Wikimedia-l June 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

127 participants
110 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Voting
by Geoffrey Plourde 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Has the issue with nl.wiki and he.wiki been resolved? That would appear to be the biggest issue. ----- Original Message ---- From: Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2008 4:33:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Voting On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 00:15 +0100, David Gerard wrote: > 2008/6/1 Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info>: > > > But to think the set of people who deliberately sought out an unstable > > beta (Firefox 3) to run as their browser overlaps heavily with the set > > of people who wouldn't be able to figure out the settings....... > > > Firefox 3 will be released very soon. I am aware of that, having signed up at http://www.spreadfirefox.com/en-US/worldrecord/ :) Anyway, let's actually talk about what can practically be done about it for the current election. As SPI is a volunteer organisation who's helping assisting us for free, we certainly cannot ask them to paid for a certificate from a CA that's more widely accepted. So unless the foundation decides it want to fund such a purchase, there's not a lot that can be done. I would like to note at this point that the main reason voting wasn't working for the first few hours was because the [[cURL]] software on certain GNU/Linux system (including SPI's) didn't like Wikimedia secure site's certificate. Oh the joy... KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

16 20

Re: [Foundation-l] Unable to vote
by Geoffrey Plourde 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

I cannot support a requirement of adminship. That would disenfranchise a significant portion of the community. ----- Original Message ---- From: Ryan <wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:38:44 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Unable to vote On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Adminship is politicized on all the larger projects, causing a lot of > experienced, competent, deeply invested users to have zero interest in > adminship. It's a mismatch. > > The point of the edit count limit is to include all regular editors > not just a cabal, but to add some friction against someone minting a > lot of sock accounts. Its fine that it includes a few crazy people, > since they should be offset by the large number of fairly sane people. > I don't think that including administrators is a problem so long as we include non-administrators as well. But that doesn't mean we can't give administrators a little boost, like saying "you don't have to get the 50 edits" or whatever it may be. Cabalism worries aside, administrators are trusted users, and that's really the only metric to test whether a user is "trusted". I think that trusted users should get the benefit of the doubt regarding activity. For future elections, I'd change the "X edits since January 1" to instead reflect "X edits since June 31 of last year", which gives more leeway. I'd also add in the following additions to suffrage (pick any or all): * Adminship on any project, combined with the 600 edits, gives a user voting rights. This requires admins to have been active once, but ensures that users who we know are trusted and valuable members of the community can vote regardless of their activity in the prior 6-12 months. * Membership on any Wikimedia board, committee, or on OTRS. No edit count requirements. * Any developers, chosen by the Chief Technical Officer (brion) who have shown sufficient dedication to the project that he feels they deserve suffrage. I'm not sure if there are any devs like this who don't already make it by edit count, or because they have shell access, but this could conceivably come up. * I don't know how we would develop a metric for mailing list suffrage, and I'm not sure it's ideal to do so. Open to suggestions, of course, but I'm not sure "X posts" is a good metric. Anyone who meets these requirements could petition the Committee up until about a week before the election, and they would be added to the valid voter list prior to voting starting. Let's remember, of course, that those denied suffrage are a small minority of the community. They're of course a very valid part of the community, and I think we should try to fix this situation, but this is not, for example, likely to affect the election significantly, and certainly it won't affect the fairness of the election. -- [[User:Ral315]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
by Kwan Ting Chan 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again. KTC On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote: > We should require interwiki bot operators to > > Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize > each and every bot policy. > > Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. > Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day. > > Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag. > > Or would that be unreasonable? > > Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like > interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking. > > The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. > Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. > Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from > such a standard. > > Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not > referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative > people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki > bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary. > > Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only > interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary > bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be > quite a challenge. > > - White Cat > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

25 52

[Foundation-l] (easy) SUL questions
by phoebe ayers 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Hello knowledgeable people! I'm trying to write about unified login for a larger text about Wikimedia and wanted to double-check my understanding of the process: 1) is this text currently correct? What should be added to it? "At this time, you must create an account on for each new project you wish to work on. This is changing with the introduction in mid-2008 of single-user login, where users can link their existing accounts across all Wikimedia projects." 2) in future, will people be able to create just one account on a project and be able to log in with it on all of the projects? Or will new users still have to manually create their account (using the same name) on each wiki they wish to work on? 3) After SUL is fully deployed, when users create a new account (on, say, the english wikipedia) will that name automatically be 'reserved' for use on all Wikimedia wikis? [if so, when will this happen?] 3) is there a preferred name for SUL yet? Single-user login? Unified login? Others? Thanks in advance, and feel free to send me edits/comments off-list. :) -- phoebe

7 8

[Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
by Nicolas Guérin 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser ) can run with : * being banned indefinitely on en.wp (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…) * having at least 34 blocked sockpuppets on en.wp (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz ) Did somebody already checked it, or is it really allowed to vote for such candidate ? Best Regards Guérin Nicolas

14 21

Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
by Geoffrey Plourde 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Well it appears the Board wants to be the drivers, ie manage the Foundation. ----- Original Message ---- From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2008 4:30:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ? > This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. > Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified > (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those running. > However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is > unlikely to win. > > Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue as > to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business > there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide. They're not managing the organisation, they're directing it. There is a difference. The role of a community member of the board is to represent the communities views on issues. There are appointed board members and staff for the areas that require expert knowledge. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2 1

[Foundation-l] Voting
by effe iets anders 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Hi all, I hear a lot of problems with the voting. First of all, i had apperently to hear it in the pub, and it is not spread through other channels? (but this might come later?) Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives systemic bias) third, I hear many nlwiki people complaining that they are denied access, because of too little edits, even though they fit the rules easily... BR< Lodewijk

15 32

Re: [Foundation-l] Voting
by THURNER rupert 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436789. maybe you vote for that one to get it included in future, as there is no obious reason to not do it. On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM, THURNER rupert <thurner.rupert(a)redleo.org> wrote: > see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436789. maybe you > vote for that one to get it included in future, as there is no obious > reason to not do it. > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM, effe iets anders > <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I only have the option "add exception" . >> <Q> >> Secure Connection Failed >> wikimedia.spi-inc.org uses an invalid security certificate. >> The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. >> (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer) >> * This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it >> could be someone trying to impersonate the server. >> * If you have connected to this server successfully in the past, >> the error may be temporary, and you can try again later. >> >> Or you can add an exception… >> </Q> >> >> Even though this was not possible last time, it is now :S So I added >> it as an exception... >> >> 2008/6/1 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>: >>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, effe iets anders >>> <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Second, I cant log in anyhow because of security certificates which >>>> are invalid, and i cant get around... (especially people who are even >>>> less technically advanced will have problems with that, which gives >>>> systemic bias) >>> >>> Just click on "yes, I want that untrusted certificate" inside of the >>> main part of your web browser. By default, new browsers don't like >>> self-signed certificates and certificates signed by others than >>> "official" certificate renters. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >

2 1

[Foundation-l] New Wikimania security report posted
by Mike Godwin 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Dear folks, The second of the security consulting firms we've been working with on developing a security profile for Wikimania in Alexandria has released its report for our publication. The second firm is Stratfor Protective Intelligence, and their report can be found here: <http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alexandria%2C_Egypt_-_Securit… >. Stratfor has a "Welcome, Wikimedia Members" page at <https://www.stratfor.com/campaign/welcome_wikimedia_members > in case you want to consult with them on other matters. The first report, from Clayton Associates, continues to be available here: <http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt_country_profile_04-22-0… >. The initial Wikimedia Foundation "Alexandria Security FAQ" can still be found here: <http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Security_FAQ>. I hope the consensus here is that the Foundation has been responsive to security concerns raised on this list and elsewhere. We have tried to assemble a full range of resources for those who have raised these concerns. --Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation

5 4

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia logo uses non-free font
by Mark Williamson 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Hi all, Somebody from the new Karakalpak Wikipedia wrote me today to ask what font is used for the Latin text in the labels on Wikipedia logos. The vast majority (that is, those created by Nohat or myself) use Hoefler. This is not a free font. I don't have the font on my current system, and the only ways for the Karakalpak logo designer to obtain the font would be to pay $200 to obtain it, or download it illegally. Just as an idea, I looked up average wages in Uzbekistan and found that for many workers, this is more than they earn in an entire month. The other common scripts on Wikipedia, Cyrillic and Arabic, also use non-free fonts: if I recall correctly, Minion is used for Cyrillic, and I can't remember what we use for Arabic. I would love to see the community select a suitable free font to replace the non-free fonts we use in almost all of our logos. (yi.wp uses a free font for its logo, but I know of no other Wikipedia that does) I understand that the current font has become associated with Wikipedia to a certain extent, but I feel that this is an important matter of principal and something that we should think about as a way to support free software and also to allow ALL people with the requisite expertise and computer access the ability to design a logo for their own language that uses the same font as any other language. Mark

4 6

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l June 2008