that definition is not the only one. In fact, most people have an
>entirely different understanding of "free content."

Actually, mav is not correct even by the FSF's definitions.

The FSF doesn't even use the term "content" in the first place
(see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content>),
but they do use the phrase "free documentation".
They don't define that phrase specifically, but say "The criterion
for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free software [code]."
(see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>),
and for code they say "The simplest way to make a program free
is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted."
(see <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>).
So the public domain is free, even according to the FSF.

What mav ''intends'' to say, I believe, is that Wikinews should be COPYLEFT.
There are certainly arguments to be made for that position.
But public domain and CC-by documents ARE FREE documents.
As such, even the FSF would be willing to use them in GNU documentation.
PD and CC-by just are not copyleft.  (CC-by-sa is copyleft,
while CC-by-nd, CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa and CC-by-nc-nd
are not even free, at least not by the FSF's standards.)

What is the difference between free and copyleft?
Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely:
freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed
(see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
or <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.

For example, the Brothers Grimm published a story "Schneewittchen",
and their work ended up (through the passage of time) in the public domain.
As such, it was free: freely usable, copyable, modifiable, and distributatble.
In 1938, Walt Disney took advantage of the latter two freedoms
to create a derivative work "Snow White", which is still copyright today.
The Disney movie is not free, even though it's based on the free Grimm story.
This was possible because the Grimm story, while free, was not copyleft.

Now, anybody with a soul hates the Walt Disney Company (I joke somewhat),
so this gives an indication of the argument in favour of copyleft.
But there's also the argument that this doesn't apply to Wikinews.
(There are also arguments against copyleft in general,
the Disney problem notwithstanding.)

We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over.
AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles.
(There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles,
such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.)
The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.

>>Public domain and non-share-alike attribution licenses encourage mutually
>>incompatible content forks where improvements that create derivative
>>works cannot be re-incorporated back into the original - meaning there
>>is no positive feeback loop.

>Indeed, and the main question of copyleft vs. public domain / attribution-
>only licenses is "What is more important to me - enlarging the body of
>content available under a free license, or making sure that as many people
>as possbile will be exposed to the content in question?"  The possibility
>that we may want to answer this question differently for some Wikimedia
>projects than for others should not be discounted out of hand.

Does anybody disagree with Erik's final sentence here?
This discussion was sparked (at least in today's incarnation)
by a Foundation rule referring to licences "like" the GNU FDL.
We should continue to discuss and refine our ideas about
what copyleft protection Wikimedia should use for our free documents;
but as far as ''that'' rule is concerned, I believe that all we need to do
is to clarify that by "like" the GNU FDL, we mean ?free?.

-- Toby


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: bans and vandalism (was Wik)

body:
> A) A ban of one month lasts ...
> B) a ban of ...
> C) Evading a ban is itself ...

To make it as clear as I can, since a couple of people have asked, A, B, and C are
different *possibilities* - different schools of thought - on what might be an appropriate
response. So yes, they are contradictory - which is why we have to choose A *or* B *or*
C. Cf [[wikipedia talk:banning policy]].

So no, we're not going to apply A, B, and C all at once. Just B, as far as I can tell,
unless anyone cares sufficiently to propose a change. Ok?

hth
-Martin


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs

body:
[I apologise if you receive this twice.
 The mail bounced back to me reporting delivery failure,
 and the post doesn't show up on the archives.]

Erik Moeller (Eloquence) wrote in large part:

>If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set
>up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless
>of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my
>position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of
>features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to
>make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the
>greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content
>development.

I was saying earlier that it'd be nice to have the thing around,
even before it really gets the software features that it needs.
But I agree that it would be rather anticlimactic to advertise it,
just to have people discover that it really isn't that neat (yet).
Erik, your stories of disaster awaiting us make more sense now.

So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare???

Let's be very clear that founding the blank wiki now is a trial run,
with problems that we expected all along and have plans to fix.
This is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's own founding,
so I believe that folks will understand.

-- Toby


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

in_reply_to:
<99rqZj8CpVB@erik_moeller> (Erik Moeller's message of "30 May
	2004 20:44:00 +0200")

body:
>>>>> "EM" == Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

    EM> And all that for what? So that some Star Trek fans
    EM> can have a wiki of their own? If that is the goal, I see no
    EM> reason why we should offer our resources for that purpose.  A
    EM> wiki is cheap.

I believe Memory Alpha uses MediaWiki and is a real good site:

  http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Main_Page

~ESP

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


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Anthere-
> I would blush in shame to ask them 10 dollars to have
> the opportunity to help when 10 dollars is the average
> monthly revenue of a person in that country.

I absolutely agree with you, and that is why I have strong reservations
about any dues system and have made "no special privileges" part of my
election platform. This especially refers to special privileges over
Wikimedia content or project organization.

Part of the reason I am candidating for Contributing Member Advocate is to
prevent us from screwing things up too badly in that department. What I
could support is an official list of "Wikimedia Sponsors" that is
prominently linked, analogous to the page history for content
contributors. Maybe contributing members could also set tasks in a bounty
system, but only because they'd be the ones footing the bills.

Regards,

Erik


body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> ...
> Such developments, in Wikipedia, would often be summarized down to one
> paragraph or even one sentence ("Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai was killed by
> unknown assailants on May 30, 2004 [1]"), where the Wikinews article would
> contain as much detail as possible, quotes from all relevant parties
> (which we can freely copy from outside sources), speculation about the
> future impact etc.

Wouldn't Wikipedia want an article on Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai so that we could
give a detailed summary about him? We have already done that with [[Nick Berg]]
and the article about conspiracy theories over his death. I would not like to
see that effort be directed to another project.

But I concede that many of our other articles which cover current history are
overloaded with what I consider to be needless detail on current events (often
quickly exceeding 30KB, such as the John Kerry article and the article on his
campaign). So, I do see a point in starting Wikinews to lesson the effect of
people giving too detailed of summaries. But we do need a balance and we do
need to be careful when contemplating starting something like Wikinews.

>....
> I see no such jeopardy. Wikinews and Wikipedia are highly complementary.
> Where they do similar things - synthesize information from outside sources
> - they do it with a different level of detail and with a different goal.

Wikipedia's goal is more expansive than a news reporting service; we must
present all relevant sides to an issue. I'm just not convinced yet that our
recent history update capability has reached the critical mass needed to start
Wikinews yet. So while original reporting would probably start on a Wikinews
project soon after it is started, I fear that that would draw too many people
away who are now working on keeping Wikipedia up-to-date. So while I agree with
much of what you say, I disagree that this would not harm Wikipedia at this
point.

> ....
> > If and when we get a
> > problem with people giving first hand reports, then we can seriously think
> > about starting Wikinews, IMO.
>
> That would be a fatal mistake, based on the assumption that people will do
> stupid things which are clearly not allowed and not wanted on an
> encyclopedia.

When the pressure on Wikipedia to start including dictionary entries reached a
certain point we started Wiktionary, when people started to create textbooks in
Wikipedia we started Wikibooks, when quote lists started to get out of hand we
started Wikiquote (although a quote book on Wikibooks may have been a better
idea). Each project thus far has been an organic outgrowth of our flagship
project - Wikipedia. I do believe that Wikinews should follow the same path,
but will leave open the possibility that a future project will be unrelated to
an existing one - its adoption will not need to be looked at with as much
scrutiny.

Even Wikipeople (a geneology database and memorial) will affect an existing
project - the Sep11wiki. But in that example the Sep11wiki will be transformed
into another project that hopefully will be viable on its own.

> We should not just start projects to deal with problems on
> Wikipedia, we should also start them when there is a clear, separate goal
> which is within the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Not problems, but a loss of focus. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover just
about every imaginable subject, but do so in a certain way. When aspects of
that coverage get in the way of our mission, then we should think about
spinning off a daughter project to cover the topic in a different way. That is
how our current projects started.

> An "If and when we get a problem" mentality for starting new projects is
> very, very dangerous. Please think about whether that is really the
> position you want to adopt.

I most certainly do not want to harm Wikipedia or its sister projects in any
way. If I think that starting a new project is premature, that it would harm a
still developing aspect within Wikipedia or another existing project that we
want (such as updates to recent history articles in Wikipedia), then I will
oppose it until such time as that aspect seems to have matured enough to be a
project on its own without harming the parts we want to keep within the
existing projects.

Doing so at the right time will ensure that the aspects of that project we want
to have in existing projects will remain viable. Doing so too early, or
creating a project with a very limited scope (such as the Sep11wiki), will
either result in the failure of that project, or the harming of that aspect of
Wikipedia. So yes, I do see any new project through the prism of what it will
do for Wikipedia and other existing projects. I see this as being prudent, not
as being "very, very dangerous."

> ...
> That may well be the case, if you set the limit "We will start Wikinews
> when people start reporting original news on Wikipedia". That would,
> however, be a very silly thing to do. In fact, if that is the limit we set
> for starting Wikinews, it may very well never come to pass, because any
> attempts at original reporting on Wikipedia will be stopped so quickly
> that no significant trend to do so can ever develop.

And those people who are being stopped from doing original reporting will
clamor for either letting them do so in Wikipedia or to start Wikinews. They
will form the core group of people needed to start such a project. That is
organic growth.

> The question we should ask is of course not "When will people start
> original reporting on Wikipedia?" but "Can we find enough people already
> to do useful original reporting on Wikinews?". I believe we can. Take a
> look at Indymedia, which, like Wikipedia, is an international project. It
> has a far higher traffic ranking than Wikipedia - about 4000 - yet it
> manages to be present at major world events.

Then advertise the idea for Wikinews to see if there are enough people to start
such a project. We could then have a Wikimedia-wide vote on whether now would
be a good time to start such a project, or if we should wait a while so as not
to run the chance of harming Wikipedia's ability to stay up-to-date.

>...
> You don't need a large pool of journalists to be useful, a small but
> growing pool is already good enough. If in our first weeks our original
> reporting only covers Linux conferences, kernel releases and baseball
> events, that doesn't matter. That's how Wikipedia started out - we didn't
> wait until we had people from all fields of knowledge.

Starting small is fine, starting too early is not. We need to determine if now
is a good time to start such a project.

> > Free content is not free when it cannot be freely copied back and forth
> > between the source and the derivative work.
>
> It's not that simple. When dealing with licenses, you're dealing with a
> mix of freedoms which can be balanced and juggled to reach various goals.

My goal is to help put a representation all human knowledge under terms that
ensure its freedom. That goal is not served when we use licenses that allow for
non-free derivative works.

> That's because in a New York Times article, you have no other choice - you
> can't just say "Oh, and if you want to know more about who that cleric is,
> check out Wikipedia" because people can't easily get to Wikipedia from the
> printed newspaper. Wikinews would include background information, but it
> would be typically a summary of Wikipedia - "Nizamuddin Shamzai was a pro-
> Taliban cleric who had called for a holy war against the United States;
> see the Wikipedia article for details." Thus it would be somewhere between
> "no background information" and "the level of background information of a
> good printed newspaper article."

I guess Wikinews could get by with just summarizing the background and
providing a link to the Wikipedia article. Thank you for making the distinction
clear.

> > "Any document licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 2.0
> > or any later version that does not contain Invariant Sections, Front-Cover
> > Texts, or Back-Cover Texts, can be licensed under the GNU Free Content
> > License version 1.0 or any later version."
>
> That's all nice and good, but it doesn't address the main problem - all
> existing documents which meet these conditions would be affected. How many
> of these documents are there? I have no idea. Do you? Unfortunately, there
> is no central registry of FDL texts. I believe that the FSF will only
> agree to such a change if we can demonstrate that no harm to existing
> materials will result.

We are, by far, the largest user of the GNU FDL so I for one am willing to work
with the FSF on this and will not just assume they will say no. There is also
always a public comment period as part of any FSF license change.

>...
> Even if we start with the FDL or FCL, we may want to have a clause in our
> submission standards that states that content may also be licensed under
> any other free content license (as in free distribution and free
> modification) chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation in the future - a kind of
> "opt-out" clause for the copyleft principle if it can be shown to hurt us
> more than it helps us.

If legal, I would support that but would use the FSF's definition of free
content.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
Timwi wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> There was no mention of abuse of sysop privileges. Any user *can*
>> blank and suppress others' work (which may well be crap, junk,
>> pseudoscience, biased tripe, etc). Without specific information,
>> there's nothing to be done or said.
>
> I see.
>
> Apogr & Ralesk, I suggest you supply "specific information".
>
> (Although I think I might mention that I disagree with Brion; although
> Apogr was a little vague in his original posting, he did give "specific
> information" in the sense that what he described clearly constitutes
> sysop privilege abuse.)

Well, let's look at what he said:

> I wonder why Grin, who seems to be in charge of
 > editing/revising/censoring wikipedia in Hungarian,

It starts with an ad hominem attack ("censoring").

 > has been given the privilege and the courage to disqualify any entries
 > that

It's not clear what "disqualify" means. All Wikipedians have wide
privileges to edit, refactor, remove, and rebuild, and should have the
courage to do so ("be bold in editing!")

> a) are not direct translations of a similar entry in the En Wiki

No examples are given with which we could attempt to verify the claim.

> b) he is not familiar with, as he does not seem to be knowledgeable in
 > everything, save GNU technology and practising paranoia.

No examples are given, and again an ad hominem attack.

> It has happened twice already, and both me and a friend of mine find
 > it insulting and revolting to doubt our competence that way,

It has happened "twice", but neither instance is described with
specificity, and the other wronged party remains unnamed. All we know is
that they feel insulted.

 > especially so, because both entries were offered in the trial sections
 > (usertalk) for comment and were instead labelled as text of dubious
 > origin.

This makes it appear that articles were never actually put up, but
merely proposed in discussion. "Text of dubious origin" is not
clarified, but copyright/plagiarism suspicions are one reason one might
raise such an objection in a discussion.

> Could you tell the s.o.b. that despite his memorable contributions in
> general, he is no GOD almighty disguised as peter gervai?

Closes with an ad hominem attack, without ever specifying the alleged
wrongdoing.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040530/df73c6a7/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare???

>Whether I agree, depends on what you mean by 'without fanfare'. If
>'without fanfare' means that people are not really informed that it
>is made at all, then no. If 'without fanfare' means that people are
>warned that it's just a first try, that changes should and will
>be made in the coming months, and that an important part of the
>announcement is a repeated call for people to help Erik get his
>features in, then I give you a resounding yes.

I meant the latter.  I never said "without fanfare",
only "without GREAT fanfare". ^_^

-- Toby


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs


from_name: Lightning

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

references:
<99rqZj8CpVB@erik_moeller> <40BA342B.1070302@tonal.clara.co.uk>
	<c9dfai$u03$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
I can not say I'm a big fan of a Klingon wiki. the more I think about
it the more of a waste it seems, nobody is going to be looking to learn
about topics while reading in Klingon, I think it mostly will be used
by people learning the language or just for leisure. While I dont like
that I have to be fair and say that besides the language origin I see
no difference between Klingon and Lojban, Logban  Interlingua and
Esperanto.. i mean really.. lets be honest... this argument is largely
biased because some people see Klingon as a very geeky thing and dont
want to "look stupid or look geeky"  i think this is really dumb and
you know its no good to have Klingon cause it's geeky, but its OK to
have Interlingua and Esperanto because they are percieved as more
intellectual? get over it people...   i'm not oposing the creation of
the Klingon wiki, but I think i'd be happier if it wasn't around

Lightning

On May 30, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Timwi wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>> Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia,
>> unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very
>> substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made
>> for its creation.
>> At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
>
> And what makes you think that it doesn't?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> The FSF doesn't even use the term "content" in the first place
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content>),
> but they do use the phrase "free documentation".
> They don't define that phrase specifically, but say "The criterion
> for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free software [code]."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>),
> and for code they say "The simplest way to make a program free
> is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted."
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>).
> So the public domain is free, even according to the FSF.
>
> What mav ''intends'' to say, I believe, is that Wikinews should be COPYLEFT.

Yes copyleft is what I was talking about. And for me it is a central part of
what free content is. That's one of the reasons why I want to help create a GNU
Free Content License. The FDL doesn't mention *content* as you rightly state -
that is something that needs to be fixed.

> There are certainly arguments to be made for that position.
> But public domain and CC-by documents ARE FREE documents.
> As such, even the FSF would be willing to use them in GNU documentation.
> PD and CC-by just are not copyleft.  (CC-by-sa is copyleft,
> while CC-by-nd, CC-by-nc, CC-by-nc-sa and CC-by-nc-nd
> are not even free, at least not by the FSF's standards.)

If a license does not allow for positive feedback between the source and the
derivative work, then I will not support using that license.

> What is the difference between free and copyleft?
> Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely:
> freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed
> (see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
> or <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
> A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.

When I say 'free' I mean free as in cost and free as in freedom.

>...
> We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over.
> AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles.
> (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles,
> such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.)
> The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.

I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
On May 30, 2004, at 4:35 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Man, I wish *I* had nothing better to do than argue passionately about
> why other people shouldn't be allowed to do something. Unfortunately,
> some of us have wikis to run and bugs to fix.

and it seems like pretty soon you are going to have one more wiki to
run ;-)

Lightning


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Timwi-
> Erik Moeller wrote:

>>> with the discussion clearly showing majority support for the Klingon
>>> Wikipedia, please can we finally re-enable it now?
>>
>> I see no such majority support.

> Are you blind?

See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as
"supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result.
Furthermore, it is obvious that a page about artificial languages would
primarily attract people interested in artificial languages, of which
there are many on Wikipedia thanks to our generous policy with regard to
conlangs. If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports
Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about it.
This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the current
impasse.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> See my response to Peter - if your standards of listing people as
> "supporters" are the same as his, then I'm not surprised by the result.

Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO
NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of
the three objectors?

WTF?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

references:
<99rqZj8CpVB@erik_moeller> <40BA342B.1070302@tonal.clara.co.uk>
	<c9dfai$u03$2@sea.gmane.org> <40BA4D64.2090506@tonal.clara.co.uk>

body:
On May 30, 2004, at 5:08 PM, Neil Harris wrote:

> Timwi wrote:
>
>> Neil Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia,
>>> unless it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very
>>> substantial community, or some other compelling argument can be made
>>> for its creation.
>>>
>>> At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.
>>
>>
>> And what makes you think that it doesn't?
>
> Perhaps I am uninformed, but I'm not aware of a substantial number of
> people who use Klingon for the purpose of practical communication. If
> I'm wrong, perhaps you can enlighten me.

*cough*interlingua*cough*


body:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:

>The FDL doesn't mention *content* as you rightly state -
>that is something that needs to be fixed.

I don't think that this matters very much;
they have a philosophical objection to that term,
but I just spoke of "free documents" instead.

>I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).

This is a very bad idea.

The Free Software Foundation has been around for a long time,
they're the ones that principally promote the use of the word "free",
and they're the ones that people look to to define that word.
We should use it, if at all, in their well established sense.

In this sense, "free" does NOT include ?no cost? or ?copyleft?.
The words for that are "no cost" (or "gratis") and "copyleft".

I'm speaking here of how we should use the term "free"
in claiming that we use "free" licences like the GNU FDL.
I do believe that we should /also/ offer our articles gratis,
and I'm willing to accept that our licences may /also/ be copyleft
(like the GNU FDL in fact is).

That said, what should the Foundation policy that worried Anth?re say?
Now it says "free" and "like the GNU FDL", which Anth?re found confusing.
So we need to clarify what we mean by these phrases.
Do we only mean ?free? (in the sense of the FSF),
or do we in fact mean ?free and copyleft?, as a policy?
(Both of these qualify as "like" the GNU FDL.)
If you're arguing for the latter, then Erik's objection
in the case of Wikinews applies.  If you're arguing for the former,
then the policy text can be edited to clarify things right now.

(?gratis? doesn't enter into the matter with the licences.
But we might want to make no cost a policy all the same,
if we want to say that Wikimedia will never charge for, say,
a distribution on compact discs or cheap newsprint.
Other people will still be able to charge, under the GNU FDL,
or indeed any licence that the FSF would consider free.)

-- Toby


body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_vote_interface_text

Please could all the translators who have finished translating this,
specify so on that page? I've added a little "Languages completed:" line
where you can add your language code.

Thanks,
Timwi


body:
Andre Engels wrote in part:

>Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:

>>I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).

>Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.

>"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is
>more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention
>my name and give others the same rights and obligations".

The Free Software Foundation would argue that the final condition
is not a significant restriction on the downstream user's freedoms.
Thus they would say that CC-by and GNU FDL ''are'' free, period.
And certainly the latter condition makes it more certain
that future derived works will in fact be free at all.

I think that it's healthier to take a less absolute stance.
There is (or was, I don't know the latest developments)
a big debate in the Debian project about whether the GNU FDL
is free when it's combined with Invariant Sections.
(For example, the FSF's own GNU emacs manual has an IS.
Certainly the FSF believes that this is free,
but many people in the Debian community disagree.)
What they ''should'' be able to agree on, to get started,
is that the GNU FDL is ''less'' free when used with an IS;
then they can start discussing whether it's free ''enough''.
But since most debaters take an absolutist position
on the criteria for freedom, they can't even get started.

So an unlicensed copyright is less free than GNU FDL with an IS,
and GNU FDL with an IS is less free than GNU FDL without an IS,
and GNU FDL without an IS is (arguably [*]) less free than CC-by-sa,
and CC-by-sa is less free than CC-by, and CC-by is less free than PD.
But on the other hand, there are ''reasons'' for each of the restrictions,
including reasons that restrictions that may increase freedom overall.
So the question for any project (GNU, Debian, Wikimedia, etc)
is not "free or not free" but "how free is free enough"?
GNU and Debian are answering this differently, and that's OK.
Within Wikimedia, Wikipedia and Wikinews may answer this differently too!

[*] This has to do with the "overbroad DRM clause" in the GNU FDL.
It is a subtle point that only the extreme anti-FDL people care about;
but even so, people should be able to agree that it makes a difference
to ''relative'' freedom.

-- Toby


subject: [Foundation-l] EasyTimeline and WikiHiero enabled on all wikis

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> EasyTimeline by Erik Zachte is an extension for creating graphical
> timelines with clickable links. WikiHiero by Guillaume 'Aoineko' Blanchard
> is for rendering hieroglyphs. Both are now enabled on all Wikimedia wikis.
>
> As per our earlier extension syntax vote, EasyTimeline uses the <timeline>
> syntax, WikiHiero uses the <hiero> syntax.
>
> You can read more about them here:
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyTimeline
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiHiero
>
> To my knowledge, MediaWiki is the only wiki software which supports such
> functionality. It should make our wikis interesting even in the highest
> academic circles.
>
> Although EasyTimeline can generate SVG output, only PNG output is
> currently supported. In the future, we hope to offer SVG as a user
> preference.

Hey that is really neat! Could this be used to create a small, clickable
imagemap for use in maps? I would love to have something like that for the
image locater maps used in the element articles. See
http//:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen for an example. It wold also be great to
eventually marry that with a map generation feature to create clickable maps.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [MediaWiki-CVS] phase3/languages LanguageFr.php,
	1.59, 1.60

body:
Guillaume wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/languages
> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv16255
>
> Modified Files:
> 	LanguageFr.php
> Log Message:
> add $GLOBALS['wgUseWikiHiero']) = true; to active WikiHiero on fr:
>
> Index: LanguageFr.php
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/languages/LanguageFr.php,v
> retrieving revision 1.59
> retrieving revision 1.60
> diff -C2 -d -r1.59 -r1.60
> *** LanguageFr.php	29 May 2004 18:01:48 -0000	1.59
> --- LanguageFr.php	30 May 2004 15:33:22 -0000	1.60
> ***************
> *** 8,11 ****
> --- 8,12 ----
>   require_once( "LanguageUtf8.php" );
>
> + $GLOBALS['wgUseWikiHiero']) = true;
>
>   /* private */ $wgNamespaceNamesFr = array(

Hello,

I don't think extensions should be enabled by defaut in the MediaWiki
software. The wikihero seems useful for only a handful of wikis, not for
all !

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> In any case, your aggressive pushing hurts your cause much more than it
> helps it - it makes those who oppose the project less likely to accept a
> compromise solution.

As far as I can see, you were the one who first brought up an aggressive
attitude that led to the wiki being shut down.

I think I have every right to be pretty damn angry at that.

Timwi


from_name: apogr

subject: [Wikipedia-l] contributions to HU wiki

body:
I wonder why Grin, who seems to be in charge of editing/revising/censoring wikipedia in Hungarian, has been given the privilege and the courage to disqualify any entries that
a) are not direct translations of a similar entry in the En Wiki
b) he is not familiar with, as he does not seem to be knowledgeable in everything, save GNU technology and practising paranoia.

It has happened twice already, and both me and a friend of mine find it insulting and revolting to doubt our competence that way, especially so, because both entries were offered in the trial sections (usertalk) for comment and were instead labelled as text of dubious origin.
Could you tell the s.o.b. that despite his memorable contributions in general, he is no GOD almighty disguised as peter gervai?
ferenc kovacs
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any,
is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and /or privileged material. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please  contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish
to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender
immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040530/b5d21328/attachment.htm


body:
--- Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
> > I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
>
> Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.

It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based. It is
also the meaning we have been operating on since day one. We in fact make our
content more free by not allowing invariant sections.

> "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is
> more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention
> my name and give others the same rights and obligations".

The second ensures the freedom of the content from proprietary control. Thus it
creates a disincentive to fork the content, or at least creates the ability the
backport improvements to the original (or any derivative work, for that
matter).

If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed and
controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free'
(gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Timwi-
> Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO
> NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of
> the three objectors?

The number of people who do not care is irrelevant - they do not care,
hence they do not count. The only other number that matters is that of
those who want a Klingon Wikipedia. Even if these two numbers are within
different orders of magnitude (which I doubt), our goal should be
consensus. For example, Brion suggested moving conlangs to their own wiki
separate from Wikipedia. Using an existing wiki like Unilang would be
another option.

In any case, your aggressive pushing hurts your cause much more than it
helps it - it makes those who oppose the project less likely to accept a
compromise solution.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Laurent GUERBY

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 17:10, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you want to know if the majority of Wikipedia users supports
> Klingon or not, you will have to hold a well-publicized vote about
> it. This, or a compromise, is the only acceptable way out of the
> current impasse.

It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_new_language_wikipedia

<<
A certain amount of "critical mass" is necessary in order for a wiki to
"take off". Without 5-10 people eagerly writing and arguing and playing
with each other, it wouldn't be as much fun. So we encourage anyone who
wants to build a wiki in their own language to also go out and
announce/recruit for it. :-)
>>

So to me the documented procedure says that you only have to find
half a dozen people willing to populate the language wikipedia, and not
to get "the majority of Wikipedia users" support.

Or may be you want to create a "wikipedia language censorship
committee"? I don't believe it fits with:

<<
We are aware that many of the world's 6,500 languages are not
well-represented on computers or the web, and we are committed to
working with language speakers and computing organizations to support as
many languages as possible
>>

The language link cites artificial languages which lists and discuss
Klingon.

Please do not stop other people willingness to contribute to wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Laurent

PS: I'm by no mean an active contributor, and do not speak or know
Klingon (I discovered the Knligon community on wikipedia :).


from_name: Arnaud G

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Timwi-
>
>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that if 3 people oppose and 100 people DO
>>NOT CARE, then there should not be a Klingon Wikipedia just because of
>>the three objectors?
>>
>>
>
>
>
I would like to point that the current discussion is done in english and
that only people that speak english can participate. I m fully
supporting the position of Erik requesting a vote on meta that would
take care of the whole wikipedia community position.

fr:greatpatton

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040530/3cbce6a1/attachment.html>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Laurent-

> It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_
> new_language_wikipedia

These guidelines were written in 2001, when many widely spoken natural
languages did not have wikis yet. To apply them to a case like Klingon and
the many other obscure conlangs that people want to push is absurd. On the
matter of which languages should or should not be allowed, there is
presently no community consensus. See the previous thread "Languages:
crossing a border" on wikipedia-l which should lay to rest any claims that
I am the only one concerned about opening the floodgates to allow any
conlang that has "some number of interested speakers":

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-April/014978.html

To be sure, many people agree with your position. That doesn't mean that
is the only one. Various guidelines for inclusion have been proposed, none
have been adopted yet. We can treat languages on a case by case basis or
we can vote on a set of binding guidelines. Both approaches are workable.
Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Timwi-

> As far as I can see, you were the one who first brought up an aggressive
> attitude that led to the wiki being shut down.

Hardly. The wiki was started under false pretenses. There had been prior
objections, and there was no dictatorial decree nor a vote which justified
its creation. I will accept a fair vote and I'm open to compromises.
What I will not accept is opinions being trampled on, even if they are
minority opinions (which has not been empirically demonstrated).

If you are correct and so many people support Klingon, why don't you set
up a vote? The result should be obvious soon. I regret to say that so far
the advocacy for a Klingon Wikipedia has been on the level of Klingon
diplomacy.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Ray-
> Yes I voted for, but I don't need to have my vote counted twice.  17-3
> is still respectable. :-)

I never cease to be fascinated by how much people are willing to
perpetuate a lie if it serves their own purposes.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Ray-
> It's the idea of voting on such a thing that is wrong.  When you use a
> vote to restrict the way that others function, that is a tyranny of the
> majority.

As opposed to a tyranny of the minority?

> Elaborate votes with complicated processes should be limited
> to things that matter to everyone.  Most of us aren't really concerned
> with what the Klingons do in their proposed 'pedia.  We're content to
> let them do their thing.

If you (and I'm using the singular here) are content to "let them do their
thing" then I fail to see why you would not vote in favor of a Klingon
Wikipedia. The "never get anything done" argument is quite absurd given
how much time we have now wasted on a discussion whose only effect appears
to be to harden the respective positions.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.

Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're
the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down
one wikipedia language.

> These guidelines were written in 2001, when many widely spoken
> natural   languages did not have wikis yet. To apply them to a case
> like Klingon and the many other obscure conlangs that people want to
> push is absurd.

Unless there's consensus to change this rule, it still applies:
looks like a fundamental and sound principle to me. You broke it,
and lots of people are unhappy with good reasons for such
an impolite act.

People with technical power should not do what you've done, this is
potentially very damaging for wikipedia reputation. I sincerely
hope you'll revert your change and apologize.

Not to mention that in the dicussion you pointed to (thanks BTW) someone
said that this old rule has been successfully applied to newer wiki like
wikitravel, so I do not see why you're attacking this position with
words like "absurd".

Sincerely,

Laurent


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Laurent-
> On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.

> Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're
> the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down
> one wikipedia language.

Not at all. Tim Starling disabled the wiki on my request because it was
not created in consensus. However, should the wiki be reinstated without
due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.

Now, you can do it the right way, by establishing consensus or at least a
proven majority in support, or you can continue complaining about the fact
that this attempt to subvert due process failed. What do you prefer?

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Ray-
> I never suggested that there was an ulterior motive to counting my vote
> twice.  My comments on the mailing list appear with my real name, and on
> meta with my pseudonym.  It's an easy mistake for the person tabulating
> the "votes" from both places not to know that the two names represent
> the same person.   A simple mistake is far from being a lie.

That was not my point. The list you quote counts people who have said that
they do not care either way as supporters. This makes it worthless. If you
were not aware of this, I apologize.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
The interface text for the upcoming Wikimedia Board of Trustees election
needs to be translated into as many languages as possible. Instructions can
be found at:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_vote_interface_text

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Just for the record, I am against creating any conlang wikipedia, unless
it can be shown that the conlang is currently used by a very substantial
community, or some other compelling argument can be made for its creation.

At the moment, Klingon does not appear to me to pass these tests.

-- Neil


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 20:07, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Laurent-
> > On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >> Attacking anyone who disagrees with you is not.
>
> > Unless I've missed some part of the discussion you're
> > the one who "attacked" on the issue by shutting down
> > one wikipedia language.
>
> Not at all. Tim Starling disabled the wiki on my request because it was
> not created in consensus. However, should the wiki be reinstated without
> due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.
>
> Now, you can do it the right way, by establishing consensus or at least a
> proven majority in support, or you can continue complaining about the fact
> that this attempt to subvert due process failed. What do you prefer?

You have very peculiar views on democracy and discussion, you just
deleted all my arguments on this point without answering them and it
looks like you do the same for all responses that don't fit your views,
I hope you won't harm too much the wikipedia project respectability.

Anyway, you can count my vote for not changing the currently documented
rule of 5-10 active contributors to create a new wikipedia language.

Laurent

PS: I would even support immediate creation of all languages listed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639 with a template page (in a few
major languages) calling for help in filling them.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> However, should the wiki be reinstated without
> due process, I will if necessary take it down myself.

I am seriously appalled at this. Jimmy, I cordially beg you to take
action at this. This kind of destructive anarchistic attitude must not
prevail among people with powerful access privileges.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Ray-
> Tyranny relates to the imposition of the tyrant's will on the activities
> of others.  As long as the pro-Klingon minority does not require that
> others participate in Klingon activities they are not being tyrannous.

Wikimedia is not a set of isolated projects. Once the Klingon Wikipedia
exists, people will add interlanguage links to it on *all* 50+ Wikipedias.
Articles like [[Holocaust]] or [[Abu Ghraib]] will have links to Klingon
translations, with the associated risk of causing offense to unsuspecting
readers. Klingon will be part of our press releases. It will show up in
the language directory on our Main Pages. There will inevitably be Klingon
editions of Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiquote, and any other
Wikimedia project. This is a significant use of our resources and has a
significant potential to negatively affect our reputation.

Furthermore, if we allow Klingon to be created in this way - without
consensus, clear rules or a vote - Elvish, "Modern Egyptian" and other
nonsense languages will follow, all with the exact same associated
effects. Everyone working on Wikimedia is affected once we open the
floodgates. The isolation which you suggest does not exist.

The risk to our reputation is increased by the fact that many people
*know* what the Klingon language is. With something like Toki Pona,
although I oppose it, that risk is diminished. And all that for what? So
that some Star Trek fans can have a wiki of their own? If that is the
goal, I see no reason why we should offer our resources for that purpose.
A wiki is cheap.

I *am* an avid Star Trek fan. I have two seasons of TNG on DVD. I watch
Enterprise even though it is painful to see 9/11 transformed into a space
opera. I co-founded one of the largest German Star Trek role playing games
(sfg.org). I provide hosting services to the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki.
Although I must admit that I am biased against Klingons because they're a
race of brutal morons who would never be able to build a spaceship in the
real world, I assure you that I would be equally opposed to a Vulcan or
Elvish Wikipedia.

I do, however, recognize that there's a difference between the goal of
creating a *useful*, multilingual encyclopedia and the goal of personal
entertainment. I find it regrettable that many people seem to be unable to
make that distinction. This notwithstanding, I have offered compromise
solutions and a vote. It seems quite clear to me who in this debate is
acting tyrannically.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>It looks like this is an impasse only for you Erik. From
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_coordination#Starting_a_
>>new_language_wikipedia
>
> These guidelines were written in 2001

Irrelevant. They have not been abolished, therefore they are in effect.

> when many widely spoken natural languages did not have wikis yet.

Completely irrelevant. What does the existance of natural-language wikis
have to do with anything?

> To apply them to a case like Klingon and
> the many other obscure conlangs that people want to push is absurd.

Rubbish. It is perfectly fair and correct. Other than your artificial
distinction, there is no intrinsic difference between a natural language
and a constructed language other than being natural and constructed,
respectively. You seem to be assuming that constructed languages have
some sort of lesser status or little validity. Stop thinking that. It's
ridiculous.

> On the matter of which languages should or should not be allowed,
> there is presently no community consensus.

There DOES NOT NEED to be any consensus on "allowing" or "disallowing"
anything! Who do these people think they are trying to "disallow" the
existence of a Wikipedia that is NEVER GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THEM?
They don't need to link to it, they don't need to contribute to it, they
don't even need to LOOK at it. They can IGNORE IT! I am seriously
confused how anyone here thinks they have a right to FORBID a valid,
well-meant, respectable and constructive contribution from being made!

> See the previous thread "Languages:
> crossing a border" on wikipedia-l which should lay to rest any claims that
> I am the only one concerned about opening the floodgates to allow any
> conlang that has "some number of interested speakers":
>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-April/014978.html

Even if, SO WHAT?! What's so hard about deleting Wikipedias again when
interest has dried out for a year or so? Why do you think you need to
stop Wikipedias from being created when PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED
IN CONTRIBUTING ?!?!?!

> Various guidelines for inclusion have been proposed, none
> have been adopted yet.

There are. Laurent has quoted several. You just dismissed them on
completely frivolous grounds.

Timwi