WikiEN-l September 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

133 participants
274 discussions

Proxies aren't againts the rules, they are just blocked. Was: Wikipaedia is an attack site, too. (was Re: There are no...)
by Gregory Maxwell 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

On 9/27/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > But i don't use it on the pedia. Because it's not allowed. > That's the rules as they are now. You know this, i know this. It isn't against the rules to use open proxies with English Wikipedia, nor even against them to edit from open proxies. Rather, the standing and well justified practice is to block them when we find them because they are used for trouble. The distinction is subtle but important. If there existed an open proxy which was an attractive tool for abuse we wouldn't block it. No such beast exists yet, but they are possible. For example, http://www.lunkwill.org/src/nym/Readme proposes a system which would allow us to give people tokens whenever they donate over a threshold amount to us or perhaps other participating non-profits. The token could be used to enable tor editing from a single account. This way creating vandal accounts would cost $25 (or whatever) each. Probably a reasonable enough solution, and the pseudoanomity of the user is strongly preserved. Or another example, http://petworkshop.org/2007/papers/PET2007_preproc_Nymble.pdf uses many of the same cryptographic constructs as above but creates a system where we could block IPs without ever being able to tell exactly what they were. Now that armedblowfish is rate limited perhaps he'll have some time to work on developing the software needed to make one these into reasonable options. > But > regardless, this is being dragged off topic. If it's that off-topic then don't reply on list. ;)

6 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] Free images?
by Monahon, Peter B. 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

> ... Spectators can be blurred beyond > recognition...with photoshop...make > bystanders...look "incidentally out of > focus" rather than "deliberately > anonymized"... > ...When using a good camera, the > bigger the aperture (the smaller the > f-number) the smaller the depth of > focus. This also increases the > amount of light hitting the film, > meaning you can speed up the > shutter speed... Film? Hahahahah! And ... adjustable settings on little tiny digital cell phone camera chips and their little tiny lenses? Hahahahah! "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and on Wikipedia, the kind of images presented as fair use are barely 100 pixels in either dimension - about equal to 0.01 megapixels! ANY camera captures w-a-y more than that, and uploading ~100x pixel copies (even of other people's photos) as fair use reference images probably would pass muster in an encyclopedia. Does anyone know of any case law in this new field? Regarding the presumption that cell phones aren't going to be a useful source of images, that's just blind to reality. Cell phones are just as "serious" image capture devices as any other camera. They have arrived: see National Geographic's "The Camera Phone Book" at http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/175/3690/122.html "... the book explains how to choose good equipment; take better pictures; and store, print, and send the best images...Featuring the technical savvy of CNet.com's Aimee Baldridge and the creative skill of National Geographic photographer Robert Clark, a camera phone pioneer, this compact yet comprehensive reference combines up-to-the-minute expertise with superb examples...this generously illustrated nuts-and-bolts guide is the first of its kind to treat these units as genuine cameras instead of novelties, and the only one to include a full-color photo-essay demonstrating the full capabilities of the latest camera phones...2007..." PS - Off Topic - the smaller the image capture size, the greater the depth of field focus. The beauty of the cell phone camera is that it's so small that everything is in focus near to far all the time - lens aperture settings are pretty much meaningless and inaccessible. As they say, "take the picture now, you can always fix it in photoshop later!" Photoshop legit copies start ~$5US for older version on eBay and there are many free programs that offer tools to accomplish cropping, resizing, sharpening, blurring and other image tweaks functions.

6 10

Re: [WikiEN-l] Usability (was there are no pictures...)
by phoebe ayers 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

On 9/25/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25/09/2007, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 25/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Yeah. The image interface in general really sucks, I believe we have a > > > usability report to hand that details how it sucks, so if there's any > > > coders with a good feel for UI who are keen on making things easier > > > then they should hop onto wikitech-l and #wikimedia-tech for a chat > > > with the devs. > > > Link? > > > On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability , I > believe it's one of the two PDFs linked at the bottom. > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Usability/Test_Februar_2… > > is on de:wp, but is in English. I think this is the report in > question. > > There's lots and lots of things wrong other than the image interface, of > course. > > Wwwolf has a page here too: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wwwwolf/MediaWiki_Usability Ah, thanks! I didn't know about these. There's also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability which could stand some updating. The pdf link you mention seems to be broken though :( -- does anyone know if the .pdf report was the same as what's posted at de:? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Usability/Test_Februar_2… <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability>Does anyone have a copy of the pdf? I still think it'd be worth getting another outside usability assessment*; it looks like the German report was likely based on an old version of the de: upload page, which is pretty different from the giant pages full o' instructions that we have on en: now. -- phoebe * hopefully from someone with a clue about licenses!

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipaedia is an attack site, too. (was Re: There are no...)
by Monahon, Peter B. 28 Sep '07

28 Sep '07

> Earlier: "...Somewhere or another, > we may even have touched on an > encyclopedia for more than three > messages at a time..." >> Earlier: "... I'd never have posted >> here if I weren't banned from >> complaining to OTRS on threat >> of AN/I..." Wow - one of my many, may points about the perils of having a banning tool in the first place - we end up endlessly arguing aver banning rather than dealing with the content of the problem. Banning is bad for ... do we need a list? It always ends up with this: Banning is bad for the person who bans. "...more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..." -- MLKJr If not here, where?

7 18

Free images?
by Daniel R. Tobias 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission". The deletion seems to be failing though. Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during? Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

10 18

Re: [WikiEN-l] Asking for free images on living bios
by Monahon, Peter B. 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

>> ...Doesn't even the US have >> restrictions on journalism?... > ...A photograph of an individual > in a public place is by definition > not private information. What > occurs in public is public... Nobody understands the US. The "US" is, literally "us", as in "we", as in "we, the people". The "government has no powers of it's own except the powers it receives from "we the people". And, "we, the people" put our concerns right up front in the Bill of Rights: "...congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Period. "...no law..." End of story. > ...Perhaps something along the > lines of proving that revealing > information on a private figure > is 'in the public interest'?.. Got that backwards - that's concerning "we the people", the public, having the right private information, not trying to make public information private! And, what exactly is a "private figure" anyway?

5 9

School articles
by Andrew Gray 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

Now here's a rarity: a well-written, informative, interesting, and scrupulously sourced article... ...on a primary school which only opened six years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanjong_Katong_Primary_School A nice existence proof that it can be done! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

2 1

Asking for free images on living bios
by David Gerard 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

I'm working at home this week, which means I get the small child on my arm. This leaves the other arm free to use AutoWikiBrowser! So I've been going through [[Category:Living people]] and adding [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] or [[Image:Replace this image female.svg|right]] to every article that doesn't have an image or at least the word "image" in it. Anyone else want to help? Our living bios are overwhelmingly male, so I glance over the text in the edit box and (as needed) paste [[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] in, and add "fe" if the subject is female. That thing is durned ugly, but already has people finding suitable images on Commons or other Wikipedias, and based on past experience will net us more than a few free content photos we didn't have before. I might replace the current SVGs with some of the less ugly ones mooted in the Village Pump thread as well ... - d.

10 23

Fair Use on talk pages
by Thatcher131 Wikipedia 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

James Hansen, NASA's chief global warming scientist, has recently come under press and blog criticism for supposedly warning about global cooling in a 1971 Washington Post article. Yesterday I uploaded a scan of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hansen_Wash_Post.pdf) so the actual facts could be discussed on the article talk page. (I believe the recent coverage misrepresented Hansen's role as explained in the article.) Even though I uploaded it with a Fair Use rationale, the image police tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation. I think this use of a copyrighted source, to inform discussion of the topic on the article talk page, is closer to the spirit and intent of the fair use doctrine than decorating articles with screenshots and album covers. One purpose of the Fair Use exemption is to allow the free exchange of ideas and information in scholarly discussion, and to insist, in this case, that each editor interested in this article must individually pay the Post for a copy, or find a library with the right back issue, in order to participate, seems harmful to the project. (When the Washington Times has a current article saying one thing, the only way to show what the original article said is to either post it or transcribe it, which is the same thing for copyright purposes.) I have done this several times before, to allow informed discussion of a disputed source on the talk page or on an AfD discussion. However, there is no mention of this form of Fair Use on [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. I'm curious about your reaction to this, and whether some discussion of acceptable use of non-free content on talk pages should be included. Thatcher131

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki formatting for wide browsers
by Monahon, Peter B. 27 Sep '07

27 Sep '07

> > > ...To set the maximum width > > > for the content, put html { max-width:1280px; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto } > > > in your monobook.css (adapt > > > "1280px" to the width you like > > to keep it working normally on > > smaller screens)... > ...But aren't there inferior popular > browsers that fail to support the > 'max-width' attribute? ... It would > be better to use a relative > measurement such as em instead > of px, to allow for it to rescale if > the font size is adjusted by user > preference. Otherwise, you can > have a situation where somebody > sets their normal text to a large > size (due to poor vision or an > extremely high resolution monitor > where pixels are very small) and > still ends up with it crammed into > a fixed-pixel-width canvas... I just adjust my browser window to ~40 characters across for easy reading, or I print it out and read off line. I've also browsed through Adobe Acrobat (writer) and read on screen or on paper. There are options, and maybe we need a page to remind people what are their viewing adjustment options. At Wikipedia, [[help:____]] there are only 2 articles with the word "display" or "font", 1 with "view" or "size", and NONE with the words "adjust", "screen", "resolution", or "window". What name should we give an article that tells people how to adjust their display screen resolution and font and window size for optimum reading? I think % is relative regardless; em is un referenced to screen physical dimensions but should correspond to exact measurements on print output devices; and px depend on device-controlled physical dimensions that vary from device to device. Why bother? Everyone's display and system rendering is different! Regardless, 508-compliance requires that information on screen not be dependant on color (hence my preference for traditional underlines versus red or blue for links), be responsive to user adjustments for contrast and size, and present themselves to screen readers with equivalent information for non-sighted users. Have a look at http://www.section508.gov/ and report back in a few days. Nice "Site Layout Controls" in the upper right corner, eh? ;-)

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
28
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2007