I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that today shall
forever be known as Magnus Manske day. Wikipedians of the distant future will
marvel at the day when the new software era dawned upon us.
Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should say a toast to Magnus and his many
We haven't decided yet exactly what to make the new www.wikipedia.org
project front page look like, but it seems pretty well decided that we
do want to move the English wiki to en.wikipedia.org and set up some
sort of multilingual and/or browser-language-setting-sensitive intro page.
(See: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_to_do_with_www.wikipedia.org )
If there's no objection, I'm going to switch the URL redirecting around
tomorrow, so that www.wikipedia.org/* points to en.wikipedia.org/*
rather than the other way 'round. A new intro page can later be set up
Warning: login cookies won't automatically follow over, so everyone
using the English wiki will have to log in afresh after the switch even
if you've got "remember my password" checked.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
period of 3 months.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't
wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have
waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be
a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
her, we are now at a last resort stage.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
to repeat her strange historical claims.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but
there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not
permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
3 months time.
Kurt Jansson wrote:
>> I have a feature request that I'd first like to put on the mailing
>> before putting it at SourceForge.
>How about excluding all redirects from the search results, that lead to
>an article that is already listed?
That would do for most, but not all cases I was aiming for. For example,
if there's is an article Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Zimbabwe that used to be
at Wikipedians/Zimbabwe, I get a redirect to an article in the
non-article namespace. A similar situation occurs if the article on
Harare used to be at Zimbabwe/Harare.
> Maybe I'm emphatically naive, but I think Lir can still be a
> valuable contributor. I believe that so much that I've
> unblocked Lir--or tried to, anyway. There are two entries
> about Lir [in the block list], and only one of them disappeared.
> Anyway, I'd rather be wrong about something generous than right
> about something cynical.
The other was the block by user name; there's no interface for
doing that yet, so only developers can do it. But since you
chose to unblock the IP, I've unblocked the user name on your
I happen to agree that Lir might be a valuable contributor when
she grows up. I just don't think we need to waste /our/ time
being her nanny.
I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a
problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do
what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are
in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright
to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the
copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
Short of dropping fair use materials altogether, we could clearly label
the fair use status of images on the image description page, maybe even
saying "This image is *not* under GFDL, it was copied from ... under
the fair-use doctrine." And our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] should then
contain a notice that for the license of images, the description page
ought to be checked.
In essence, the image then becomes a separate document from the rest of
the article, with a separate license. It may not be completely clean
and is not very pretty, but I think it's the only thing we can do.
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
How can I "notify the developers" with this kind of response?
|Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:35:01 +0000
|Your mail to 'Wikitech-l' with the subject
| the server is indeed down
|Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
|The reason it is being held:
| Post by non-member to a members-only list
|Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
|notification of the moderator's decision.
>--- koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com wrote about attributions:
>> *but* he should know that, as a
>> wiki, we currently can't guarantee that the citation will remain
>> there permanently since anyone could remove it.
>I don't think that's a big concern: if somebody removes the
>attribution, then that's a violation of copyright law and we would
>to revert. It's the same as if somebody uploads copyrighted materials
>without permission: we are in violation and have to revert.
well, I think it's a big concern, because we have no guarantee that
anyone will notice the removal, much less revert it.
I've gotten some frantic "Talk" from RK claiming Ezra Wax is "vandalizing" the Wikipedia Judaism articls "faster than we can correct" them. He wants me to "ban" him.
I don't think I can do that. Isn't it true that as a sysop I have neither the power nor the authority to ban a signed-in user?
Anyway, I don't see the urgency. The contributor in question isn't malicious; he's just annoying the hell out of RK and Slrubenstein with his POV. It's not like he's using a bot.
Neither of the scenarios you suggest is likely to occur with me, or with any of the dozens of others whose work I've come to repect.
If I see the "hidden changes exist" flag, then of course I will either:
* read the current version, or
* use the "History" and "Diff" links
to see what you call the wild changes, before editing.
But if a shortcut to 'edit the version currently displayed' would cause more harm than good, I have no objection to its being omitted. When I need to revert vandalism, I can just use the "History" link as always.
Do you still think there still something fundamentally, um, bad about the way of creating an encyclopedia that Erik and I are discussing?