[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/method/mailman-msgid?showcomments=yes As someone who is interested in and cites email conversations, the opacity of the mailman interface -- or the lack of my understanding -- is a pain. I was spoiled by the W3C's system [1] where each email had a header with a URL to its place in the archive, which corresponded in some way to the msg-id! When processing comments on a spec, or citing conversations, its very handy to be able to link to a persistent Web representation of an email.
In writing about Wikipedia discourse I'm stuck with using the message-id if I happen to have that email in a mbox, or a URL if I happen to have a Web page, but from one I can not easily get the other, and I'm not confident that the URL will be stable in any case. (For example, will [2] always correspond to the message with the message-id "42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de"?)
Without a guarantee of stability, I suppose its best to use msg-id in citing WP discourse, but that makes finding that message problematic for the reader. I'd provide a hint if I could somehow obtain it myself, but the HTML page for a message in the archive has no indicatation of the msg-id. And even if I have the msg-id, I can't easily find the corresponding archive URL. Before sending this message, I thought there would be a search interface and I could write a script, but there doesn't appear to be one, and it doesn't work in Google (e.g., [3]).
What to do??
[1] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Devel [2] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html [3] http://www.google.com/search?as_q=42BEC0EF.6070906%40web.de&num=10&h... ]]
That is a very good question. I've been wondering the same, along the lines of "is it really necessary for wikiphiles to use off-wiki methods of communication? what are the pros and cons?" In a general sense, finding a way to provide a unified searchable corpus, and a unified wtchlist, across all non-transient forms of communication, would be a great help to community-building.
Of course the advantages to wiki-style email is that you could easily retain two different IDs for each message; the core ID of a particular message, and the revision ID of the latest-updated version of it... With email discussions as with articles, there are both discussion messages and the rarer content messages; it would be likewise interesting to distinguish the two.
SJ
On 6/27/05, Joseph Reagle joseph.2003@reagle.org wrote:
In writing about Wikipedia discourse I'm stuck with using the message-id if I happen to have that email in a mbox, or a URL if I happen to have a Web page, but from one I can not easily get the other, and I'm not confident that the URL will be stable in any case. (For example, will [2] always correspond to the message with the message-id "42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de"?)
Without a guarantee of stability, I suppose its best to use msg-id in citing WP discourse, but that makes finding that message problematic for the reader. I'd provide a hint if I could somehow obtain it myself, but the HTML page for a message in the archive has no indicatation of the msg-id. And even if I have the msg-id, I can't easily find the corresponding archive URL. Before sending this message, I thought there would be a search interface and I could write a script, but there doesn't appear to be one, and it doesn't work in Google (e.g., [3]).
What to do??
[1] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Devel [2] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html [3] http://www.google.com/search?as_q=42BEC0EF.6070906%40web.de&num=10&h... ]]
-- Regards, http://reagle.org/joseph/ Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
To be clear, while your response is provocative, I'm asking a much more mundane question of, if I, for example, cite a Wikipedia message in a paper, how should I go about it, and unfortunately the software today is not very useful in that regard. But your email is interesting, so I respond on those thoughts as well :).
On Monday 27 June 2005 11:32, Sj wrote:
That is a very good question. I've been wondering the same, along the lines of "is it really necessary for wikiphiles to use off-wiki methods of communication? what are the pros and cons?"
I'm of the philosophy that one should use the right tool/media for the task. For example, I hate checking Web pages to see if something changed: events should be "broadcast" (or at least made available for a pull).
In a general sense, finding a way to provide a unified searchable corpus, and a unified wtchlist, across all non-transient forms of communication, would be a great help to community-building.
That would be handy.
Of course the advantages to wiki-style email is that you could easily retain two different IDs for each message; the core ID of a particular message, and the revision ID of the latest-updated version of it... With email discussions as with articles, there are both discussion messages and the rarer content messages; it would be likewise interesting to distinguish the two.
Not sure I'm following you here but it sounds as if you would like a thread-id?
On 6/27/05, Joseph Reagle joseph.2003@reagle.org wrote:
lines of "is it really necessary for wikiphiles to use off-wiki methods of communication? what are the pros and cons?"
I'm of the philosophy that one should use the right tool/media for the task. For example, I hate checking Web pages to see if something changed: events should be "broadcast" (or at least made available for a pull).
Up with "push" wiki extensions!
Of course the advantages to wiki-style email is that you could easily retain two different IDs for each message; the core ID of a particular message, and the revision ID of the latest-updated version of it... With email discussions as with articles, there are both discussion messages and the rarer content messages; it would be likewise interesting to distinguish the two.
Not sure I'm following you here but it sounds as if you would like a thread-id?
No, threads are distinct; I assume you still have a thread-id, even if via some hackish linked-list referrer-matching. On the simplest level I want a message-id, and the ability to edit my messages later.
On a more complex level, more people than the original author may be able to edit the original message. It's still the same message; it still spawned whatever thread surrounded it... but it now has more lasting value because it isn't instantly flat and dated.
--SJ
Joseph Reagle wrote:
In writing about Wikipedia discourse I'm stuck with using the message-id if I happen to have that email in a mbox, or a URL if I happen to have a Web page, but from one I can not easily get the other, and I'm not confident that the URL will be stable in any case. (For example, will [2] always correspond to the message with the message-id "42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de"?)
The mailman URLs *should* remain stable, unless someone manually edits the archive file for that month such that the sequence of messages changes (or the archive file is somehow massively corrupted in a similar way).
We try to make sure that doesn't happen; if someone needs to manually edit and rebuild the archives, they _should_ not remove whole messages, but should blank out the virus attachment / private mail accidentally sent / whatever without changing the sequence.
But there's no guarantee that it won't accidentally happen without somebody noticing/mentioning it.
Without a guarantee of stability, I suppose its best to use msg-id in citing WP discourse, but that makes finding that message problematic for the reader. I'd provide a hint if I could somehow obtain it myself, but the HTML page for a message in the archive has no indicatation of the msg-id. And even if I have the msg-id, I can't easily find the corresponding archive URL. Before sending this message, I thought there would be a search interface and I could write a script, but there doesn't appear to be one, and it doesn't work in Google (e.g., [3]).
You might check the gmane interfaces also; most of our lists are gatewayed to NNTP through there, and they have a web interface also.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Monday 27 June 2005 11:56, Brion Vibber wrote:
We try to make sure that doesn't happen; if someone needs to manually edit and rebuild the archives, they _should_ not remove whole messages, but should blank out the virus attachment / private mail accidentally sent / whatever without changing the sequence.
OK, that's good to know. I think we had had that happen at the W3C so we instituted a similar policy.
You might check the gmane interfaces also; most of our lists are gatewayed to NNTP through there, and they have a web interface also.
Good idea. I checked and didn't find anything at GMame but I'm really pleased to find that MARC shows the msg-id and even permits msg-id queries! So [2] is also [a,b].
[2] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html [a] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=<42BEC0EF.6070906%20()%20web%20!%20de> [b] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de
On the off chance, what's the chance we could have such (i.e., [b]) a URI included in the email headers? For example, at the W3C we included a header:
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0506210855540.28076-100000@smtp.datapo...
On Monday 27 June 2005 11:56, Brion Vibber wrote:
We try to make sure that doesn't happen; if someone needs to manually edit and rebuild the archives, they _should_ not remove whole messages, but should blank out the virus attachment / private mail accidentally sent / whatever without changing the sequence.
OK, that's good to know. I think we had had that happen at the W3C so we instituted a similar policy.
You might check the gmane interfaces also; most of our lists are gatewayed to NNTP through there, and they have a web interface also.
Good idea. I checked and didn't find anything at GMame but I'm really pleased to find that MARC shows the msg-id and even permits msg-id queries! So [2] is also [a,b].
[2] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html [a] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=<42BEC0EF.6070906%20()%20web%20!%20de> [b] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de
On the off chance, what's the chance we could have such (i.e., [b]) a URI included in the email headers? For example, at the W3C we included a header:
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0506210855540.28076-100000@smtp.datapo...
"Joseph Reagle" joseph.2003@reagle.org wrote in message news:200506271426.44237.joseph.2003@reagle.org...
On Monday 27 June 2005 11:56, Brion Vibber wrote:
[snip]
You might check the gmane interfaces also; most of our lists are gatewayed to NNTP through there, and they have a web interface also.
Good idea. I checked and didn't find anything at GMame
YM "Gmane". Point your new client of choice at "news.gmane.org" and look under the "gmane.org.wikimedia.*" and "gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.*" headings.
but I'm really pleased to find that MARC shows the msg-id and even permits msg-id queries! So [2] is also [a,b].
[2] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html [a] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=<42BEC0EF.6070906%20()%20web%20!%20de> [b] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=42BEC0EF.6070906@web.de
Neither of the marc... links worked for me. What was I supposed to see?
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 06:02, Phil Boswell wrote:
YM "Gmane". Point your new client of choice at "news.gmane.org" and look under the "gmane.org.wikimedia.*" and "gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.*" headings.
Yes, I did see the newsgroups, I just mean it didn't satisfy my requirements of a stable URI corresponding to a msg-id.
So [2] is also [a,b].
[2]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-June/040600.html
[a] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=<42BEC0EF.6070906%20
()%20web%20!%20de>
Neither of the marc... links worked for me. What was I supposed to see?
If I click it, KMail cuts the url off after the '=' sign, but if you place the whole URL of [b] in the address bar, it should redirect to [z] which corresponds to [2].
[z] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wikipedia-l&m=111979751408966
On Monday 27 June 2005 11:23, Joseph Reagle wrote:
What to do??
Fortunately, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/ provides a Web archive to these lists with the ability to query based on message-id. The following procmail script will add a header and signature containing a URL of the message:
################################################################### ######## # insert X-Archived-At header into messages from Wikimedia lists # :0fwh will append the "Archived at" at the beginning of the # message :0 * ^List-Id: .*Wiki[mp]edia.org { MID=`formail -xMessage-Id | tr -d '<' | tr -d '>' | tr -d ' '` URL="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=<${MID}>" :0fw | (formail -I"X-Archived-At: ${URL}>"; echo "Archived at: ${URL}") }
Unfortunately, the URL contains the excluded character delimiters '<' and '>' meaning it is not a valid URL and won't be automatically clickable in some applications such as KMail.
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org