subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Where is the policy consensus which says school articles are not to be deleted?  You can't point to it, because it does not exist.  Therefore, each of these non-notable school stubs needs to be listed individually on VfD.  If you can get a consensus which says that school articles are to stay, then all of these schools will no longer be listed on VfD.  But until there is such an article, so long as people continue to make articles about non-notable schools and don't indicate anything in the article which indicates that they ARE notable, they will continue to be listed.

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
1. Noone is questioning your right to revert (or maybe
even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
2. There are specific people consistently deleting
articles that have real content. For example, schools.
They have consitently failed to gain concensus to
delete all school articles, and so are listing every
school individually, counting on the fact that noone
can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact that
each one is often a stub at this stage makes it easier
still to delete them, and allows them to make the case
that there is precident for deleting more schools.

The point is that this is contentious, because not
only is real information about real things (not 'Peter
is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only admins
can even see what is was that was lost.
Mark R.

--- Delirium wrote:

> I've only been skimming this thread, but I think
> people proposing
> policies upon policies are missing what actually
> makes wikipedia work:
> people just do things that need to be done. When I
> see a crap article
> that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't
> list it on a page and
> request permission to delete it. I don't think most
> other people do
> either (or even read this list or the millions of
> policy pages).
>
> It's true people should exercise discretion, but if
> an article that has
> about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's not
> like Wikipedia has
> lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no
> prohibition against
> creating a new article in its place (and while
> you're at it, if you made
> it better it wouldn't even be a question). If there
> are specific people
> consistently deleting questionable things, you could
> leave a message on
> their talk page asking them about it.
>
> Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD
> articles seem to have
> a similar misconception that we're deleting all
> possible articles at
> that location, while we're only deleting the one
> that's actually there.
> If there's an incoherent article with no useful
> information at a
> location of a famous person or entity, it's still
> appropriate to delete
> it. Someone can later create an actual article at
> that location, which
> then wouldn't be deleted.
>
> But the main point is that Wikipedia works by people
> doing what they
> think is reasonable, and talking to people who are
> doing things they
> disagree with, not by a bunch of policy mumbo-jumob.
> I've taken to not
> even reading policy pages anymore, because there are
> literally thousands
> of them, and most of them are incredibly long and
> intricate. I don't
> know what the hell deletion policy is anymore: there
> must be at least 10
> pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace
> it with a new set of
> policies.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting vs. improving

body:
the only such things that get deleted are deleted after having gone through the due process of VfD.

I am sick and tired of people like you who bitch and complain about how "VfD is broken" and then don't become involved in the process, or just whine about it because they can't impose their will on the community.  VfD is NOT broken.  If you can't get enough people to vote the way you want things to be done, then it is clear that you are in the minority, and your position cannot prevail.

RickK

Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
So is deleting things simply because you think they
are 'not notbale'.
Mark

--- Rick wrote:

> Which is ABSOLUTELY against policy.
>
> RickK
>
> "Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
> To sum up: I think VfD is a waste of time, and I
> prefer not to
> participate in these votes. If an article is VfD'ed,
> and I think the
> topic is important enough, I'll just revise it and
> remove the 'notice'
> (with a comment in the edit summary or on the talk
> page explaining my
> improvements).
>
> Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"
> Stubborn Pioneer of Excellence in Writing
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
This has been discussed a thousand times. I'm sorry to say this, but in
essence, you've been proven wrong. Wikipedia's been in existence for two
or three years already. It hasn't collapsed. On the contrary, our policy
of assuming good faith and constant optimism that good editors outnumber
the bad has led to a great degree of success. For example, I got a
scoutmaster to edit [[Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia]]. He was reluctant
at first, but gladly corrected several factual errors after I informed
him that anons are permitted to edit. There are dozens, nay, hundreds,
nay, thousands more such stories like these out there, if you bother to ask.

I used to patrol recent changes regularly. A good deal of anons edit
there. Sure, some are bad, blanking or vandalising pages. But several
are good, some contributing a great deal of specialist information on
Eastern European and West Asian geography and history (this was based on
my observations from the diffs of several edits made by anons while on
RC patrol some months back).

I guarantee you, if we forced people to register before being allowed to
edit, we wouldn't be half as succesful as we are today. This debate has
gone on many times before. The resolution is always the same: Forcing
anons to register before editing is not a tenable idea.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

NSK wrote:

>Wikinfo does not allow anons, I think, neither my wikis. Allowing anons is
>more appropriate for "anything goes" wikis where they don't expect quality
>work, but for wikis where good organised content is desired, allowing anons
>is not a good idea IMO.
>
>Forcing people to have accounts in the wiki is useful to me because it
>provides:
>1. Better privacy: Users' IP addresses don't show up in the wiki. I really
>don't understand why MediaWiki publishes IP addresses to everyone. That's a
>"bug" IMO: It should display "Anonymous No. 48367" to users and the IP only
>to sysops. Anons should get a distinguishing number based on their IP, so
>that users can recognise whether an anon is the same as another anon, but the
>IP should be restricted to sysops. That's a very important privacy issue.
>2. Better copyright management: I have zero chances of contacting an anon and
>asking for permission to publish his or her edits under another license. With
>user accounts it is more easier to switch licenses because I might be able to
>contact them and ask whether they agree.
>3. Better antitrollness: Abusive users seem to love anon editing, but the
>requirement for an account could keep them out of the wiki, especially if the
>account needs to be validated from an email address and we require them to
>give us their real names.
>4. Better reputation: Readers would be more happy to know that articles are
>edited by a united community rather than by random anons who don't know each
>other and don't conform to a policy or some standards.
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I wrote up a proposal based on this: [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]].
Don't know if it'll take off or not...

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Jens Ropers wrote:

> On 22 Oct 2004, at 12:45, John Lee wrote:
>
>> I believe if we got some intermediary stage of deletion up, it would
>> solve a lot of our woes regarding this. Basically it would be a
>> condensed version of VfD - perhaps with a period of time lasting only
>> two or three days. The moment an article gets a single keep vote, it
>> goes to VfD. If by the time is up there has not been a single keep
>> vote, then there's obviously no point in keeping it, is there? That
>> way, we don't speedy dubious entries, we don't waste time and effort
>> keeping obvious bunk entries on VfD for a full week, and everyone's
>> happy.
>>
>> John Lee
>
>
> If I read you correctly you're proposing that the "middle road"
> semi-speedy deletion thing you're proposing there just lists nominated
> articles for a time and that no one actually should/need to vote to
> delete them there? I.e. delete votes are unnecessary as not-voted-on
> articles listed in that place would get deleted automatically and but
> a single "keep" vote would cause the case to be moved to VfD proper?
>
> I was initially opposed to yet another tool, but this one could
> actually work and take some strain off VfD.
> I've even got an idea what to call this thing: [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]].
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>     www.ropersonline.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
NSK wrote:

>On Saturday 23 October 2004 04:15, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Our time is better spent in making the timid ones feel at home.
>>
>>
>
>I notice mediawiki does not have a facility for informing you about new user
>registrations via the wiki, although an SQL query does the job. Perhaps
>something like this could be implemented in the wiki to allow you welcome new
>users more promptly. Welcoming and briefing new users is very important.
>
Welconing, yes.  But what kind of briefing.  Sometimes the best way to
proceed is by recognizing the good things in their early contributions.
You don't want to talk down to them by introducing a lot of rules from
the beginning.  Useful tips (like using four tildes as a shortcut for
signing posts) give a more favorable impression than an immediate
lecture about POV.

Ec


from_name: Simon Pulsifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
In a test of my suggestion I have moved six recent
debates that didn't conform to current policies to
[[Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current
policies]].

- SimonP

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
That was tried with Nupedia, Wikipedia's forefather. There's a reason
why Wikipedia exists today and Nupedia doesn't, you know...

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

NSK wrote:

>On Friday 22 October 2004 16:21, John Lee wrote:
>
>
>>The resolution is always the same: Forcing anons to
>>register before editing is not a tenable idea.
>>
>>
>
>Then, perhaps anon edits should be moderated.
>
>
>


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
NSK wrote:

>>One thing which I believe has been discussed is diff-based storage,
>>which would dramatically decrease the space needed for storing an
>>article's history.
>>
>>
>That's great! I wonder why this is not implemented already. Do you have enough
>programmers in MW? Does WMF pay for development costs?
>
I regret to say that the World Monetary Fund has yet paid for such
developments.  Their funding of mega-project development in the third
world appears to be driven by profitability. :-)

Ec


from_name: NSK

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<9f02ca4c0410221105cc6d41a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 21:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
> That may not be an easy question to answer, let alone actually turn
> into a list of contact details for permission.

It is always a good idea to keep records with contact information in case
relicensing is desired. This is normal practice in many professional
opensource projects.

> Out of interest, why is it that the GPL doesn't fit your needs?

I don't have any philosophical objection to GPL; I use GNU/Linux and I am a
participant in some FSF mailing lists. I do support GPL and GFDL.

However, sometimes BSD is more flexible and allows for more easier combination
of code with different licensing terms.

I want to incorporate some of my code in MediaWiki but I cannot release parts
of my code under the GPL for several reasons. So, a BSD-licensed MediaWiki
would be very helpful.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Rick wrote:

 > Where is the policy consensus which says school articles are
 > not to be deleted?  You can't point to it, because it does not
 > exist.

You don't need a consensus not to delete something, you need a consensus
TO delete something. VFD should be a sanity check to ensure deletions
conform to established consensus, not a forum for making up policy.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] slow hardware

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 21:43, Rowan Collins wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers

Your system is impressive, indeed.

> general-use replication network like Coral

Perhaps you could cooperate with them to share algorithms/code et cetera.

> wikiP2Pedia[tm]

Why not distribute editing, too?

I imagine a system like this:
1. A collection of network nodes acting as catalogs of articles and a list of
other nodes serving these articles.
2. A collection network nodes acting as editing servers and storage servers
for the articles.
3. Users query the catalog server to find an article.
4. Users can edit the local article stored in any given server. The server
reports the change to all known catalog servers.
5. Catalog servers ask all known storage servers whether they wish to update
their content.
6. et cetera...

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews vote open

body:
Should Wikimedia launch a project to summarize and report the news
(Wikinews)? The vote on the Wikinews project is now open under

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote

Please read the full Wikinews proposal before voting:

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

The proposal has been translated into French, German, Japanese, Old
English and partially into Romanian. I see no problem with people
continuing to make translations during the voting period (three weeks).

Regards,

Erik


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews vote open


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews vote open


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
The point is that there is no policy that says that
notability or not is a reason for deletion. I might
just as well get a group of morons to vote to delete
any article with the work 'green' in them. If there
was a vote to do it, why not? Well, because it's
stupid and damaging. The fact that you can get five or
six people to consistently do it doesn't make it
right. That's why there is nothing on the deletion
criteria which says anything about notablity.
Mark

--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Where is the policy consensus which says school
> articles are not to be deleted?  You can't point to
> it, because it does not exist.  Therefore, each of
> these non-notable school stubs needs to be listed
> individually on VfD.  If you can get a consensus
> which says that school articles are to stay, then
> all of these schools will no longer be listed on
> VfD.  But until there is such an article, so long as
> people continue to make articles about non-notable
> schools and don't indicate anything in the article
> which indicates that they ARE notable, they will
> continue to be listed.
>
> RickK
>
> Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. Noone is questioning your right to revert (or
> maybe
> even delete) 'Peter is gay'.
> 2. There are specific people consistently deleting
> articles that have real content. For example,
> schools.
> They have consitently failed to gain concensus to
> delete all school articles, and so are listing every
> school individually, counting on the fact that noone
> can be bothered to vote on every one. The fact that
> each one is often a stub at this stage makes it
> easier
> still to delete them, and allows them to make the
> case
> that there is precident for deleting more schools.
>
> The point is that this is contentious, because not
> only is real information about real things (not
> 'Peter
> is gay') is being lost, and furthermore, only admins
> can even see what is was that was lost.
> Mark R.
>
> --- Delirium wrote:
>
> > I've only been skimming this thread, but I think
> > people proposing
> > policies upon policies are missing what actually
> > makes wikipedia work:
> > people just do things that need to be done. When I
> > see a crap article
> > that says "peter is gay", I hit 'delete', I don't
> > list it on a page and
> > request permission to delete it. I don't think
> most
> > other people do
> > either (or even read this list or the millions of
> > policy pages).
> >
> > It's true people should exercise discretion, but
> if
> > an article that has
> > about 8 words in it was "unfairly" deleted, it's
> not
> > like Wikipedia has
> > lost an irreplaceable masterwork. There is no
> > prohibition against
> > creating a new article in its place (and while
> > you're at it, if you made
> > it better it wouldn't even be a question). If
> there
> > are specific people
> > consistently deleting questionable things, you
> could
> > leave a message on
> > their talk page asking them about it.
> >
> > Some of the arguments over "unfairly deleted" VfD
> > articles seem to have
> > a similar misconception that we're deleting all
> > possible articles at
> > that location, while we're only deleting the one
> > that's actually there.
> > If there's an incoherent article with no useful
> > information at a
> > location of a famous person or entity, it's still
> > appropriate to delete
> > it. Someone can later create an actual article at
> > that location, which
> > then wouldn't be deleted.
> >
> > But the main point is that Wikipedia works by
> people
> > doing what they
> > think is reasonable, and talking to people who are
> > doing things they
> > disagree with, not by a bunch of policy
> mumbo-jumob.
> > I've taken to not
> > even reading policy pages anymore, because there
> are
> > literally thousands
> > of them, and most of them are incredibly long and
> > intricate. I don't
> > know what the hell deletion policy is anymore:
> there
> > must be at least 10
> > pages on the subject, and 100 proposals to replace
> > it with a new set of
> > policies.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
The thing is, this has been tried directly on VFD before, and failed,
because people (usually inclusionists) bitch about the early removal of
debates/pages. Perhaps what is called for is an amendment to deletion
policy. Heck, I don't know.

However, delete votes help gauge how much people think the article is
delete-worthy. That's why I'm generally in favour of preserving the VFD
style of voting. If only keep votes are permitted, it's difficult to see
whether people actually think the article delete-worthy or are just
abstaining/unsure.

I'm probably making a logical fallacy there, though.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Jens Ropers wrote:

> Thanks for your work on this. :)
> As regards #2 of the proposal (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion#Proposal )
> however:
> I really think doing the same voting there as is done on VfD proper is
> rather bad idea. (If you're doing the same thing, then why not do it
> at VfD in the first place?)
>
> '''Since but a single Keep vote would move a case over to VfD, there
> is no point in anybody voting Delete.'''
>
> Thus, just:
>
> 10 List an item at Wikipedia:Purgatory.
> 20 WAIT a certain number of days (to be determined)
> 20 IF Nobody has voted Keep on the article THEN delete it.
> 30 ELSEIF move the case to VfD
>
> Does that not make more sense?
> I mean, what's the use in even a million users voting keep on a case
> at [[Wikipedia:Purgatory]] if but a single vote moves the case over to
> VfD anyway? It's just a wast of time at that stage. If and only if a
> case has moved to VfD proper, then it makes sense to vote on it.
>


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fw: Attila the Hun "lionized as a great king in the
	national his

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter spam" <peterspam at freemail.hu>
To: <daily-article-l-owner at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:52 AM
Subject: Attila the Hun "lionized as a great king in the national his

> Dear Sir/Madam,
> with all due respect, I have never heard such bollocks before about
> Hungarians lionizing Attila the Hun as a great king of theirs: it is clear
> to all Hungarians from basic school that Attila the Hun is falsely seen as
> Hungarian by foreigners, as the "magyar" and "hun" tribes split up well
> before the Hungarian state was established and the nomadic tribes of
> the Huns continued to the Persian regions, while the Hungarians
> settled in the Carpathian basin.
>
> Pls consult with true history books and don't spread ignorence about
> Hungarians' view on their history. Next you'll be assuming that count
> Dracula and Frankensteins monster were Hungarian as well... (as, in
> case you are aware of some historical facts, Transsylvania used to be
> fully Hungarian as well during the past 1000 years before it got
> annexed to Romania after the first World War.)
>
> Best regards,
> Peter the Hungarian (not Hun)
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222154.10980.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<ec2d68db04102212123cc3b36c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:12, Mark Ramm wrote:
> I think many people choose the GPL because they don't want to see
> their work incorporated into proprietary projects. And I am certain
> that some of the developers of MediaWiki feel that way.

Perhaps the developers would be interested to sell a BSD-licensed MediaWiki
1.3.7 (or 1.3.8) for a fair price.

Projects that keep excellent track of contributors or require copyright
assignments include MySQL and OpenOffice.org.

Even Linus Torvalds now wants kernel programmers to provide their real names
and e-mail addresses. Linus will not accept patches if you don't give this
info.

My site also works this way: I don't want articles if the author cannot be
contacted.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>Although the arbitrators didn't
>>condemn straight keep voting (in other words, they didn't take issue
>>with him voting keep for every article proposed on VfD), they did make
>>it clear that voting against the general consensus without providing a
>>reason (the manner of voting, to use an arbitrator's phrase) is not
>>condoned.
>>
>>
>>So inclusionists who intend to sabotage such a process would have to be
>>handled somehow. All this is based on how I understood Anthony's case;
>>if I'm mistaken, please forgive and correct me.
>>
>>
>
>No, it was actually more the opposite.  The arbitrators didn't have a
>problem with the way I voted (and it wasn't keep for every article, it was
>keep for a certain class of articles, mainly those about real people).  The
>arbitrators had a problem with the reasons I gave (which were occassionally
>sarcastic or hostile).  They also had a problem with the fact that on a few
>occassions I added things to VfD which I didn't want deleted just to try to
>prove a point.  Both were mistakes, and I fully admit that.
>
>I agree with you that the arbitration ruling is extremely ambiguous on this,
>though.  I even brought up the fact that saying that I shouldn't be
>"provacative" is completely meaningless when the arbitration decision was
>being voted on.  But, even as arbitration was ongoing I continued to vote
>"Keep" on a large number of articles, and the arbitration committee passed a
>ruling saying that I had ceased the improper behavior, so the improper
>behavior certainly wasn't just the fact that I voted keep a lot.
>
>
I thought that's what I was saying - after all, if people have a good
reason for voting "keep" on every listed article, I don't see what's
stopping them from doing so. If they just vote keep for the sake of
being a bitchy inclusionist, then that's wrong. That's how I understood
your case; as I said, the arbitrators didn't take issue with what you
voted for, but how you voted for it.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:39, Mark Richards wrote:
> Most problematic edits actually come
> from logged in users.

Probably because the account registration process does not require valid email
addresses and other info.

I think the registration process should be a bit more difficult to discourage
disruptive users.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:27, Brion Vibber wrote:
> No. We put a lot of work into this and have benefited from code from
> other people using the GPL; please either share it on the same terms or
> write your own code.

I do write my own code and some of it will be released under GPL. I do like
and support the GPL. But a BSD MediaWiki would be very desired and useful in
some occasions where some parts of my code have to be non-GPL.

How about LGPL?

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki licensing

body:
If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in the public
domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and which parts are
GPL?

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l] question to developers: how to change a text in
 pageStats() in Skin.php for MONOBOOK Skin

body:
I would like to add some additional statistics such as number of
watching users on each article page footer. When I apply program changes
in pageStats() in the module Skin.php, this **only** results in changes
for the CLASSIC skin.

Please can someone explain, --what-- I have to change EXACTLY --where--
to have similar changed footers in eg. MONOBOOK skin ? I found several
strange looking modules but have not a single idea, where to apply my
patch for the others skins.

Tom


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stopping to speedy speedy deletions

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:57, Mark Richards wrote:
> No one has ever heard of it.
> Deletion is much more fun.

I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On
the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] WP

body:
Are you aware of WP at http://wordpress.org ? This blogging software has a
feature that allows submission by email. I think MediaWiki 1.4 could include
such a feature. WP is GPL so you can share the code with them.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: Daniel Wunsch

subject: [Wikitech-l] WP

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:22, NSK wrote:
> Are you aware of WP at http://wordpress.org ? This blogging software has a
> feature that allows submission by email. I think MediaWiki 1.4 could
> include such a feature. WP is GPL so you can share the code with them.

how many people do you think will use such a thing,
and why? are there people having acess to a mailclient,
but not a browser?

daniel


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Cutting away everything that doesn't look like David

body:
> I think people need to realise that deleting something does not
> improve WP. On
> the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
> prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a
> cop".

Come on. This works both ways.

1) Deleting something certainly _can_ improve Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is
supposed to be an encyclopedia. The apocryphal story is that when
Michelangelo was asked to explain how he carved a sculpture, he said
"I just cut away anything that doesn't look like David." To remould
Wikipedia nearer to our heart's desire, we must do two things. We must
add anything that look like an encyclopedia _and_ we must _also_ cut
away anything that doesn't look like an encyclopedia.

2) Writing an article is virtuous and hard work. So is fact-checking an
article. So is significantly expanding an article. So is copy-editing
an article. So is finding public-domain images to add to an article.

3) Deleting the right things can help Wikipedia. But compared to 2), it
doesn't help Wikipedia very _much._ And some deletions do hurt
Wikipedia.

4) I don't think the fatal attraction of deletion is that people enjoy
"being a cop." I think the attracton is that VfD has about the right
amount of traffic, social interaction, conflict, drama, winning and
losing to be addictive. I can write whole articles without getting a
single "attaboy," but almost everything I do in VfD gets interesting
positive and/or negative responses.

5) The opposite side of deletion is stub creation. This is just the
same as deletion, in reverse. Good stubs can help Wikipedia, but they
don't help Wikipedia as much as the activities mentioned (2) above, and
a lot of them have zero or slightly negative value. But creating a new
article has an instant-gratification factor. How else can you explain
the fact that people would rather create eighteen substubs than a
single article with eighteen short sections?

Deletions aren't always good. Deletions aren't always bad. Stubs aren't
always good. Stubs aren't always bad. Nothing hard to understand about
any of that. Neither of these activities is as virtuous as writing
articles. But both of them can sometimes be more fun.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Yes, Wikipedia _is_ an encyclopedia

body:
> From: NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org>
>
> There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an
> encyclopedia. In
> my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my
> wikis,
> meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.

Wikipedia is not a knowledge base. Wikipedia _is_ an encyclopedia.

Jimbo has said that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and that it must
be free and that it must be an encyclopedia. I think he means it, too.

Most of us--a consensus, in fact--are committed to that idea.

Wikipedia is specifically a means to an end, and the end is the
production of a free encyclopedia.

If we wanted to contribute to "a knowledge base where any kind of
knowledge is accepted, we wouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia,
because that's not what Wikipedia is."

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


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stopping too speedy deletions

references:
<BAY23-F30oe2U8QVjp3000014eb@hotmail.com>	<clai1h$afm$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<004001c4b822$aa1a0f90$9e7c0450@Galasien>

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:
>>Also, Charles Matthews
>>has also not mentioned specifically what the article names were that
>>were deleted.
>
>
> That's not what I said - I said one inappropriate marking as a speedy
> deletion.  I deliberately didn't identify the users, one of whom was quite
> new.
>
> Charles

Charles,

Were the articles deleted? If they were not, then the process worked. If
they did, which articles were you referring to?

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Friday 22 October 2004 23:28, Mark Richards wrote:
> deleted for 'non-notability'.

That's a Bad Thing (tm) IMO. sysops should delete only the pages that are
useless (spam, tests, profanity) not a page which contains factual
information, no matter how notable this info is, as long as you categorise
the pages in categories according to their notability so that people can
limit their search in notable articles only.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

body:
NSK wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, some parts of MediaWiki code are released in the public
> domain. Is there any list showing where the PD code is and which parts are
> GPL?

Hello,

According to the README, contributions by Lee Crocker and Erik Moeller
are placed under the public domain. You will have to check cvs logs :o)

As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public
domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of
the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: WP

body:
Daniel Wunsch wrote:
> On Friday 22 October 2004 22:22, NSK wrote:
>
>>Are you aware of WP at http://wordpress.org ? This blogging software has a
>>feature that allows submission by email. I think MediaWiki 1.4 could
>>include such a feature. WP is GPL so you can share the code with them.
>
>
> how many people do you think will use such a thing,
> and why? are there people having acess to a mailclient,
> but not a browser?
>
> daniel

Yup, people at works behind a firewall that block wikipedia. But they
should do something else instead of editing wikipedia :o)

For NSK:
In the case of wikis, we will have to get people to send the diff
against the current version. It restricts even more the number of people
that could need this feature (how many people in this mailing list know
how to use diff ?).

It will be too much work for nothing :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: question to developers: how to change a text in
 pageStats() in Skin.php for MONOBOOK Skin

body:
Thomas Gries wrote:
> I would like to add some additional statistics such as number of
> watching users on each article page footer. When I apply program changes
> in pageStats() in the module Skin.php, this **only** results in changes
> for the CLASSIC skin.
>
> Please can someone explain, --what-- I have to change EXACTLY --where--
> to have similar changed footers in eg. MONOBOOK skin ? I found several
> strange looking modules but have not a single idea, where to apply my
> patch for the others skins.
>
> Tom

Hello,

You have to give the value to the phpTal object that will generate the page.

In skinPHPTal add a $tpl->set( 'watchingnumber', $watchingnumber);
This way phpTAL will know the value.

Then edit the template (*.pt) and ask phptal to get the value.

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Users and groups based security

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:
>>Actually each group need to be assigned every needed rights. There is
>>nothing like inheritance / cumulation. So one have to:
>>
>>Anonymous = permission(read)
>>LoggedIn = permission(read, write)
>>Sysop = permission(read, write, delete)
>>Bureaucrat = permission(makesysop)
>>
>>This way bureaucrat account is only to make sysop.
>
>
> Actually, I think this is probably like my "cumulative" approach, I
> just didn't explain it very well; what I meant is that if a user is
> assigned to two groups, they will gain both sets of rights:
> * User:A has group "Sysop" -> permission(read, write, delete)
> * User:B has groups "Sysop", "Bureaucrat" -> permission(read, write,
> delete) + permission(makesysop)

Yup user are assigned to several groups then rights get ORed (so its
cumulative).

> Or do you mean that a bureaucrat would actually need to log out and
> then log in with a different account which could make sysops but not
> edit pages?

LoggedIn group is a build-in group so every users are assigned its
permission. In the above example, Bureaucrat will be able to read and
write. Rights for the Sysop group could just have been permission(delete).

> By the way, any chance that while we're redesigning we can be
> consistent with terminology and get rid of this "An Administrator is
> someone with Sysop status" nonsense in favour of just calling the
> status flag "Admin"? [I know, this isn't as uncontroversial as I'm
> making out, it's just a personal bug-bear]

Actually my groups are:

   Anonymous  (read)
   LoggedIn   (read, write)
   Sysops     (read, write, move, delete)
   Bureaucrat (read, write, move, makesysop)
   LeetAdmin  (everything you can imagine)

So sysops and bureaucrat are both childs of LoggedIn, still they are
differents :o) As for the name, group names can be edited.

I believe there will be a lot of changes once the other developpers can
have a look at it :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<200410222306.43203.nsk2@wikinerds.org> <clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public
> domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of
> the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).

But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it
whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this
different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not
that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<200410222306.43203.nsk2@wikinerds.org> <clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6faf39c904102215403bbe2a0c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
> But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it
> whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this
> different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not
> that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?

By the way, this is actually a point against the GNU/FDL too.
According to Dutch law, I cannot waive my right to disallow changes to
my work. So technically speaking I am not able to give you the rights
under the GNU/FDL. I can only allow republication as is, or with
modifications I explicitly allow.

Andre Engels


from_name: Jens Ropers

body:
On 22 Oct 2004, at 22:19, NSK wrote:

> I think people need to realise that deleting something does not
> improve WP. On
> the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
> prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a
> cop".

Indeed.
The "cop" ego trip does enter into it big time.
I have made two very bad experiences where people vigorously deleted
content they perceived as invalid and (what's MUCH worse) they refused
to communicate ''before'' committing and re-committing their view of
the world ''even when asked to do so'' and made comments that I
perceived as ridiculously impolite and implicitly judgmental.
That's actually a reason why I'm a lot more active in "Wikipolitics" at
present than I am editing.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com

PS:
The following might be perceived as bad stereotype stuff, as totally
rude and preposterous (and everything I accused others of above) -- so
please take it with ''truckloads'' of salt -- it's just a flip thought
that popped into my mind:
Seeing that US folks in general are said to be the "can to people",
maybe the aforementioned "cop ego trip" issues might account for what
was mentioned on one of the mailing lists a while ago, namely the
phenomenon that European contributors appear to be doing more
Wiki-politics and US contributors appear to be editing more. This might
be an alienation issue. (Frontier justice attitude? Shoot first, ask
questions later? Culture clash of that with the European way?) Then
again, this thought might be mental junk.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>	<200410222306.43203.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>	<6faf39c904102215403bbe2a0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<6faf39c9041022154346534624@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
>>But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it
>>whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this
>>different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not
>>that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
>
> By the way, this is actually a point against the GNU/FDL too.
> According to Dutch law, I cannot waive my right to disallow changes to
> my work. So technically speaking I am not able to give you the rights
> under the GNU/FDL. I can only allow republication as is, or with
> modifications I explicitly allow.
>
> Andre Engels

I imagine someone editing nl:Main Page and having a box saying

"Please email the following people to get a permission to edit their
work: <long list>"

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pi-eyed

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip>
> Thanks to all of you who responded on this.  The only useful value for
> the the article that comes to mind is as a convenient long list of
> pseudo-random numbers when somebody needs one.
<snip>

There is faster algorithms to get pseudo-random numbers :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410222020.23586.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<5E72D996-2460-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<200410222306.43203.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6faf39c904102215403bbe2a0c@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 23 Oct 2004, at 00:40, Andre Engels wrote:

>> As far as I know and at least in France, content placed under public
>> domain is non free anyway (cause an author or whoever is in charge of
>> the rights can claim their rights whenever they want).
>
> But then, is anything free? I mean, if they say "you can do with it
> whatever you want", they can later claim rights. But how is this
> different from saying "you can do this and this and that but not
> that"? Why would the first be revokable and the latter not?
>
> Andre Engels

Sounds like somebody has to write a "reinforced PD license" for France
then.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 00:19, Mark Richards wrote:
> there is still the issue that 'notablity' is
> inherently POV.

Yes it is. Even the most stupid and useless post may be considered as
important or funny by some people.

For example, I have accepted this:

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Trr_post

This was posted at Wikipedia (not by me) and was deleted.

However, I considered it interesting and funny; So I imported it in my wiki
and I contacted the elYsiun community about it.

See:

http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31298

If this thing was not posted on WP I would never learn about it. I still don't
understand why it was deleted. If you search the elYsiun forum you will find
much discussion about the Trr post. Surely some people consider it funny or
interesting.

In the same way, Quantum Gravity is considered as interesting by a small
number of people, however you do have an article about it. In some way, WP
could become a great forum for the publication of content not available
elsewhere, but you limit yourselves in the "canon of knowledge".

If you accept "nonnotable" articles and categorise them in a proper way (and
hiding them from the main search), your reputation will not suffer. Good
reputation does not necessarily means that "stupid" content shouldn't be
allowed. The Guinness Records Book is full of content that I consider stupid
or noninteresting to me ("the person with the longest nails! oh yeah... who
cares?") but it's true, factual, useful for research and excitement and I
know that many other people are considering this information as important. I
do not think that GRB is a bad publication just because I am uninterested in
part of its content: I just don't read this part. In the same way WP can
become a great pool of trivia and "strange" information that could attract
even more contributors who have specialised knowledge in areas totally
unknown to most people. As long as you label this material as "trivia" or
"just a joke page" or whatever, it's fine (of course the labelling should not
be offending and should be NPOV).

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 00:51, Delirium wrote:
> But the main point is that Wikipedia works by people doing what they
> think is reasonable

This statement has a big assumption behind her: That *all* people who are in
WP are reasonable, intelligent, good and can exercise their freedom in the
right way.

Policy, law, leaders, etc are the partial solutions that society has found to
help solving the problem of unavailability of reasonable, intelligent and
good humans.

If you wanted WP to become a place run by reasonable people and not by policy,
you would need to transform it into an "elite club" where only reasonable
people can join.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] WP

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 00:36, Daniel Wunsch wrote:
> how many people do you think will use such a thing,
> and why? are there people having acess to a mailclient,
> but not a browser?

Many people in non-Western countries where they still use primitive
connections (if they have one) will use it. E-mail traffic is much preferred
over web traffic in slow connections. POP was designed with this factor in
mind. I have WP to be full of US and EU-specific information, but the info on
Africa and Asia is so undeveloped. You need to help these people to have
access to your content.

A system where the user could type an email including:

"GET Africa"

Wikipedia mail server would return the whole article text of the "Africa
article"

and:

"HIST Africa"

would return the history of that article.

Now:

"POST Africa <br /> Blah-Blah-Blah"

would update the "Africa" article.

et cetera.

I also think that you could allow people in the third world to update WP by
regular mail. You could print third world-related articles in cheap paper and
mail it to some African schools or universities where the Net is still very
expensive. The students will send you updated content through regular mail
and you could OCR or type the updates in the site.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Go

body:
Sorry for butting in, but as a user, I personally think that
unnecessarily complicates the user interface - "random page" is only two
words. We'd need at least a full sentence to explain this unintuitive
behaviour. Just my 2 cents.

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])

NSK wrote:

>On Friday 22 October 2004 20:13, David Iberri wrote:
>
>
>>Sure, but that doesn't make things any more clear for the casual user. The
>>aptly-titled "Random page" link is very intuitive. But it's not at all
>>obvious to a newbie that they can fetch a random page by clicking "Go".
>>
>>
>
>I do recognise that it may be a bit unintuitive to the newbie, but some text
>could be added under the search box to explain this feature.
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:15, Mark Richards wrote:
> I don't agree that joke material should be included,

Why? My example was a bit extreme to make a point, but what if even one person
in the world finds the joke material to be serious?

A psychologer could include such material in her research.

My idea is that if joke material is labelled as such as excluded from the main
search, then it makes no harm, unless you want to save disk space. If
something makes no harm there is no reason to delete it.

> but anything that is factual, verifiable and neutral
> should be allowed.

Definitely. Even a "joke" page can be factual, verifiable and neutral. The Trr
post is factual, verifiable and neutral.

> For example, the person with the
> longest fingernails should certainly have an article.

Sure. Does he? IIRC he was from India but I may be wrong.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:27, Andrew Lih wrote:
> You are proposing filter first, publish later.
> The wiki way is publish first, filter later.

Perhaps the wiki way can be applied to articles but not to people. I see
nothing wrong with filtering new applications for user accounts. Not everyone
can be a good contributor to a wiki and most people care more about
themselves and their private interests rather than the WP, it is makes
perfect sense to filter people who want to join.

The wiki way doesn't need to be extremist: Centrist solutions work better.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

body:
NSK wrote:
> On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:39, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>>This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived
>>from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a
>>few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.
>
> Even if you dislike BSDL, you might want to consider LGPL which is a license
> published by FSF. I use opensource software in my site as revealed through
> this page: http://portal.wikinerds.org/thanks - I do support the opensource
> idea and ethics, it's just that in some cases some non-GPLable code cannot
> easily be combined with GPL. I think that's a common problem and I am sure
> many people would benefit from less restrictive MW licensing. You should
> certainly consider LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

I would personally not place my code under LGPL .

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<clc17h$j7i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<33D9393E-247B-11D9-93C0-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:39, Brion Vibber wrote:
> This is true only to the limited extent that this code is not derived
> from and does not contain others' copyrighted code. You might find a
> few untainted lines here and there if you spend a long time looking.

Even if you dislike BSDL, you might want to consider LGPL which is a license
published by FSF. I use opensource software in my site as revealed through
this page: http://portal.wikinerds.org/thanks - I do support the opensource
idea and ethics, it's just that in some cases some non-GPLable code cannot
easily be combined with GPL. I think that's a common problem and I am sure
many people would benefit from less restrictive MW licensing. You should
certainly consider LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] List of persons with autism spectrum disorders

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> (i) listings could quite possibly be defamatory (certainly hurtful), and are

Yeeeahhh... Being on the low end of the autism spectrum myself, and
having suffered some rather nasty consequences as a result, I have to
say I'd find being on a list of people on the autism spectrum to be
about as hurtful as being on a list of people that don't think much of
"fine art".

What I DO find hurtful is any implication that I SHOULD feel hurt by it.

> made without any support;

Certainly any such list needs to have evidence to back it up, but I fail
to see how that's any different than anything else in an encyclopedia in
general and Wikipedia in particular.

If there's a problem with a specific article, take it up on the
article's talk page; I don't see why this should be discussed on the
mailing list (where, incidentally, not everyone is going to see it or be
able to join in the discussion).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 02:24, Rick wrote:
> will, out of reflex, vote to keep any and every article ever written.  He

Commenting on someone's voting patterns is not very democratic.

If someone's votes are not being counted because of their patterns, that's
definitely undemocratic and against [[due process]].

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
On 23 Oct 2004, at 02:02, NSK wrote:

> There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an
> encyclopedia.

Well, first you wanted to exclude anons, restrict editing privileges,
totally changing our consensus and editing processes in the wake of
it...

Somehow your above sentence just doesn't even surprise me anymore.

IMHO most of what you said might have a place with hypothetical or
already existing Wikipedia forks, but, well, I mean, if you don't even
agree upon us building an '''encyclopedia''' here, well, that's not a
lot of common ground, now is it?

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
> On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Simon Pulsifer wrote:
> I do, however, see some worrying trends. My concern is
> over the issue of notability.

There is absolutely no reason why WP should try to become an encyclopedia. In
my site wikinerds.org I use the term "knowledge base" to describe my wikis,
meaning that any kind of knowledge is accepted there.

I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia
Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".

I should also note that many WP articles in scientific and technical subjects
have so little information that they are useful only to the general public
who is totally ignorant of such things, while the scientists and
technologists who have the knowledge will probably think that WP "is just
another popular non-scientific site" and turn to other more specialised
resources. WP should try to become less popularistic (articles in musical
albums and movies shine, but many articles on hard science and technology
just aren't good).

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

> More pedanticism. You have completely missed my original point; that

And you have completely missed his. Again.

> contributors are supposed to indicate how the article they wrote
> deserves inclusion, and that they shouldn't be tripping up others who
> have to research the article just to bring it up to our standards.

This is certainly the first I've ever heard of this. Perhaps you could
point me to a page documenting this policy? Even a discussion where a
consensus was reached or an edict handed down by Jimbo?

> There's no point in bitching about language at this point, because it's
> irrelevant. Regardless of what words I used, my point remains:

If you don't use words that reflect your meaning, you can't get your
point across. You could walk into a restaurant and sing _Yellow
Submarine_ intending it to mean "I'd like a teriyaki steak and baked
potato, please.", but it's unlikely to have the desired effect. Language
is never irrelevant.

> contributors are supposed to clarify through their articles how the
> latter articles are encyclopedic. The onus is on them to prove the topic
> is encyclopedic.

 From whence came the policy that a topic must be proven to be
encyclopedic? If it is, in fact, policy, then I'm afraid I must insist
that articles on just about every topic except music (which has already
been through this nightmare before) be proven to be encyclopedic or
promptly deleted. This includes all articles on nations, languages,
animals, plants, people (including all scientists, politicians,
monarchs, and religious figures), stars, planets, etc.. Please either go
to all of these article's talk pages and provide proof that they are
encyclopedic, or delete them.

Now, would you like to proceed with the traditional Wikipedia method of
establishing consensus on articles' talk pages when questions of
encyclopedic value arise, or would you like to continue this
preposterous exercise?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

> More pedanticism. You have completely missed my original point; that
> contributors are supposed to indicate how the article they wrote
> deserves inclusion, and that they shouldn't be tripping up others who
> have to research the article just to bring it up to our standards.
> There's no point in bitching about language at this point, because
> it's irrelevant. Regardless of what words I used, my point remains:
> contributors are supposed to clarify through their articles how the
> latter articles are encyclopedic. The onus is on them to prove the
> topic is encyclopedic.

Bullshit!  Non-notability is not a valid excuse for deletion.  It is not
up to the contributor to be put through a Kafkaesque process in an
attempt to satisfy the illusory standards of a stuck-up elitist.
They're not trying to trip up anybody.  Your supposition is based on
nothing.  The onus is on the deletionist to learn respect.

Ec


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410230216.07863.nsk2@wikinerds.org> <clc6rd$ugk$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<200410230310.30530.nsk2@wikinerds.org>

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:10:30 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> Although most GNU developers don't like BSDL, they should not be afraid of
> LGPL: LGPL protects your contributions while allowing them to be linked with
> non-GPL code. That's of great importance in the modern world and can help you
> to attain a much broader user base.

Perhaps one of the stumbling points in this discussion (apart from the
fact that, like it or not, there *isn't* a definitive list of code
contributors) is that you are coming from a very different angle from
that from which most MediaWiki developers see things. I don't think,
in general, the main developers *care* about MediaWiki obtaining a
"broader user base" - the code is primarily developed for use by
Wikimedia projects, and the fact that other people want to use it is a
bonus, and a satisfying compliment.

Thus, the benefits of dual-licensing are, subjectively, very few - as
far as this core of Wikimedia-based MediaWiki developers is concerned,
it's far more important that any improvements that *are* made filter
back for possible inclusion in the core software.

[Experienced devs feel free to flame me viciously at this point for
mis-representing you!]

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410230216.07863.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<clc6rd$ugk$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 02:58, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> I would personally not place my code under LGPL .

Of course you have the right to do that and I do recognise that GPL is more
"complete" in comparison with LGPL.

However, I think that LGPL/BSDL can help a piece of software to become very
popular in the corporate world.

Although most GNU developers don't like BSDL, they should not be afraid of
LGPL: LGPL protects your contributions while allowing them to be linked with
non-GPL code. That's of great importance in the modern world and can help you
to attain a much broader user base.

Think about it, sometimes even FSF reccomends LGPL.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:54:51 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> Are you considering adding a "History Pruning" feature in MW1.4? Doing it with
> SQL isn't very easy.
>
> History sometimes becomes very big and uses too much disk space. Why not
> get rid of it?

I believe some wiki engines do indeed do this. The main reason
MediaWiki doesn't is, I think, because it is felt that preserving the
history is a nice automated way of preserving authorship information,
as required for the GFDL.

Of course, you also have to make sure you don't automatically prune
that part of a vandalised article's history that comprises the last
non-vandalised version.

> In NerdyPC and Adapedia the authors' names and the changelog are included in
> the article text, so that we can delete the history and free up disk space
> whenever we want.

Including this in plain text has the obvious disadvantages of making
it editable (this being a wiki) and it looking ugly if it is displayed
along with the article itself. A proper "list editors" feature,
though, sounds very handy. By "changelog", do you mean a kind of
selective history - only recording significant milestones in the
article's development? If so, you essentially do want *old* history
stored, just not every single minor edit.

One thing which I believe has been discussed is diff-based storage,
which would dramatically decrease the space needed for storing an
article's history. This would probably work by storing "key"
revisions, and then cumulative diffs for more minor revisions in
between. If a system were included for manually defining key
revisions, this could form the basis of a 'changelog'-style history,
and the in-between revisions could be pruned out.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:13, Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I think the fact that Wikipedia describes itself as "The Free
> Encyclopedia" provides a somewhat convincing reason to be an
> encyclopedia.

Well, I do recognise that this claim ("the free encyclopedia") may have helped
you in WP marketing. I wonder whether WP's popularity would have achieved if
you hadn't made that claim. Have you ever thought about that?

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> Nicholas Knight wrote
>
>>What I DO find hurtful is any implication that I SHOULD feel hurt by it.
>
>
> That's not the point.  And implications that anyone who tries to discuss
> this objectively is somehow unsympathetic are very unhelpful.
<snip a lot of text about how Autism is difficult to diagnose accurately>

You're falling into the classic "sympathy" trap, but I'm going to drop
it and just say that I still fail to see why this is *any* different
from any other Wikipedia article, especially on a contentious subject.

> I have intervened on the talk page.  There are comments there about having
> the page run on a more principled basis.  That seems not in practice to be
> happening: anyone who wants to know why Gary Numan is cited will refer to
> neurodiversity.org, which refers back to the WP Gary Numan page, which
> refers to a woman's magazine article about how his wife decided he had
> Asperger's, and so on.

If you feel there is a problem with the listing, by all means change it.
Apparently there's a consensus that the page should be fixed, so fix it.
Being annoyed that no one else is fixing it really isn't going to get
you anywhere.

Incidentally, the talk page has been idle for a few weeks now, and the
person that added some questionable names recently doesn't appear to
have even participated on the talk page, and for all we know may never
have read it!

> I raised it here because it is a problem with large-scale POV, going to WP's
> reputation, and because of the very issue about defamation.  Bill Gates

There doesn't seem to be any indication on the article's talk page of
anyone opposing more careful practices in the listing, so I'm at a loss
as to what the problem is. You want the article changed, no one seems to
have any strong objections, so change it.

As it is, WikiEN-l is hard to keep up with, if every time there was a
potential defamation issue it was brought to the list instead of dealt
with in-wiki, it would be entirely impossible to follow (ever try
reading linux-kernel? picture it multiplied by three or so).

> probably is too busy to be concerned; but why list him without something
> more definite?  (I haven't gone into this one.)

An excellent question highly appropriate for the article's talk page. If
you can't get a satisfactory discussion of it, perhaps removing his name
from the list will give rise to a detailed and thought-provoking
discussion on that very topic! It's nothing that can't be undone later
if it turns out to be the wrong move.


subject: [Foundation-l] servers

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:16, user_Jamesday wrote:
> Since you copied to me specifically... personally, I would prefer dual
I sent this mail only to the mailing list.

> Please send a non-BCC copy to me if you really do need a my comment

I never CCed or BCCed you. My mail was sent only to foundation-l at wikimedia.org

If some people believe that dual Opterons will be hot, you should get the
240EE or 246HE models.

See:

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron_240_EE

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/AMD_Opteron_246_HE

For the price, see:

http://www.amd.com/t3pricing

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Foundation-l] servers


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

> I don't think that's the point Rick was making. I think he was just
> rightfully bitching about inclusionists, because they seem to have a
> damn lot of extremist followers, and Rick was showing an example.
> Inclusionists often use abrasive language, and to me (I don't know
> about anyone else; this is my own opinion) they sound like bitches
> more than half of the time. They seem to believe that "EVERYTHING HAS
> VALUE" and that "NOTHING SHOULD EVER EVER BE DELETED", and resort to
> stunts to prove their point, like screwing with the VFD structure.
> Come to think of it, they remind me a lot of Greenpeace and PETA.

Yes, you know about extremism alright.  Dr. Strangelove was not an
extremist he was just preserving our bodily humours.  We know how few
extremists there are in the destructionist camp. ;-)

You would never think of using abrasive language like the "bitches",
would you?  If someone like Anthony denies that he took a particular
position your shouting is not going to be a credible proof of the
contrary.  Buddhists may believe that "everything has value" but they
are able to communicate that without shouting.  Where in in the Wiki
world did an inclusionist make this claim about articles?  Of course you
did say "seem to believe"; I guess that's some kind of justification
when they didn't 'really' say it.  But then there must be some evidence
to bring you to that conclusion; otherwise it would suggest that someone
on your side is engaging in extremism, and we can't have that, can we?
I look forward to the evidence.

Stunts?  I'm sorry I missed that.  Were they wearing clown suits, and
riding undersize bicycles?  Please elaborate.  A video would help, but
"screwing with the VFD" might be too pornographic.  Do you really think
that Greenpeace cum to that?  I'm not familiar with PETA, but it sounds
as though it has something to do with either cheese or the Patriot Act.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
Are you considering adding a "History Pruning" feature in MW1.4? Doing it with
SQL isn't very easy.

History sometimes becomes very big and uses too much disk space. Why not get
rid of it?

In NerdyPC and Adapedia the authors' names and the changelog are included in
the article text, so that we can delete the history and free up disk space
whenever we want.

I just think this scheme is more efficient.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

>  From what you've written below, you apparently have not read my earlier
> post dealing with this.

As it happens, since resubscribing on the 16th, I've read every singe
message sent to the list.

> Whatever. That's not the point in this case. You all know what I mean; I

"Whatever" might be an acceptable response in a high-school cafeteria,
but this is not a high-school cafeteria.

> know what "notability", etc. mean on VFD. So what's the problem?

The problem is that with you saying stuff like "regardless of what words
I used", we can't be sure we DO understand you. And VFD is not some
separate project, it's part of Wikipedia. You can't make up your own
definitions of words like "notability" for use on VFD and expect it to work.

> Hahaha...you have obviously not read my post earlier. Articles are
> supposed to be *self-proven*. In other words, 99.9% of our current
> articles have already proven themselves many times over. There is no
> need for authors to state how the topic is encyclopedic, unless they
> didn't make it clear when they first created the article in question.

How does an article prove itself? What is the criteria? The only thing
I've heard so far from you is "notability", which is not and has never
been a valid excuse.

>> Now, would you like to proceed with the traditional Wikipedia method
>> of establishing consensus on articles' talk pages when questions of
>> encyclopedic value arise, or would you like to continue this
>> preposterous exercise?
>
>
> I don't know what you're bumbling about, but considering how you've not
> read my earlier post explaining this...

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by applying words like
"bumbling" to others, you're not going to get anywhere doing it.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:47:06 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:

> Does WMF pay for development costs?

No, we don't currently pay for development costs. All of Wikimedia's
developers and systems administrators are volunteers. We do
occasionally offer payment for specific tasks, such as setting up
Foundation membership forms
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_task/membership ) but no
developer has taken up such an offer so far.

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Bullshit!  Non-notability is not a valid excuse for deletion.  It is not
> up to the contributor to be put through a Kafkaesque process in an
> attempt to satisfy the illusory standards of a stuck-up elitist.
> They're not trying to trip up anybody.  Your supposition is based on
> nothing.  The onus is on the deletionist to learn respect.

Hear hear!


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
Yeah, whatever. If the entry doesn't provide any way to easily validate
its veracity, it's the same thing. Once again, the onus is on the
contributor, not the hapless other editors who run into the article, to
prove the article's worthiness.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Mark Richards wrote:

>To be clear, non-notability is NOT a reason for
>deletion that is in any established policy. It is a
>term bandied around a lot by a group of people who
>would like to be able to delete more material that
>they are not interested in.
>Mark
>
>--- John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I disagree. The anon should have explained how it
>>was relevant already,
>>through the entry. If the entry shows no sign of
>>notability, it should
>>be VfDed.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>John Lee
>>([[User:Johnleemk]])
>>
>>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 03:53, Jens Ropers wrote:
> if you don't even agree upon us building an '''encyclopedia'''
> here, well, that's not a  lot of common ground, now is it?

I do not agree that WP should be an "encyclopedia" because I believe that
encyclopedias are obsolete products of the 18th century. The future is the
creation of interconnected "knowledge bases". It's a philosophical
distinction. WP, however, is also an almanac ([[2004]]) and I do agree that
WP should be an almanac, so there is certainly some common ground.

Isn't this mailing list a good place to have discussions and propose things,
or should I refrain from posting here?

I think I have some nice things to propose to WP that can help your community
as well as perhaps having some form of future cooperation. Some proposed
ideas might be bad but others might be good. After some discussion the bad
ones will be identified and the good ones can be implemented. I think this
kind of discussion can be beneficial.

It was my understanding that your mailing lists are the proper place to have
this kind of discussion. But if I misunderstood, I have no problem to go
elsewhere. You only have to tell me.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:

> I didn't say non-notability is a valid excuse for deletion (lots of
> people seem to read things into what I write that I didn't write). The
> contributor isn't put through a Kafkaesque process. All they have to do
> is show how the topic is notable. For example, let's say my friend Mike
> is an actor and is listed on IMDB. Which of the following articles is
> encyclopedic/demonstrates the topic's encyclopedia-worthiness?
>
> ----
>
> my fren Mike is an actor. he has acted in movies such as "some backyard
> indy movie nobody's heard of".
>
> ----
>
> OR
>
> -----
>
> Michael Gondrand is an independent actor. He has starred in "Some
> Backyard Indy Movie Nobody's Heard Of". [inline reference link to
> movie's website]
>
> *[link to IMDB entry]
>
> ----
>
> That's what I mean. They don't need to make a hubbub on VFD or whatever.
> All they have to do is to write the article up sufficiently so it is
> easy to see that the topic of the article is encyclopedic and verifiable.

Congratulations, by using words that mean what you intend to say, you
have just made me better understand your position.

However, while your concerns are valid, they have been addressed before.

[[WP:DP#What_to_do_with_a_problem_page.2Fimage.2Fcategory]]

[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]

If you'd like to *change* these processes, that's certainly something
that can and should be discussed, but you don't seem interested in
changing policy, rather you seem to be trying to institute new policy. I
don't know if this is another communication breakdown or if you were not
aware of existing policies.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
I think [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools]] and
[[Wikipedia:What's in, what's out]] both pretty
clearly show that in the wider community there is no
consensus to remove schools. - ~~~~

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: MediaWiki licensing

references:
<EPEJIODJLBDLEHGHIEADOEFABEAB.gbildson@limepeer.com>
	<200410230310.30530.nsk2@wikinerds.org>
	<9f02ca4c0410221906d3216d2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 05:06, Rowan Collins wrote:
> I don't think, in general, the main developers *care*
> about MediaWiki obtaining a "broader user base"

Perhaps a non WP-specific codebase needs to be developed, then. I have already
started some work on a new mediawiki to be used in my site but I would want
it to be usable by anybody. This project will be GPL so you will be able to
import code in MW1.4/1.5 if you like. Now, if some developer wants to join
me, that would be great...

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 04:15, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Our time is better spent in making the timid ones feel at home.

I notice mediawiki does not have a facility for informing you about new user
registrations via the wiki, although an SQL query does the job. Perhaps
something like this could be implemented in the wiki to allow you welcome new
users more promptly. Welcoming and briefing new users is very important.

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deleting vs. improving

body:
You can't get much more involved in the VfD process
than I have been for the last few months, yet I
clearly believe some change is in order.  I did no
"bitching" and "complaining" before trying to fix
things, and I am now being accused of acting without
consensus while you have decided to hammer the status
quo back into place and reverted my actions. - SimonP

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:19:54 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
>
> I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP.

That's just too simplistic. Do RC patrol for a week or look through
deletion log and you'll see for yourself.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 05:18, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Including this in plain text has the obvious disadvantages of making
> it editable (this being a wiki)

All pages in the main namespace are protected and only a sysop can change
them. Users can only update the Test: namespace where the articles are
developed and this has replaced the Talk: namespace which is substituted by
phpBB threads. Anons are of course not allowed in the wiki but they are more
than welcome to post in the forum.

In my wiki emphasis is given in allowing authors to promote their name. People
who copy a GFDL or CC (each page has its own copyright rules) article from
us, usually done with a bot but also by hand, will most probably also copy
the "Authors" section thus preserving authorship information.

> along with the article itself. A proper "list editors" feature,

Nobody would click on that so the names of the authors would not be promoted
in this way.

> though, sounds very handy. By "changelog", do you mean a kind of
> selective history - only recording significant milestones in the
> article's development? If so, you essentially do want *old* history
> stored, just not every single minor edit.

See:

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Editing_process

http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org/index.php/Help:Article_versions

These processes haven't been tested in reality in a large group of
collaborators because the site is so new, but I believe it is a very good
process.

>
> One thing which I believe has been discussed is diff-based storage,
> which would dramatically decrease the space needed for storing an
> article's history.

That's great! I wonder why this is not implemented already. Do you have enough
programmers in MW? Does WMF pay for development costs?

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] History Pruning

body:
On Saturday 23 October 2004 05:18, Rowan Collins wrote:
> selective history - only recording significant milestones in the
> article's development? If so, you essentially do want *old* history
> stored, just not every single minor edit.

I should note that I discourage excessive editing in my wikis and I encourage
extensive discussion and collaboration in the mailing list and the forum
before applying changes in an article. The motto is: "first we discuss, then
we edit". In addition, changes are filtered by an article maintainer who
should also check for copyright violations and after some time an admin
validates the article and publishes a new milestone (version). But in any
case the under-development "unpublished" article is always visible to anyone
by just accessing "Test:{{PAGENAME}}".

--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
Project Manager of http://maatworks.wikinerds.org


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
John Lee wrote:
> Institute new policy? I'm not sure what you mean, really. All I was
> trying to say was that if contributors don't make it clear through an
> article they wrote how its topic is encyclopedic, then the onus isn't on
> others to hunt high and low for a way to verify it. Mark Richards was
> saying the onus isn't on contributors to prove their articles are
> encyclopedic. I was saying that, in my opinion, it is.

The core concept isn't what I see as flawed (in fact it's almost
tautological), it's the use of it as an excuse to delete things.

> Speaking of verifiability, I just noticed
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:VfD-Ballerium from a recent post
> on the list (one of Eric B. and Rakim's deleted articles' deletion
> debates). Apparently Ballerium was verifiable; at least Eric B. and
> Rakim provided several third-party sources. Should the article have been
> kept? Rossami stated that the reason he was voting "delete" was: "Let
> the product come out for release. Then let it be for another 6 months.
> If the product still has publicity and traction after 6 months live,
> then it /might/ make the cut as encyclopedic." Isn't that a definition
> of "notability"?
>
> Sorry for the off-topic rambling, it just struck me how Ballerium
> appeared to be a perfect case of a verifiable topic having its article
> deleted.

Wow, that's a perfect example of massive abuse of the VfD process. I see
comments like "doesn't exist" (which it does and did), and statements
about how beta software isn't worthy of an article, and they don't care
how popular it is.

I note with a combination of amusement and horror but no surprise at all
that almost if not all parties involved in that discussion aside from
Rick are relatively new contributors (moreso at the time of the
discussion). What we're seeing seems to be a result of the massive
influx of new users who either don't understand Wikipedia or its
long-standing policies and principles, or don't care.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Knowledge bases (Was: Re: Deletion and notability)

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:

> I was thinking your knowledgebase idea is a good one, just not
> appropriate to Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better to include this in
> Wikibooks? Perhaps, even, its more appropriate for Wikinerds! :)

I've been thinking about the knowledge base thing, too.

Wikipedia operates as a combination of a traditional encyclopedia and a
knowledge base. I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to create a
knowledge base that continues to operate on NPOV and factuality but
without substantial limits on what subjects can be written about and in
how much detail (the scar on my right leg, for instance, would be a
legitimate candidate for a thirty-five page article if someone wants to
write it), and retain Wikipedia largely as-is but with tightened and
clarified guidelines on what should be included and in how much detail,
basically operating a little bit more like a traditional encyclopedia
while keeping the core principles intact.

This is a rough idea that just came out of my head in a semi-incoherent
rush, but I thought I'd toss it out there.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:23:22 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
>
> If you wanted WP to become a place run by reasonable people and not by policy,
> you would need to transform it into an "elite club" where only reasonable
> people can join.

You are proposing filter first, publish later.

The wiki way is publish first, filter later.

It may be counterintuitive, but it has worked, and by all indications,
continues to work.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Drive-by deletion

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:43:26 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 October 2004 01:27, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > You are proposing filter first, publish later.
> > The wiki way is publish first, filter later.
>
> Perhaps the wiki way can be applied to articles but not to people.
> I see nothing wrong with filtering new applications for user accounts.

You may see nothing wrong, but then just don't call it a wiki. Call it Nupedia.

> Not everyone can be a good contributor to a wiki and most people care
> more about themselves and their private interests rather than the WP,
> it is makes perfect sense to filter people who want to join.

Jimbo has said this many times - Wikipedia works on the assumption
that most people want to be good contributors. Better to allow
everyone first, and have mechanisms to filter out the bozos later.

> The wiki way doesn't need to be extremist: Centrist solutions work better.

Wikis work primarily because they are extremely unconventional.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Trigger-happy New Pages patrol

body:
Rebecca wrote:

> Absolutely no one here appears to be suggesting that stubs are bad. If
> we had any deletionists at all who were as hardline as Anthony, Mark
> Richards or Mr. Knight, then that's probably what they would argue.

Hardline? As in hardline inclusionist? Excuse me one moment... *off in
the distance you hear a great deal of laughter*

I'm sorry... hehehe... I'm back now... hehehehehehe...

Perhaps you'd care to pay a little more attention to my arguments? (Not
to mention my past history? 1-1.5 years ago on this very list I opposed
measures that made it more troublesome to get articles deleted.)

I joined Ray Saintonge in rejecting some notions of what criteria should
be used in deleting articles, argued with John Lee over a few of those
notions (later finding out it was partially a misunderstanding due to
the insane number of ways people are using "notability" in this
discussion), and commented on one specific case John brought up which I
felt was a clear-cut abuse of VFD.

I don't think I've ever even voted on VFD one way or another. A quick
glance at a few current entries reveal three I think should probably be
deleted, one I think shouldn't be, and one I'm not too sure of.

This is "hardline"? Just what would your definition of moderate be?


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> Rebecca wrote
>
>
>>I haven't seen the cases at hand, but knowing recent events, I'd guess
>>that they were probably substubs. And that's where they don't help
>>Wikipedia, because they contribute precisely nothing (and diminish our
>>credibility, by showing us to prefer quantity over quality).
>
>
> They were: [[taut submanifold]], [[isometric immersion]], [[Riemannian
> submanifold]] and [[critical point]].
>
> The whole deletionist/inclusionist thing is a red herring here (though
> obviously a debate waiting to happen).  All I wanted to point out, was that

Not waiting to happen, happening again. We've been over arguments like
this repeatedly, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. Assuming
current conditions persist, I hope it doesn't stop, because it prevents
things from swinging wildly toward either extreme.

> existing, accepted policies were not being applied with care.

That's a great deal of my point, too. A number of people appear to be
ignoring almost all current policy and using VFD as some sort of
rubber-stamp mechanism with no concern for how the process is supposed
to work.


from_name: Ken Ara

subject: [Wikitech-l] Robot request

body:
Hello,

I have been reading the "recent changes" and "new
articles" RSS-feeds through My Yahoo. Now I've written
a small Python program to fetch and parse these feeds,
but it fails most of the time with a message about
"intermittent server problem" and warning that my
user-agent may be blocked. Since the feeds are
available through my browser, I conclude that I have
been blocked. (My program sends the user-agent,
'WikiWalker' and provides my email address).

I have also published RSS feeds, and I know that RSS
readers and aggregation sites are among the most
aggressive 'attackers' - frequently ignoring
robots.txt, cache-busting, and requesting pages at
outrageous speeds. But my WikiWalker is really benign,
so how can I get un-blocked?

TIA,

Ken


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion and notability

body:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:02:43 +0300, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
>
> I suggest WP to do the same: Stop trying to compete with Encyclopaedia
> Britannica and become a "neutral factual verifiable knowledge base".

You can be both.

Jimbo has said: "I would view [a traditional encyclopedia] as a
competitor, except that I think they will be crushed out of existence
within 5 years."

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/07/28/1351230.shtml?tid=146&tid=95&tid=11


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
I have been concerned for some time that [[List of persons with autism
spectrum disorders]], unlike the responsible [[autism]] article on WP, is
being used to push an 'activist' POV, such as can be found for example on
the campaigning web site neurodiversity.org.

Each of the listngs there deserves separate research.  I can't comment on
them all.  I happen to known Richard Borcherds, who is there; anyone who
actually reads the Simon Baron-Cohen article on which the listing is
presumably based will get the main point (which is that 'disorder' is a
fairly notional concept in this case).

There is no simple 'diagnostic' for Asperger's, as is made clear by
responsible professionals in the field.  Some of the names there are
self-diagnoses (for example Richard Stallman, as far as I can see).  The
whole aspie/geek connection seems to have been made fashionable by an
article in 'Wired' magazine three years ago; anything that simply reflects
that is unlikely to have encyclopedic value.

My principal concerns:

(i) listings could quite possibly be defamatory (certainly hurtful), and are
made without any support;

(ii) Some of the listings based on media interviews with the Irish
psychiatrist Michael Fitzgerald, who has a book "Is There a Link Between
Autism in Men and Exceptional
Ability?" to promote, seem to be complete dross (de Valera, W. B. Yeats
because he obsessed over Maud Gonne ... puhlease).

Charles