Hi there. We've got a problem on it.wikipedia.
Recently a sysop tried to delete the page [[it:Football Club
Internazionale Milano]] in order to hide a vandalism that should not
be available on the history page (copyright violation, blasphemies,
personal information, etc) but the page reached 5000 edits, so he got
I tried looking all over meta for a precedent but I wasn't able to
find any. We don't have an ''oversight'' user group on it.wikipedia,
and as I can see from the discussions, the community doesn't want any.
So, the problem now is: "how can we remove a certain vandalism from
"Bingo, history splitting" someone said... We (literally) call this
procedure "un-historizing" a page. I don't know if you know what I'm
talking about, so I'll try to explain how it works.
There is a page called [[ABC]] and it has a lot of versions. We move
this page to [[ABC/History up to <DATE>]], block this page; then we
manually copy the last revision to the [[ABC]] page and put in the
"edit summary" box a sentence like: "This page was ''un-historized''.
To see the old history go there: [[ABC/History up to <date>]]".
This would be a great idea but, wait a minute... will this procedure
be GFDL-compliant? I believe that the local community has to be free
to decide about local policies, but when there is the risk that a
local policy might not be GFDL-compliant, I think that asking before
acting is a reasonable approach.
FollowTheMedia (it-N, en-2)
2009/2/17 Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>:
> I did not even realise it had not been announced and I already voted a
> few days ago :-)
> My two cents
> * great images. Really top stuff
> * but the voting system... SO unpractical :-(
If you voted early, I think the voting system has been improved since
then. You should take another look (while logged in!). There is just
little buttons and text fields below each image to let you vote and
leave a comment, and if you have already voted you get a message "You
have already voted for this image". I think it's really great.
> I have meant to ask what happened with the toolserver (or the team
> dealing with the toolserver) so that it could not be used this year ?
Bryan & I ran the comp last year, and were too busy to commit to
running it this year. This year I am just a cheerleader. ;)
I think it was just difficult communicating all the needed info about
galleries, etc, because Bryan wasn't too involved. In future years if
Bryan is involved or someone else comfortable with the toolserver that
software can be used again, if they want.
> Alternatively, if you really want to keep voting pages separately for
> each image, it would have been easier to vote on a separate page rather
> than at the bottom of the description page (long to load + generous
> scrolling of numerous languages description).
I think the voting actually does happen on a separate page, it just
has a huge introduction in many languages. :)
A good place to leave comments for the organisers (and future
organisers) to see, would be
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
I'm pleased to announce the newest issue of the The Wikipedia Signpost:
which has several important changes:
* A new editor: User:Sageross has agreed to take over as editor in
chief from User:Ral315, who was editor from Sept. 2005-Dec. 2008.
Ral315 did an amazing job in keeping the Signpost going for so long
and we are all very grateful for all his hard work.
* A new look: with a design led by User:Pretzels, the main page of the
'Post is redesigned.
* New coverage: The Signpost plans to cover more community news, both
from within the English Wikipedia and from the whole family of other
Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For instance, this issue contains a
story on the Commons Picture of the year contest. This issue also
debuts a new feature: The "Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous
Articulations" (DRAMA) report, which covers ongoing discussion threads
that are happening on en:wp. We all know it's tough to keep up with
all the interesting discussions that happen, and it's our hope that
the Signpost can play a role in making these conversations more
accessible to busy editors. This new feature will be refined over the
coming weeks and suggestions are welcome.
* As always, to keep this project going contributors are needed. If
you know of something interesting going on out there in wiki-land,
either on en:wp or on another Wikimedia project, or if you have an
idea for a story, please leave us a note on the Tipline:
We want to hear about milestones, events, contests and any other
General comments or suggestions can be left here:
On behalf of Signpost writers, thanks for reading the Signpost!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm going into the field for the next three weeks. This means that I
won't have internet for about four weeks. I've been particularly
inactive for the past two weeks, in preparation for the field I've not
had much time. I've brought everything I'm involved with on the
foundation and on local projects to a orderly pause as far as my
involvement goes. I expect to return sometime in late March.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I didn't see it announced yet, so here goes - voting for the 2008
Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year is now open.
Voting eligibility: all Wikimedians who were registered before 1
January 2009 and with at least 200 edits on any Wikimedia project (at
time of voting)
Voting period: Round 1 closes on Feb 26.
Images: There are 501 images, which were made Featured Pictures during
2008. They are arranged into 11 categories (14 galleries). The top 10%
from each category will go to Round 2, the final round. There will be
category winners as well as the overall "picture of the year".
More coverage: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-02-16/Common…>
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
I would like to propose the dismantling of the language committee and
creating a new one (not including Gerard, of course).
Because it is chronically malfunctioning.
# Gerard is forcing all his opinion, anything else is going nowhere.
# Other members don't really care and leave it, unfortunately for us, to
I read about how unfair the LangCom before but I didn't really care because
it wasn't affecting a language I care about. Then came the dreadful proposal
for a dialect Wikipedia in my dialect, Egyptian dialect. At first, I wasn't
sure in the beginning if I should support it or not, then I became sure if
this should happen, it shouldn't happen on a platform like Wikipedia (for
many reasons laid out in detail in the proposal page). I don't care if Ghaly
and company (the people who made the proposal) started that on an
independent website (Wikia or on an own domain for their campaign) but on
Wikimedia, we should do the right thing (I hope). The proposal was approved
(Gerard requires that you have the relevant ISO code and everything from
there could be done, he is a bit annoyed now becuase of all the current
proposals for dialect Wikipedias which were brought up by the Egyptian
dialect Wikipedia proposal) and the technical team had no option but to
create the wiki because Gerard gave it his blessings and the foundation
didn't say a word (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
Trivia (I like structure but..):
* Gerard is talking about how good the localization of the Egyptian dialect,
well, that is a natural thing when the localization is a matter of
copy-pasting Arabic translation and converting it to a slang form or English
words in Arabic (nothing wrong at all in that of course, we do it all the
time, but we don't do it for the sake of looking hip (there is a certain
language charisma we have in Egypt, that is, if you can speak English and
mix English with Arabic to look cool. don't know if other countries have
it), we do it only to introduce new words that we are unable to find their
equivalent in Arabic (e.g. Acetylcysteine which is أسيتيل سيستئين in Arabic,
basically English (latin) in Arabic).
* May be ISO is wrong: why people are taking ISO codes as absolute,
don't-discuss matter? in our case, we have 22 dialects of Arabic and the
pathetic decision to call them languages of the supposedly "Macro" language
Arabic, that is nonsense and it should be amended, not the blind (if not
stupid) opinion of making all these sorts of dialectical projects (
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=ara). I tried to contact
the ISO, they say to contact the local office in my country (
http://www.eos.org.eg), and as always, they have dead emails, don't know
about the phone numbers, I'm not even sure that anyone there would listen to
a word of mine, besides, I wish to see changes before my expiry date is due.
* Gerard have the false delusion of protecting the freedom of Egyptians and
taking us out of illiteracy into the light of knowledge by making a new
Wikipedia in slang and dialect. well, you are *wrong*, you are doing quite
the opposite and other people are helping you alas. hope you understand that
* Wave of ignorance: a new wave of ignorance are upon us and I don't like
Wikipedia being part of it.
* Did you know that when I tell people about this new Wikipedia, the
consiperacy theory of the west dividing us is brought up? like it wasn't
enough that the ar.wiki isn't appreciated because of the several issues we
have. no, now we have another big issue created because of the carelessness
of some people. arz.wiki is a regression, making people think of Wikipedia
as an enemy is a regression.
* Did you know that what was rejected before, is being done on that
arz.wiki? I'm talking about Arabic in latin characters Wikipedia. they have
no objections there if you write Arabic in latin (a big no no in ar.wiki or
any another respectable venue). dialect writing/Arabic in latin writing is
for fun only, nothing serious.
* They have a template on arz.wiki which is placed on articles copied from
ar.wiki that says ~"this article needs more egyptianizing" like the one on
uncyclopedia "this article needs to be more uncyclopediac" or something like
that (sorry for the lack of links).
* I think it would be doable to make a tab that Egyptianizes (or any other
dialect) the Arabic article, that is, if we have some sort of conversion
memory, that is if the dialect is stable (or standard), the dialect differs
from a place to another, from a muhafazah to another (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhafazah). if anyone knows the technical
method we could make a trial instead of the great mess of dialect
Wikipedias. I'm not too sure about this compromise yet.
So, to sum it up:
# Dissolve the current committee and make a new one of people who care.
# Make all the discussions of the committee public and allow community
members to comment and the committee really reads what they have to say.
# Make sure that Gerard isn't on the new committee.
# Treat ISO codes flexibly, they could be amended, they could be ignored if
# Undo the arz.wiki.
Pardon the long email, but I had to say what I have on that important issue,
may be the new year would bring something else besides massacres.
I've been thinking some about community-building in Wikibooks - I
think it's among one of the more important tasks we need to face.
To get the ball rolling somewhat, Whiteknight and I were tossing
around some ideas earlier - one that we agreed on was that having
a meeting to get wider input and brainstorming on issues of
community-building would be beneficial for Wikibooks.
I had suggested either setting up a Skype conference, or we could
just organize a time to get people together in #wikibooks on
irc.freenode.net. We'd set up a roster of topics to cover and
just fire around ideas for a while.
I'd like to invite anyone interested in particpating to do so -
including people from outside Wikibooks: if you're involved with
a like-minded organization, or if you're involved with
community-building within Wikimedia or related projects, or if
you're just interested in listening, it'd be great to have you
If you're interested, please reply with any comments, but in
* Whether you'd prefer to have the meeting via Skype or in IRC
* What timezone & availability you have (I'm thinking next
Friday or Saturday, probably)
* Any further ideas you have for community-building in
To get us started, Whiteknight and I were discussing reaching out
to universities and other charities for book donations on
specific topics (such as a book on cancer from an organization
which deals with breast cancer) as well as recruiting editors
from their volunteer pools. Suggestions for similar topics to
discuss would of course be welcome.
I hope to hear back from some Wikibooks regulars, but also people
from the wider Wikimedia community. I've sent this to both
textbook-l and foundation-l and (I hope) I've set reply-to to
There are some language versions of Wikipedia who have no relation to a
chapter or cannot create a chapter, or where a chapter would not be
- nation-less languages such as Latin, Esperanto
- diaspora languages or Wikipedia communities, such as Kurdish, Swahili
Sometimes it would be useful to have a kind of organisation for these
language editions, not chapters, but something else, for PR purposes,
contacts with language institutions etc.
Ziko van Dijk
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a feel on
prevalent opinions regarding some of the attribution-relevant
questions from a sample of contributors.
* Our timeline will need to be pushed forward a bit, in part because
of this, but also for a number of other unrelated reasons. That said,
we want to move forward fairly aggressively given the constraints of
the re-licensing clause.
I think it's important to note that most other aspects of the proposed
re-licensing have turned out to be remarkably uncontroversial. I'm
very pleased that we've found so much common ground already. Even on
the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
apparently most people, that other people's web use should be treated
very similarly to our own.
The fundamentally divisive question is whether principles of web use
can be applied to some of the other real world use scenarios we've
encountered: DVD, print, spoken versions, etc. Our established
practices don't give us a huge amount of guidance in that matter,
though many past and present GFDL-based offline uses support the case
for stronger attribution, and when this hasn't been granted (as in the
case of the SOS Children's DVD), it turned out to be controversial.
Clearly, many people feel that these media lack the immediacy of
access to authorship information that the web medium provides.
An important counterpoint is that these media are among the ones which
are the most important to reach disadvantaged communities - people
without Internet access, blind users, etc. - and that any onerous
requirements are arguably going to diminish our ability to spread free
knowledge. So, there are moral arguments on both sides. Moreover, as
I've noted, many names only really have meaning in the context of web
presence in the first place.
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
"reasonable to the medium or means" provision), commit us to work
together to provide attribution records of manageable length using
smart algorithms as well as documenting minimally complex attribution
implementations, and permit by-URL attribution in circumstances where
we don't have a better answer yet. I worry, in this scenario, about
instruction and complexity creep over time, so the fundamental
principles of simplicity would need to be articulated well. And I want
to make sure that we don't embark on a compromise which achieves
nothing: that the vocal minority who feel very strongly about
attribution-by-name under all circumstances will continue to object,
that we will increase complexity for re-users, and that we will not
actually persuade anyone to support the approach who wouldn't
otherwise do so.
So, getting some more data on that question -- is a compromise
necessary and possible -- should IMO be the next steps, after which we
may revise our proposed attribution terms further. I hope that we'll
be able get some first survey data this week, and move quickly after
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate