Let me clarify myself. It is one thing to revert; it is another to work with the other side.
--Ryan
> From: actionforum(a)comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: The 3RR is an electric fence, not an
> entitlement.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> > I agree whole-heartedly. Reverts should really only be seen from
> > trolls and POV-pushers, who find the edit summary or talk page
> > irrelevant.
>
> Don't edit pages with POV pushers on them, if you aren't
> willing to revert, it will put you at a disadvantage. Some of
> those pages are among my favorites. The real problem
> is not POV pushers, but POV suppressors, who won't
> let any other POV on a page.
>
> I seldom have trouble with POV pushers, because I am tolerant
> of other POVs. If the other POV has any legitimacy and
> at all, I usually am tolerant of it as long as it is fairly characterized,
> will will usually assist in fairly characterizing it.
>
> Some pages are guarded by POV suppressors, and some busy
> pages have whole cliques of POV suppressors.
>
> -- Silverback
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>Thats all true, but there are measurable affects, and I think I'm far
>from alone in wishing that more benefits were reaped. I donno about
>arbiters, but we could use acouple hundred more mediators. The
>mediation commitee selection process is an error which should not be
>perpetuated.
>Jack (Sam Spade)
Sam Spade, what do you think is wrong with the mediation selection process?
We can't exactly hold elections, because there's a variable amount of us. Do
you have any reforms/opinions?
Regarding the effectiveness of mediation: it is true that Requests for
mediation (RfM) was backlogged a few weeks ago. However, there's been a wave
of new mediators/ applicants, and the MedCom is up and running again. The
reason, in my opinion, why there's no immediate effect by the functioning of
the MedCom is the nature of the work itself - unlike the ArbCom, we don't
determine who's "right" and who's "wrong", we can't dole out punishments,
and our word isn't binding. On the contrary, we strive to resolve the
disputes before they reach the ArbCom. This is often difficult to
accomplish, because disputes that have reached the stage of mediation are
already very demanding, and even with the best mediator, it is doubtful that
the dispute can be resolved completely. It is human nature that once you
have a bad experience with another user, even after mediation, your views
will not be altered significantly. Mediation is also a extremely long and
time-consuming process; unlike the ArbCom, there is no definitive "end" to
mediation. While the job is tough, I consider it worthwhile if the two
disputees gain even an inch more respect and understanding for each other.
Thus, I beleive in that sense, mediation has been working.
In another sense, though, the MedCom has failed. If I am correct, the
original intentions of the WikiQuette Committee (the predecessor to the
MedCom) was to lighten the load from the ArbCom. This has not happened; a
cursorary glance at the current cases facing the ArbCom show that almost
none attempted mediation. In fact, the vast majority of ArbCom cases over
the past year have not gone through the MedCom.
Thus, I am going to make a suggestion: re-introduce and emphasize the role
of the MedCom in the dispute resolution process. While the MedCom should by
no means be doling out punishment or determining findings of facts, if even
one-fourth of the current cases went through MedCom first, I believe the
mutual respect between the involved parties would often increase - if only
somewhat. Though it is doubtful that the MedCom would prevent any of these
cases from going to the ArbCom, by having attempted mediation, not only
would the mutual respect increase (hopefully), but also show the ArbCom that
both sides have made good-faith efforts at resolving the conflict.
A second suggestion: hand the MedCom more power. In other words, make the
MedCom serve as the "lower court" that has been proposed, except that
instead of deciding cases, the MedCom could attempt to mediate, reject the
case, or refer to the ArbCom. Thus, the MedCom would serve as a "filter"
before the ArbCom, only referring to the ArbCom cases which they believe
warrant arbitration, thus filtering out cases where mediation could possibly
work and cases that are too ridiculous to reach the ArbCom. Of course, if
mediation does not resolve the dispute, the MedCom can always refer the
dispute to the ArbCom.
It is my opinion, as demonstrated above, that the MedCom should be more
involved in the dispute resolution process than it currently is. While it
may not be the solution that we are searching for regarding the ArbCom
reforms, I certainly think that placing a greater emphasis on attempting
mediation first is worthwhile.
Also, let me take this opportunity, in the spirit of Esperanza, to thank
each and every one of you for your wonderful work on Wikipedia. Without you,
this great project would not be possible. I know that it is easy to feel
underappreciated, but know that many of us all admire and appreciate your
work. Also, let me wish all the ArbCom candidates best of luck at this time,
and to prepare - and warn- you of the long road ahead of you.
As always, I am seeking input on my views and value your opinions.
Regards,
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
We have some apparent anti-Semitic activity on [[David Hilbert]] (cuts of
sourced quotes from the Constance Reid biography concerning the state of the
Gottingen faculty after 1933).
Charles
-------------- Original message --------------
> I agree whole-heartedly. Reverts should really only be seen from trolls and
> POV-pushers, who find the edit summary or talk page irrelevant.
Don't edit pages with POV pushers on them, if you aren't
willing to revert, it will put you at a disadvantage. Some of
those pages are among my favorites. The real problem
is not POV pushers, but POV suppressors, who won't
let any other POV on a page.
I seldom have trouble with POV pushers, because I am tolerant
of other POVs. If the other POV has any legitimacy and
at all, I usually am tolerant of it as long as it is fairly characterized,
will will usually assist in fairly characterizing it.
Some pages are guarded by POV suppressors, and some busy
pages have whole cliques of POV suppressors.
-- Silverback
Ed Poor wrote:
>This can be addressed by encouraging (requiring?) Admins to log all
>their 3RR blocks in one place. It could be a section of:
>* [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]
Sounds like [[m:instruction creep]]. Admins don't even bother logging
their page protections in practice. Rather than require admins to log
3RR, you should be able to go to [[Special:Log/Block]] and search
blocking reasons for the string "3RR".
As [[m:instruction creep]] implies, if this sort of thing can be done
in software it should be.
- d.
I agree whole-heartedly. Reverts should really only be seen from trolls and POV-pushers, who find the edit summary or talk page irrelevant.
--Ryan
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement.
>
> > I'm not inclined to care a whole lot. People who hit the 3RR have
> > already gone beyond reasonable editing. Whether they get blocked for
> > 24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me.
>
>
> Seconded. The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. It *really
> doesn't matter* if the article is on [[m:The Wrong Version]] for a
> while longer. It really doesn't. Consistently running up 3 reversions
> every 24 hours is prima facie evidence of failure to work with others.
>
>
> - d.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Dear members,
I would like to know if there is possible to control if a given section should not appear in the Table of Contents, generated automatically by Wiki (__TOC__), like in LaTeX, you have \section{} and \section*{}, the second one is not going to be included on the TOC.
Is there any way to control the deep level of the TOC, for example just first level will show:
1
2
3
but you have:
1
1.1
2
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.2
Thanks in advance,
David
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
I have written several articles on wikipedia. I no longer wish to have
an account due to the fact Mr. Wales promises were hot honored regarding
an article written about me which contains false and misleading content
(Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). A 23 year old admin, Frank V. Waveren (fvw)
has continued to block my account making claims I am a sockpuppet user
and allowing stalkers to harrass me on this site. I have setup my own
wiki at en.wikigadugi.org and am moving my editing and authorship to
this site. I do not wish to have an account on this site any longer. I
would, however, like to be able to retrieve the source from the articles
I have written. The new site isn't GNU based, and the content is
copyrighted and will remain so.
I have reviewed the blockage of this admin (fvw) and have noted he
himself has been recently blocked for violating site rules. I have not
made legal threats, and I have a hard time accepting the judgement of a
23 year old and tolerating this level of harassment and false edits. I
have also noted this admin abuses his authority on this site repeatedly
and is basically an "enforcer" of the Linux Community. This admin has
also obtained and posted private logs from kernel.org to this site, and
has succeeded in getting my accounts at kernel.org revoked.
I ask I be unblocked long enough to retrieve materials origianlly
authored by me, at which point I wish my account (gadugi) to be deleted
from this site.
Thanks
Jeff V. Merkey
<snip> The current mediation process doesn't work very well, for exactly
those reasons, and should not be used an an example of what to do w
the ArbCom. They are making changes and improvements, but it is
despite, rather than because of their selection process, that it is
occuring.
Jack (Sam Spade) </snip>
Can you clarify what you mean, Sam Spade? Thanks.
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>From: wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 55
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:39:20 +0000 (UTC)
>
>Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Michael Turley)
> 2. Re: Trademarked images and image use policies in non-English
> Wikipedias (Andrew Gray)
> 3. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Kat Walsh)
> 4. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Sean Barrett)
> 5. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Jack Lynch)
> 6. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Andrew Gray)
> 7. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Tony Sidaway)
> 8. Re: Trademarked images and image use policies in non-English
> Wikipedias (Justin Cormack)
> 9. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Kelly Martin)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:11:32 -0400
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com>
>Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <d148b6870510060911h6afdb564n35144b918e003186(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
>
>By the same process we do now, just create more vacancies to fill.
>
>--
>Michael Turley
>User:Unfocused
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:16:28 +0100
>From: Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
> non-English Wikipedias
>To: Nyenyec N <nyenyec(a)gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060916u2c157cd2i(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 06/10/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
> > language versions of Wikipedia made and why.
> >
> > Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
> > in English)?
>
>Wikipedia-l may be a good idea, or if you ask on meta there might be
>someone knowledgeable. The en.wiki articles on foreign-language
>editions may or may not have brief summaries of such policies, but not
>really the reasoning behind them.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:18:24 -0400
>From: Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <8e253f560510060918i3abd1bf3k56e0ee0667637a87(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
> >
> > - - Ryan
>
>I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request
>process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general
>agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool
>of people to draw from.
>
>I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be
>a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would.
>It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality
>required.
>
>-Kat
>[[User:Mindspillage]]
>
>--
>"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
>escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:24:03 -0700
>From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <43454FA3.3050205(a)epoptic.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
> > On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
> >>>falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
> >>>frequently can't or won't learn.
> >
> >
> >>Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had
> >>reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he
> >>made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong.
> >>You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain
> >>the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].
> >>"According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called
> >>against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other
> >>words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called
> >>"out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than
> >>three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How
> >>is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three
> >>reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be
> >>blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3
> >>times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I
> >>be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your
> >>warning?--Freemarkets 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
> >
> >
> >
> > What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
> > least not the first time.
>
>Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
>
>- --
> Sean Barrett | It is dark, and you are likely to
> sean(a)epoptic.com | log off the wrong account.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFDRU+jMAt1wyd9d+URAtYOAJ4k5auqmO1VeuFVNj9jMvC1Wq9PHQCfdYTE
>F/J4nxsoB4YM1Ir0SDSAmNE=
>=fgTQ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:27:05 +0200
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <49bdc7430510060927h2b597b4cnee3477890eeaf3d3(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>The current mediation process doesn't work very well, for exactly
>those reasons, and should not be used an an example of what to do w
>the ArbCom. They are making changes and improvements, but it is
>despite, rather than because of their selection process, that it is
>occuring.
>
>Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>On 10/6/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Turley wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> > >
> > > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
> > >
> > > - - Ryan
> >
> > I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request
> > process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general
> > agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool
> > of people to draw from.
> >
> > I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be
> > a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would.
> > It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality
> > required.
> >
> > -Kat
> > [[User:Mindspillage]]
> >
> > --
> > "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
> > escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:33:17 +0100
>From: Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060933x31f3ffb7l(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 06/10/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> > > What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
> > > least not the first time.
> >
> > Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
>
>Should we add that the 3RR is also not cricket? ;-)
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:36:08 +0100
>From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <605709b90510060936p74a9c87aq857a4511018832e8(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Wikipedia is not baseball.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:41:13 +0100
>From: Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
> non-English Wikipedias
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <1128616874.19912.4.camel(a)scrod.vision>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 10:48 -0500, Nyenyec N wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In HuWiki there's an ongoing debate over trademarked images, such as
> > company logos. On the one hand, they're usually copyrighted so they
> > shouldn't be uploaded, on the other hand they can be used to
> > illustrate encyclopedia articles about the specific company without
> > the fear of anyone suing us.
>
>Except that they might implicitly be taken to imply endorsement, or we
>might be asked to remove them.
>
>WHat is the summary of the argument on HU?
>
> > I know that they cannot be uploaded to commons (since they're
> > copyrighted) and I think the German Wikipedia also doesn't allow such
> > images, since they don't have a free license.
> >
> > I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
> > language versions of Wikipedia made and why.
>
>en is overlax and allows upload of pretty much any copyrighted image at
>the moment. Clearly this is going to have to change. I wouldnt use the
>policies of en as a basis for anything else. Also it depends on the fair
>use policy of the country in question (as that is where it will largely
>be used). Germany has no fair use right in law apparently, hence their
>decision.
>
> > Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
> > in English)?
>
>Here, or wikiproject fair use on en.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:38:51 -0500
>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <bd4c411e0510060938k13f93177hcff5643bad070341(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would
> > never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator. If I'd
> > thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to
> > arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page
> > locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a
> > lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities
> > granted to them in the same general class.
>
>I'm also in agreement that the notion of letting any admin volunteer
>to act as an adjudicator on any dispute is a bad idea.
>
>First, you have the issue that adminship is currently "no big deal".
>If we give admins the right to make unilateral binding decisions (even
>if subject to appeal) with the full authority of the ArbCom, then
>suddenly adminship is no longer "no big deal". We'd really need to
>reconfirm all our current admins to this new standard, and I bet a lot
>of them would fail to meet it.
>
>Second, allowing people to pick and choose what issues they will offer
>justice on is an open invitation to bias. If a candidate jurist has a
>POV on a particular issue, he will want to judge it in order to impose
>his POV. I oppose any system in which assignment to cases is on a
>voluntary basis; all of our jurists should take the cases as they
>come, with the option (and obligation) to recuse in case of conflict.
>
>As to the problem of getting people to want to serve as magistrates
>(which is, frankly, a really nasty job, almost as bad as that of
>arbitrator, and with less prestige and power): the one selling point
>is that it stands to reason that magistrates will naturally be the
>most probable candidates to become future arbitrators, and are likely
>to be called on to serve as temporary arbitrators to fill vacancies
>and so forth. Combine that with the fact that there are some crazy
>people who enjoy being jurists, and I think we can scare up enough
>qualified people to at least blunt the storm somewhat.
>
>And, on top of that, I will personally buy a round of drinks for
>anyone who serves as a magistrate, at every Wikimania I attend. :)
>
>Kelly
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 55
>****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Hi,
In HuWiki there's an ongoing debate over trademarked images, such as
company logos. On the one hand, they're usually copyrighted so they
shouldn't be uploaded, on the other hand they can be used to
illustrate encyclopedia articles about the specific company without
the fear of anyone suing us.
I know that they cannot be uploaded to commons (since they're
copyrighted) and I think the German Wikipedia also doesn't allow such
images, since they don't have a free license.
I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
language versions of Wikipedia made and why.
Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
in English)?
Thanks,
nyenyec