"If you contribute to the Wikimedia projects, you are publishing every
word you post publicly."
german translation:
"Wenn Sie zu den Wikimedia-Projekten beitragen, veröffentlichen Sie
jedes Wort, das sie abschicken, öffentlich."
That's the second sentence of our privacy policy, to be found on
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
and inspires me to loose a few words on how policy writing should be
handled in a multilingual project:
* Decide on the core principles of the policy - the essential rules
* Create a nice, elaborate page in english which you place on the
Foundation wiki as the official policy
* Ask the community to create inofficial translations based on the
essential rules - they may want to phrase a few things differently, some
things may need longer or shorter explanations depending on culture,
country or project. They may translate the english version word by word
but are free to formulate the essential rules in their own words if they
prefer.
* Each translation should have a note on top that in doubt the english
version is the valid one.
In the case of the privacy policy, I decided to act on these principles.
The german privacy policy at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Datenschutz tries to say the same
as the english one but in own words. Some paragraphs and sentences which
are not part of the core rules were shortened for the sake of clarity
and readability.
If you disagree with this you may want to find community members who
will create a literal translation. My feel for language and style
doesn't allow me to do so.
greetings,
elian
Dear Wikipedians in fundation,
We now in Chinese Wikipedia have some trademark issues that needs your help.
We have found an Chinese had registered "Wiki" and "維基" (in literly it
also means "Wiki" in Chinese) as his trademarks at 2005/11/23 in mainland
China. Since we now have WP and WN, there might be some trademark issues in
mainland China. Do you have any advice or suggestions that we can do?
Best regards,
Zh:User:HTChien
___________________________________________________ 最新版 Yahoo!奇摩即時通訊 7.0，免費網路電話任你打！ http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
Hi,
the 1st sunrise period for .eu domain registration is going
to begin soon - 7 December 2005
only domain names which are registred EU community/national
trademarks will be registered.
I'm not sure about the status of Wikimedia trademarks, but
guess at least Wikipedia a Wikimedia are suitable. IMO
"we" should apply at least for wikipedia.eu and wikimedia.eu.
Because of trademark issues and eu regulations concernig
who can apply for .eu, I'm affraid it will be a bit
complicated. I hope someone from the foundation can take care
of it.
(If the process is allready going, sorry :-)
Jan Kulveit ([[USEr:Wikimol]])
Over the past few weeks, OTRS has seen quite a few messages concerning
companies that are putting information about themselves onto Wikipedia for
advertising purposes, insisting that it is their right to do this. An article in an
online SEO (search engine optimization) magazine described how to mine
wikipedia to get web traffic. We have had emails from such diverse groups as talent
agencies (we will take the copyright off our own website, as long as it is
included in Wikipedia), a Dominatrix, a vaporizer (I have no choice but to
keep inserting my links on your site so as to fend off the competitors), and
many others. In fact, this appears to be a growing trend in Wikipedia, as is
evidenced by similar phone calls to the office (I did not write the article
about my, my PR firm wrote it, and I paid them good money so you can't take it
off). Shoppingtelly.uk has written that as long as we allow links to the BBC,
they will insist on their "rights" to put links to their site on Wikipedia.
This is a worrying trend on the English Wikipedia which raises issues of
POV, notability, and verifiability. Ironically, we do not allow paid
advertising, but we are buckling when people use our site in order to get free
advertising.
I do not know the solution to this problem--several have been raised, but in
my mind none is completely satisfactory. I am simply posting this here in the
hope that it will elicit discussion and, perhaps, a real policy decision to
counter this worrying trend.
Danny
Apologies if Rob has already posted this elsewhere, but I wanted to make
sure this was announced as widely as possible:
Developer Rob Church has enabled the [[Special:Makebot]] feature for
Wikimedia wikis; this feature allows local bureaucrats to flag and
deflag bot accounts on their projects.
Discussion on this proposal went on for quite a while, with almost
unanimous support from both stewards and bureaucrats alike; it was
approved by Jimbo (in March, I believe) for implementation.
A big thanks to Rob for working up a great extension (I've already used
it on en.wiki, and it works beautifully), and to those who supported
it's implementation.
As a side note, I suppose this means that stewards will be getting out
of the bot flagging business on projects with local bureaucrats? (I've
started a thread on [[m:Talk:Requests for bot status]] on the subject,
if anyone would like to comment.) I may be being a bit bold in doing so,
but I encourage those who read the list to make the communities on their
respective wikis aware of this new responsibility for bureaucrats.
Essjay
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
This months Wikinews Interview (IOTM) with: Ethan Zuckermant; will be
taking place in a few hours (at 1900 UTC, 28th April) in the
International Wikinews IRC channel
(irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinews).
Ethan Zuckerman is the founder of Global Voices Online and serves as a
fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Zuckerman
founded Geekcorps, a non-profit organization that sends people with
technical skills to developing countries to assist in computer
infrastructure development, too.
Research and developing questions is at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/April_2006_Q…
Brian
As most of you are aware, there is a list of bad URL patterns which
cannot be added as links to any Wikimedia wiki. It is known as the
"spam blacklist" because its original purpose was to fight
bot-orchestrated spam attacks. There are currently some open and
recent discussions on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist
about some additions or possible additions to the spam blacklist of
sites which are not spam(med) in the traditional sense. This includes:
* Wikipedia Review, an anti-Wikipedia board. Note that WR has posted
personal information about some Wikipedia admins, and is generally
full of flames and personal attacks.
* Daniel Brandt's sites (Namebase, Google Watch etc.). Brandt has been
redirecting all incoming requests from Wikipedia to any of his sites
to Wikipedia Review. Brandt also runs his own "Hive Mind" page where
several Wikipedia admins are listed with their real world identities,
photos, locations, etc.
* Wikitruth. This is currently under discussion because it contains
content which has been deleted from Wikipedia, often for legal
reasons.
* Kapitalism.net, Lir's site, which also contains a lengthy
anti-Wikipedia rant. Lir has apparently been subverting some blocks to
add it to a few articles in Wikipedia.
Not expressing an opinion on this matter, I'd like to simply invite
more people to join the discussion on the talk page. One idea that has
been expressed is to have a separate list of sites which are not spam,
but which are blacklisted for other reasons.
It is worth pointing out that:
* The spam blacklist is used by quite a few non-Wikimedia wikis. This
may bolster arguments for separate lists, rather than simply separate
sections in the same file.
* The spam blacklist is designed to fight spam. It will not trigger on
normal mentions of a string of characters like "www.kapitalism.net"
(without the "http://").
* Even if you were to blacklist the string of characters, humans are
generally good at coming up with permutations that break filters.
That being said, please post your opinion of how to deal with these
sites on the talk page above.
Thanks,
Erik
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we did not make entirely
a mistake (me definitly included)
History of checkuser (please take a seat and have a tea, it will be long)
1) originally, Brion took care of ip checking upon requests. He did the
checks apparently only when he knew the one asking (=trusted). It was
done directly in the database (so, required developer status and meant
no log of checks)
2) when requests became more numerous, Tim Starling and perhaps others
started to help
3) came a moment when not only requests were too numerous (and
developers probably tired of doing this), but on top, some editors had
the developer status only to make ip checks (I understood it was the
case of Taw at least). There was apparently a will to clean up who had
access, and to limit it to those who were *really* developing
At this point, it was largely admitted that the job was the one of a
developer. A *technical* job. Though I know at least one person had
access to the db last summer or fall to do this and is not to my
knowledge a developer (Elian, can you confirm this ?)
4) Tim developped the tool. Apparently, the first to have access to it
were Taw and David. Both developers. All was fine.
5) This is the moment where it slipped.
First David started saying that more people would be needed for the
english wikipedia checks. Requests generally came from the arbcom quite
naturally. Without the tool, the arbcom would have asked Brion or Tim to
do the checks. With the tool, it was quite a natural direction.... to
request access for the arbcom members. And here was the first mistake !
On top, other languages (who were previously asking Brion or Tim, and
had no more developers available to do this at that moment) started
asking for access. And what was insisted upon was the "confidentiality"
side, much more than the "technicality" side. Second mistake.
But quite clearly.... the technical consideration is just as important
than the confidentiality consideration.
I plead guilty for part of this. I also think the arbcom of last summer
has a responsability in this, since it was asking for the arbcom to have
access, regardless of technical ability of its members. And for what is
worth, I think Jimbo also has a responsability in this, since he himself
decided all english arbcom members would have access.
Then, there was a third mistake I think (it is not an accusation, just
an analysis). It was to make a tool dividing projects and languages.
Originally, we had a common set of volunteers to help us all. And this
was good. I am pretty sure some people did not know Brion intimately
enough to *trust* him, but they were told he was fine by people they
trusted, and they went to ask him with no fear. And Jimbo had no fear
either.
Now, people have checkuser status only on one project/one language. Just
as if Brion had help ip checking on the french wiktionary, whilst Tim
was dedicated to the english wikipedia and Taw to the polish wikibooks.
It makes NO sense whatsoever. The *only* unigue advantage of the current
system is to understand the language of the project the checkuser make
the job.
And as a result of this mix-up... because of the need to "trust" the
checkuser, we have zizanie (does that exist in english ?). We have
internal fight and rancor).
The small languages are complaining they are left aside
The non-wikipedia projects are complaining they are left aside
The stewards are complaining they do not have the technical ability to
do this
And the checkusers with the technical ability... pretty much offer to
help anyone who needs help.
What that suggest me is this
We should not have checkusers with the tool access on a one project/one
language, but a POOL of COMMON checkusers. Those should all have good
technical abilities. Those would have access everywhere. They would be
listed on meta with their language ability. The biggest projects would
be used to always ask to their favorites. The small languages will try
to find the one with a basic knowledge of their language if they wish.
But all in all, checkusers should be a common good, just as our
developers right now are (and, hell, just as your board members are).
Ant
On 4/25/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 4/25/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
> > http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06042526.htm
> >
> > Remembering ten things to be freed, and how amazon is Evil (tm)
> > patent-wise, would this warrant a "counter-strike"? products.wikimedia.org?
> >
> > Magnus
>
> What's the point of starting a new project? Products are allowed in
> an encyclopedia, aren't they?
>
> Anthony
>
Speaking of Amazon being evil WRT IP law, I just noticed while
browsing their wiki that they've apparently claimed a trademark on the
phrase "Real Name".
Googling for more info, I see
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/index.php/2005/06/23/amazon-have-trademarked-re…
Anyone know more about this one?
Anthony