Hello folks,
in the Chinese Wikipedia an administrator had deleted part of article
histories. He deleted the article complete and then reversed the
deletion of part of the historical versions. He did this in good faith,
because he deleted vandalism edits and copy right violation content. I
was the opinion that this is not a good idea because at first the GFDL
requires the edit histories (also of the vandalism edits) and second
because thus we lost part of the records about the vandals edits.
What is the right way here?
Thanks for any advise.
Ting
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now
> To: mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:48 PM
> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
> <mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > From: mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
> <mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm>
> > Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to
> be halted for now
> > To: birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com, "'Wikimedia
> Foundation Mailing List'"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 7:39 PM
> > From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
> > >Frankly how to handle these anticipated problems
> > _should_ have been decided
> > >in concert with the decision to implement of this
> > feature. I had thought
> > >they had been. Obvoiusly the feature was rolled
> out
> > without addressing the
> > >concerns that people expressed over this during
> the
> > intial discussion of
> > >such a feature. That should not have happened but
> here
> > we are.
> >
> > That's actually false - the discussion regarding
> global
> > blocking addressed
> > these concerns explicitly and extensively, as you can
> well
> > see for yourself:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking
> and
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking/Archive_1
> >
> > Ipblock-exempt and a local whitelist on the IP are
> both
> > options you are free
> > to use to help legitimate users caught in global
> blocks.
>
> It is not false. How exactly were the concerns that were
> raised here [1], when david gerard first opened discussion
> on this feature addressed? I don't see the concerns
> that were described about the localization of block
> messages, notification of local wikis, etc. addressed at all
> in the implementation. In fact the only people who
> dismissed such concerns as not needing a remedy were the
> supporters of the blocking who were proposing blocks of a
> week or less. But nine months later, in practice we have one
> and even two month blocks without these concerns that were
> specifically asked to be brought forward before
> implementation having been addressed. What am I missing here
> that shows me to be so mistaken that saying this was
> implemented without addressing such anticipated problems as
> there is false? I don't explicit and extensive
> discussion of much outside who should get to use the new
> hammer.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> [1]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038261.html
There is a discussion on Meta to disband Wikiquote, or at least
consider the problems it faces and how to move forward.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
So far it is mostly people who have doubts about its utility, so
broader participation is desirable. I appreciate that this is not
going to be a pleasant discussion for regular contributors to
Wikiquote, but I see it as a worthwhile discussion, even if it only to
re-affirm the community support for having a quote project now that
the encyclopedia and library project are rapidly encroaching on its
territory.
--
John Vandenberg
This clause is for constructed language
First you have to read the links of the draft to understand the reason of the clause
Anyone is able to create a constructed language. all possible (infinite) conlangs should have its own Wiki? no. how to avoid unuseful conlang. for its current uses. those with incompatible uses with wikimedia goals are banned.
The phrasis "to have literary pieces written previously by people other than the creator of the language", prevent languages that are only supported by its author, if no additional people write in the language, that would convert it in a personal language.
Engineered languages (specially logical languages) have an important goal, its mission is clarify scientific language. reduce ambiguity. the searching of accuracy is compatible.
Conlang like Esperanto, Interlingua, etc pretends to be international auxiliary languages, its potential international use is the reason why they can have its own wiki.
Artistic languages, are only used for the entertaiment. it is included Joke languages, fictional languages, etc. Wikimedia is not a place for them. they are banned.
c.m.l.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:33:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language proposal policy
Can someone clarify the phrase "this must be used at present as
Engineered language or pretend to be used as international auxiliary
one, additionally to have literary pieces written previously by people
other than the creator of the language. They are excluded those which
are only used at present with artistic purposes."
That doesn't parse for me.
Mark
The ISO code - 3 is remained, please review carefully the draft. but the ISO-3 can also make mistake, Europanto, a joke language, has its own code:
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=eur
And about the localization, if we read the manual.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#…
we realize that for the first project only we need the 500 most used mediawiki messages, i think it is a reasonable midpoint between total and null localization. the localization requirement could return.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Handbook_(requesters)#…
c.m.l.
<<<<<
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language proposal policy
Hoi,
The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous
what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding
what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well
for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor
of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be
responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we
choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a
language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project
that was closed with prejudice.
The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with
the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim
that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no
credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a
lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better
then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then
50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality
and quantity.
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages.
Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only
74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised.
The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new
language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work
done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new
projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60
days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project
is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this
situation.
This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of
the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless
discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the
implementation of the current policies.
The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would
characterise it.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover <
always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>
> it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely.
> remember many projects is waiting for it.
>
> Give your comments.
>
> C.m.l.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello all,
For some of you, this may come as news: Since early January this year I have
been working on a book about Wikipedia. It is a rather comprehensive book,
divided into five parts:
1. What is Wikipedia?
2. How to edit Wikipedia
3. Frequently (and infrequently) asked questions - including a close
comparison of Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias
4. The history of Wikipedia
5. Interviews with among others: Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner and several
influential Swedish contributors
The Swedish title of the book is "Så fungerar Wikipedia", which translates
to "How Wikipedia works".
The book is now finished and will premiere at the Gothenburg Book Fair! This
means that you will be able to order the book as soon as the Book Fair is
opened on the 25th of September. It is sold through a print-on-demand
company, called Vulkan, which is also printing Wikimedia Sverige's first
WikiReader (about Swedish Birds, see
http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Svenska_f%C3%A5glar). The adress for Vulkan is
www.vulkan.se.
Every picture in the book is under a free license.
For more information about the book, in Swedish (an English version of the
page is forthcoming), see
http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A5_fungerar_Wikipedia
In closing, I would like to thank everybody who have helped me with the
book, including Arne Klempert, Delphine Ménard, Frank Schulenburg, Jan
Ainali, Jimmy Wales, Kurt Jansson, Lars Aronsson, Mathias Schindler, Nina
Gerlach, Philipp Birken, and Sue Gardner.
If you have any questions and comments, you can either respond to this email
or send it privately to l_guldbrandsson(a)hotmail.com.
Best wishes,
--
Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for
Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för
svenskspråkiga Wikipedia
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > By the way, an example of a time when an edit *should* be
> > oversighted/deleted without being reverted first:
> >
> > User A creates a BLP.
> > User B adds confidential information about the subject of the biography.
> > Users C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J make positive contributions to the BLP.
> >
> > Then the confidential information is discovered. To delete the
> confidential
> > information you have to delete the revisions created by users B, C, D, E,
> F,
> > G, H, I, and J. You could do this by reverting to the version by User A,
> > but why in the world *should* you be forced to do that?
>
> And which solution do you consider to be better?
Neither is particularly good, but without making any improvements to
Mediawiki I'd say the best solution is to remove the confidential
information with an edit summary mentioning C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J and
then oversight the edits. Reverting all the way back to the original
version would be silly.
> If you just remove
> the wrong part of the article and then oversight/delete the revisions
> B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, the history would look like _you_ added all
> the positive contributions (added by users B–J).
Well, that's how it'll look to someone who doesn't read the edit summary,
anyway.
> Which is, among other
> problems, a copyright violation.
>
I don't see how this *causes* a copyright violation. If you're going with
the letter of the GFDL, then it's already a copyright violation. If you're
going with the spirit of the GFDL, you're only required to mention the
authors and years - there's no requirement to include the full text of the
previous revisions.
That said, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted is a much
better solution.
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted>
I'm sad to tell you that Frieda Brioschi has decided to step down from
her position with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. She informed the
board of her decision over the weekend.
The board has no immediate plan to replace Frieda, so it will remain at
seven members for the time being. I expect we will consider various
options on whether and how to fill the vacancy at our next meeting,
which is scheduled for October in San Francisco.
As was also the case with Florence, Frieda is not leaving us entirely,
she will remain involved in the broader community. So on behalf of the
board, I want to thank Frieda for her service to the organization, wish
her the best, and look forward to future opportunities to work with her.
--Michael Snow