Some details are being sorted out now, but this is live and can be used.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 22 Feb 2008 06:11
Subject: [Wikitech-l] New features
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Put __HIDDENCAT__ on the category page to hide that category from the list
at the bottom of the article pages. This feature is intended to reduce the
clutter from maintenance categories like [[Category:Articles with
unsourced statements since December 2007]].
A feature to show the hidden categories for a page has been proposed, and
is entirely possible in the backend, but the user inteface details have
not been sorted out yet.
Red links now display text from [[MediaWiki:Red-link-title]] in their
title attribute. By default, this is "(not yet written)" after the
destination name. This feature is intended to inform casual readers of the
nature of a red link.
Red links now point to action=editredlink instead of action=edit. The new
action is more lenient in displaying edit permission errors, to avoid
offending readers who are blocked and clicked a red link with no intention
of editing.
Specifically, it redirects to the view page if the user doesn't have edit
permissions, thus requiring the user to explicitly click the "edit" tab in
order to see a block message.
The new parser is now live on all Wikimedia wikis.
The format of various MediaWiki namespace messages has been changed, to
allow templates and parser functions in a much more intuitive way, similar
to ordinary articles. Some local messages have hacks to work around bugs
in the old parser, these hacks will need to be removed.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
In a message dated 2/22/2008 10:55:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
james.farrar(a)gmail.com writes:
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it
wants. A situation where neither side gets any of what it wants cannot
accurately be described as a compromise.>>>
------------------
If two sides are diamatrically opposed, you cannot create a situation where
they each get something they want. In that case, you have to create one that
*appears* to be in the middle, and hope the majority of voices go dark.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/22/2008 6:03:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wegmann(a)psi.co.at writes:
Well the thing is, that I've been blocked in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]],
*because* the admin who blocked me, disagreed with my POV in a content
dispute.>>
---------------
Raphael I've already told you that issues like this should go to ANI for a
wider-community input.
There *have* been ANI issues, shown, debated, and resolved *just like this*.
Amazing! No! Say it ain't so! And some users have actually gotten
unblocked because of that debate.
It has indeed happened. And many of the debaters were not even admins.
Adminship just like Islam is not monolithic and is subject to change, and
outside-criticism.
OK at any rate, why the constant discussion here? Just do it.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Hosting ranges are often blocked entirely when a likely open proxy or
0wnz0r3d box is found in them, on the presumption that edits from
hosted machines are vanishingly unlikely. There are, however, more
false positives than you might think ...
I just had to unblock and then reblock around 87.117.229.0/24 - which
is in the middle of a hosting range, but happens to be the /24 for
last.fm and includes their office proxy, 87.117.229.252 (on which user
and user talk page I've put a note with their admin contact details in
case of idiocy from their range). Apparently they had asked before
about unblocking and been told "no" ... I don't have the details.
But false positives - either from a subrange inside a hosting range,
or some old-skool type who insists on editing from his very own hosted
box rather than the PC on his desk - are far from unknown with hosting
range blocks. And even though hosting range blocks are generally a
good idea when needed, please keep in mind the need to be approachable
and to be ready to unblock as needed.
I also used the following blocking summary: "hosting range blocked due
to open proxies or compromised machines - please contact in case of
false positives, subranges with a contact, etc." Which hopefully
should make it come across as less impersonal and tell people what
they actually need to do next
- d.
Well, actually, I've just looked at "clitoris", and it is rather
modest as these articles go (compared for example with all the
duplicative pictures of the scrotum). It doesn't even use one of the
various photos of women exhibiting their vulvas. As far as the sexual
organs are concerned, we have an overabundance of images, ranging from
classic medical drawings to pushing-the-limits-near-pornography. The
choices made vary widely, so that some articles are medically modest
(but quite clear), and others are rather graphic. Inevitably the more
graphic examples draw complaints, and the more modest do not. There
does in fact seem to be a happy (but not orgasmic) medium for this
type of article. and I haven't seen any sign that people think there
should be no depictions at all.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, no we don't. We can decide on a case-by-case basis, by discussion
> > and consensus among the editors of a given article, the same way we do
> > for *every other editorial decision*...
>
> We don't decide every decision on a case by case basis, we have policy
> to determine more decisions. The exact details of how to apply a
> policy to a given situation is determined on a case by case basis, but
> there is usually a policy to apply.
>
> If you add show/hide tags to [[Muhammad]], how long do you think it
> will take for the edit war to start on [[Clitoris]]? I'd give it about
> 3 hours...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I have made some edits on the Arabic language Wikipedia, and have been
looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As
mentioned on the list before, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic
Wikipedia is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g.
human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images
One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some
people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless
you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you see the image.
Another way I have seen is use of the show/hide feature, with the image by
default hidden.
<http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8:AnubisClick>
I have tried these out over in my sandbox space on English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aude/Sandbox7
Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue
of images on the [[Muhammad]] article. I don't have lots of time to involve
myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help
inform about how the Arabic Wikipedia does things in some situations.
-Aude
In a message dated 2/22/2008 1:26:57 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tonysidaway(a)gmail.com writes:
Why don't we just put all the illustrations into the "depictions"
article, >>>
---------------------
OK ask the guy who started the petition if moving the image to another
article would be satisfactory.
I'm not getting a great feeling that it would be satisfactory to him or
them. But it's worth a shot isn't it?
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/21/2008 7:27:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
- It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not
helping spread knowledge.>>
---------------------------------------------
I'm suspicious of this factoid. Do you have a source?
Thanks
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/22/2008 1:04:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
If *we* choose what
*we* publish, that's not censorship: it's editorial discretion.
-----------------------
"Self-censorship" is a word. Your definition would make it a non-word.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)