On 7/17/06, Abigail Brady &lt;morwen(a)evilmagic.org&gt; wrote: Hmm, there probably aren't many of those. And even still, it might be possible to separate the two, thus saying "common traits of races attacked in racist jokes are as follows: Foobians: big ears, bad table manners." then later "Jokes about big ears: ......." Thus, I suspect it is not particularly offensive to say "there exist a number of jokes, particularly aimed at Jewish, Dutch and Scottish people, about miserliness". One can then give an example of a joke like "What did the <nationality> man say to the...?" etc. By separating the offensive characteristic from the joke, I think the offensiveness is greatly reduced. Steve

On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki &lt;marudubshinki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Blonde jokes? --LV

On 7/17/06, Lord Voldemort &lt;lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That would be offensive to blondes. ;-)

All I know is that the old version of the article was a lot more interesting. On 7/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

*tongue firmly in cheek* I still fail to see what this has to do with poor [[Wayne Gretzky]]. -- John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com "The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time..." -Kerouac

On 7/13/06, Lord Voldemort &lt;lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Oh I suspect I'll be turned into a newt for this. :P -- John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com "The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time..." -Kerouac

In theory, the number of free-content images on en.wikipedia should be close to zero (a few meta-images are acceptable). I'm not sure whether to be more concerned by that fact or by the fact that there are so many fair use images. On 13/07/06, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 7/17/06, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there? The only problems I've ever had with Commons is the difficulty of getting things which are probably (but not unambiguously) copyvios deleted, because the collective knowledge of US copyright law is pretty low there (or ambivalent when not low, "US shouldn't be our standard" and all that), but never a problem with free content. FF

I thought one of the licenses was free GFDL from en.wikipedia. On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki &lt;marudubshinki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Adam J. Lorenz

On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt; wrote: ... Not quite following you here; what do you mean by "redundant logins to merge later"? It is a bit annoying to have to login to Commons to upload an image, but I don't think that's what you are getting at... ~maru

On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt; wrote: Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is. Also, creating dupe accounts isn't so bad.. so long as they are dupes of you and not dupes of someone else.

On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki &lt;marudubshinki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Because the number of completely bogus claims of free content on En is rather large... Commons sets a more strict criteria than en has had historically. There are a large number of images on en accepted with reasonings like "Someone uploaded this, and I assume they weren't trying to violate copyright law, thus thus is GFDL" which would be deleted in a moment.. Experience on commons shows that a large number of the 'free' images imported from other projects are not free. The move is a great time to reevaluate the claims made, and we lose that with mass automatic moves... So what advantage would automatic moves provide?

On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt; wrote: Sadily, although common's rules are more restrictive .. their overall enforcement is far more lax (at least past the initial upload). The problems with cross language cross project cooperation result in a lot of difficulty. :(

On 7/17/06, Justin Cormack &lt;justin(a)specialbusservice.com&gt; wrote: I don't know how single signon will address any copyright related problems. That said, I expect that we'll have single sign on real soon now (tm). As far as en's image problems... if you think nothing is being done to fix it, you're simply out of touch. Compared to a year ago, our image copyright policy is substantially more clear, more strict, and more enforced. We have made it far more likely to catch confused uploads, and we have been fixing a LOT of old problems. There are some occasional regressions, but we've mostly gotten past the times where wikipedians would randomly assign tags in order to rescue unlicensed images. Folks like Carnildo have done and are doing a tremendous amount of work. We still have a long way to go... but to claim that there is no improvement is ridiculous.

On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt; wrote: It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons". Another obstacle is that the descriptions of all the licences are totally different on Commons. People would probably be happy to upload more to Commons if a) they knew they should, and b) it was easier. Moving stuff from en to Commons easily would be a big boost. Steve

Steve Bennett wrote: Many of en:'s habitual big uploaders have already switched to commons, so it's partly a question of how much we want to encourage smaller-scale uploaders that haven't made the move. It would be interesting to see the results of a query on who has uploaded the most free images to en: in the past year or so, and perhaps ask them their reasons for not using commons instead. Stan

We have to remember that US copyright laws always apply because of the physical location of the servers and Wikimedia. Adam On 7/18/06, Fastfission &lt;fastfission(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Adam J. Lorenz

On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: True enough. The biggest problem with Commons is that the MediaWiki software is not really set up to be an image repository. What works very well for articles does not work so well for groups of files -- it is hard to find things which are uncategorized, it is hard to tell when new things have arrived, and unless you have 200 images on your watchlists it is hard to tell when image descriptions are changed (or vandalized) or the images themselves have been re-uploaded. If you cruise through their IFD you can see a lot of this happening all the time. FF

On 7/17/06, Fastfission &lt;fastfission(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: They don't have the same objectives at us. In some cases it results in the loss of GFDl history and they allowed the main page to be vandalises. -- geni

On 7/13/06, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu &lt;jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu&gt; wrote: I did. They aren't sane. ;) I'll run them correctly tonight. Will do.

On 7/14/06, Ben Yates &lt;bluephonic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [[WP:GRAPEFRUIT]], from memory. Totally agree with you. An article about jokes that does not have enough examples to illustrate the concept of a joke is remiss. On the other hand, an article about jokes that includes 50 examples is also in error. Steve

On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better. Or even a couple, if they illustrate different types of jokes, different forms etc. Definitely not. [[Jumping the shark]] is the definitive example of that problem (or at least was, the last time I checked). Definitely, definitely not. But I don't believe in including offensive material in general, except for the most mitigating circumstances. Eg, if a politician's career was ended by telling a short, racist joke, then it might be appropriate to repeat that joke. Maybe. Steve

On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: Honestly, I don't find creating original examples to be in violation of NOR. An article about an element of musical theory would not be in violation if an editor created an original piece of music that demonstrated that theory. Just like we allow people to create original diagrams that illustrate concepts. IMHO anyway. Subjective judgements as to which jokes represent the genre are definitely ok - that's exactly how Wikipedia functions. The entire thing is full of "subjective judgements" as to which comparisons to what are relevant - many articles on cities contain comparisons to other cities, and there are plenty of examples of "subjective" decisions as to whether or not the subjective of an example "represents" some other genre - our whole category system is based on it. Not a problem. No. You decide collectively how many jokes you want, then put a comment in the text thus: <joke 1> ... <joke 4> <!-- no more jokes please, see discussion: 4 is the right number --> One example is too limiting. What would an encyclopaedia do? It would have the "right number" of "good examples". Something that takes what one usually calls "editorial judgment". Very tricky to implement at Wikipedia. Definitely. Better to be safe than sorry. Steve

On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia. That said, academic citations would be cool - I'm sure there are academic papers on jokes. -Matt

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:08:19 +1000, Mark Gallagher &lt;m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au&gt; wrote: I think that was "fuck process" actually... Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "Matt Brown" &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [[WP:NOR]] suggests otherwise... Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:03:35 -0700, mboverload &lt;mboverload(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm not trying to be a Nazi about it, just to avoid the inevitable addition of poorer and poorer quality jokes. You know perfectly well that if there is a knock-knock joke in there, the next passing school kid replace it with a ''scatalogical'' knock-knock joke, because after all any joke with rude words in is inherently that much funnier. Or not. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:07:22 +0200, "Steve Bennett" &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Most people? Define most people. How do we tell if "most" people would choose one example over another? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG