Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for
illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration
project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on
Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important
articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could
make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this
page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Reques…
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a
Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are
missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by
using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons:
* http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/
or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a
given topic in other-language projects:
* http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/fist.php
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which
will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in
January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of
the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project
should join the mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/greenspun-illustrations
Please pass this message on to any Wikimedia community that might find
it relevant.
thanks,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
Project coordinator
> My firewall (Outpost Pro) keeps reporting port scans from meta.wikimedia.org
> (details at the bottom of the email).
It seems very unlikely that anyone would do a port scan from the
wikimedia servers. I would guess it's someone spoofing the source IP
address, although I can't see much point in that beyond causing an
annoyance (which is more than enough reason for some people).
I am rather wary of getting involved in this however I'll try a toe in
the water. I would stress I am not an arb com/en wp checkuser - I do
however hold elected rights on three projects currently. My background
(& I agree with everything that Andrew has said) is on en wb. The vast
majority of checks there are on vandal accounts or impostor accounts
(memorably Cary Bass!). In this situation the rights should be used
vigilantly by a trusted admin watching RC. Equally a block of an IP can
be made as "vandal source" (indeed with intelligent use of the log
frequently "cross wiki vandal source") assuming it is not an open proxy
which is often the case. This is visible and if the community require
more info they are welcome to ask. I would never reveal private info
but I would reveal as much as I could.
Vandals aside one real problem I see with public "request for CU" is
that it is actually almost impossible to prove that someone is not a
puppet account. Percentages of likely or unlikely maybe but not "no" -
as such a public accusation cannot be cleared. I work on the basis that
25 or more people felt that they trusted me to use the tools in the each
of the community's best interest & I would like to think I do just that.
If I see something that concerns me on wiki I may well look, if it is
obvious I will act, if there is a question I'll share with fellow CUs
and ask them to review it. If there is nothing then that is it - no
fuss, no accusations.
As a minor example I spotted some rather odd voting on a deletion
request on Commons recently. No CU request was made. However it
concerned me. I discovered of six people voting, one was a faked user
and three of the others seemed highly likely to have been the same
person (sock or meat). If someone tells me I am wrong to have done this
then frankly a request for removal of my CU rights will be in on Meta
shortly.
I'd like to think I had not got the wrong end of the stick on this and I
stress I am not an en wp/arb com CU merely someone who's communities
have trusted to deal with some cleanup work. Thanks for your time.
Herby
--
Herby
herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
Hi,
My firewall (Outpost Pro) keeps reporting port scans from meta.wikimedia.org
(details at the bottom of the email). For a few minutes after a port scan my
firewall decides there's an attack underway and blocks me from accessing
Wikipedia. I've not found any mention of anyone else having similar problems
through google, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Hope it isn't
entirely inappropriate.
Yes I could add Wikipedia/Wikimedia to the trusted IP list, but it seems
rather odd that I should have to, (I certainly haven't had this problem with
other sites) and if conceivably possible I'd rather not. Why on earth should
Wikimedia servers be aggressively port scanning users' computers? (I guess
it's proxy detection or something, but it seems like using a hammer to crack
a nut, and in any case I'm logged in which one would think would exempt me
from such things.)
Tom (User:Cfp)
Last 10 "attacks". All the Wikimedia IP.
01:20:38 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP (14603,
14602, 14600, 14599, 14597, 14595)
01:15:58 Rst attack 91.198.174.2 -> 91.198.174.2
01:09:36 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP (14238,
14000, 13995, 13992, 13988, 14211)
12/12/2007 22:42:34 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(9711, 9710, 9708, 9707, 9705, 9694)
12/12/2007 22:31:28 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(9464, 9463, 9460, 9457, 9456, 9461)
12/12/2007 22:16:30 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(8975, 8974, 8973, 8972, 8968, 8963)
12/12/2007 22:16:30 Rst attack 91.198.174.2 ->
91.198.174.2
12/12/2007 17:55:41 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(1406, 1405, 1404, 1402, 1401, 1399)
12/12/2007 16:04:04 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(5321, 5320, 5319, 5318, 5312, 5311)
12/12/2007 14:40:06 Port scan 91.198.174.2 TCP
(2499, 2498, 2497, 2496, 2493, 2487)
Brian McNeil wrote:
> I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews, and I am glad to say I have
never
> been pressured to carry out a check in secret. My opinion is that no
> undocumented CheckUser should be performed.
In addition to otherobjections, some checkusers are performed to identify
possible sockmasters of accounts that have been used to harass individual
volunteers. Since any visible response at all can result in additional
harassment, absolute openness exposes victims to more harassment. The
requirement that checkuser requests identify a specific target account also
exposes other innocent editors to stigmatization, since the community may
construe mischief behind an account that was suggested but later cleared.
I sympathize with the request for maximum openness, and I'm certainly not in
the best position to voice an objection, but I really don't agree that
transparency can or should be absolute. I could support a policy that
required onsite checkuser requests except under defined circumstances such
as the scenario above.
-Durova
> Earlier: "...I think we should just use common sense. In all honesty,
I think that we
should allow most non threatening materials which would not spark
largescale
anger - don't forget the commons motto which if I remember is something
like
"a database of freely usable media files - not a database of educational
Materials"..."
Peter Blaise responds: Great advice, but "common" is such an uncommon
thing! Especially in the "Commons"!
The reference to things "common" for me is based on the US Declaration
of Independence, the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so on.
What's "common" mean to you?
"Non threatening" and "not spark large scale anger" have never been
criteria in any of my "common sense" references. I think of the
struggles to garner religious and personal freedoms, children's rights,
women's rights, the rights of people of color, the rights of people with
disabilities, abandoning caste systems ... all these come about through
much threatening and sparking large scale anger, right?
Also, on the Internet, ONE single, solo person can dominate a group,
good or bad, and "look" like a "large scale" situation, so the term
"large scale" is almost impossible to accurately and unambiguously
quantify, and base policy on, even though it sounds nice. It even
smacks of "appeasing the bully" in trying to placate someone's manifest
anger.
I don't think anger's a good or bad thing. It's just part and parcel of
some people's gyrations, thought process, and sharing, and is part of
the flow of things. After all, it's only a mailing list, and these are
only words! Anger is in the eye of the beholder, right? ARGH!
Is my writing "ARGH" anger, or frustration, or irony, or submission, or
ridicule, or teasing ... or what? It's just words. It doesn't matter.
Go with the flow!
Same with pictures. It's just pictures. And words. Read 'em. Or not.
Respond. Or not. Move on. Or not. I think that's all I'm encouraging
the originator of this thread (copied below), to do. Those cartoons?
Read 'em (or not) just like the rest of us, and move on (or not).
Vivisecting political cartoons have been around since politicians have
been around.
> Earlier: "... [photo Gallery page] ... in commons includes ...
cartoons [presumably that express a point of view] ... Commons does not
have a NPOV policy ..."
Peter Blaise responds: I have another observation: what are "Galleries"
for in the first place? Shouldn't the Commons be the one place where
Categories themselves reign supreme? If I want to find all resources in
Commons on any topic, such as "Ariel Sharon", why have a hand-selected
Gallery of not all Commons resources, when an all inclusive search by
Category would be a more honest reflection of the true Commons contents?
Sadly, those cartoons are not even objectively categorized by content.
They appear to have been assessed by type over content:
Category:Caricatures of ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_of_Ariel_Sharon
So, although the intention of the original poster in this thread was to
filter Commons contents by their own criteria, I see it has revealed
that there are already too many filters on the Commons, and the
"Categories" feature us waay underutilized. I think Categories should
be expanded to include anything salient and relevant that EXIF and IPTC
Metadata would include.
I was askied to take a look at this:
In fi.wikipedia.org couple admins (w:fi:User:Joonasl and
w:fi:User:MikkoM) have added Google analytics on every pageload
(here). That is really annoinning and it has to be against to
Wikimedia's privacy rules. There is no need for that. Please can you
or somebody do something? --Anonacco 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APathoschild&diff=78…
I really don't know about it
but I recall a long discussion about google analytics a few weeks ago.
Where who or how should this be handled?
The Google Analytics bug was added into the copyright notice:
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4rjestelm%C3%A4viesti:Copyright
Anyone techcnically savvy that can enlighten me?
And I'm sending this to foudnation-l since I don't know if this has
privacy/persinal info issues
Hello all.
We have finally formalized the dates for bidding for Wikimania 2009.
Bidding officially runs from December 15 to February 3, allowing the
prospective bidders a much longer period of time in which to present and
polish their bids for Wikimania 2009.
The jury will be announced on January 12.
Information about Wikimania 2009 can be found at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009>.
--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 727.231.0101
Fax: 727.258.0207
E-Mail: cbass(a)wikimedia.org