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.
I have a query about copyright, although not directly related to the Bryce
Harrington thing. If an article is in breach of copyright, and someone
else replaces the text with original material, the copyrighted material is
still publically available on the Wikipedia to anyone who knows about the
revision history page. Doesn't this mean that there is still a breach of
copyright here? And if so, doesn't the entire article (along with its
history) have to be deleted, and not just rewritten?
I think I may have edited some articles that *previously* contained
copyrighted material, and now I'm wondering if these edits actually need
to be deleted, which would be annoying...
Thanks for clarifying this!
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
I was the person who noticed the Oregon City article had a copyright notice
WITH an invariant section that the notice could not be removed. This violates
the copyright agreement to add to Wikipedia (no invariant sections). I
respectfully asked Bryce to remove the incompatibility or delete his additions
that he claimed credit for. He removed the invariant section. Let me make the
rest of this discussion a practical one. Who among us would have accepted it
if I would put at the end of *every* 30,000 or so city articles a message that
the articles were mine and copyrighted "2002 Derek Ramsey"? I am pretty sure
(unless I misunderstand) that if you add to Wikipedia you give your consent to
let others modify your work. That may mean eliminating it, removing your
copyright notice, or whatever they feel like doing. Wikipedia has a copyright
notice and that should be sufficient. If you can't agree to it, you can't add
articles, no matter how much we want them.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
One thing I noticed on another wiki(running a perl version of wiki) was the implementation of subpages. For example, you have page "Rants" and on that page is the link code [[/MyRants]]. MyRants then becomes a subpage of Rants and is linked via /Rants/MyRants. Has anyone implemented this in Wikipedia?
Jason "Rodzilla" Rodzik
Seriously! Owner & Director of Operations
>I see no reason not to include it. If people don't like it, just
>it. It does have a useful purpose, allowing you to make pages that are
>under another page(such as /Changes, /Ideas, /Rants, etc...) without
>into a problem where you have a page named Page_1_Rants and
Subpages result in such wonderful and natural sounding titles as
[[China/Politics]] and [[guitar/Bass]] (yes, that was a title at one
time). Who writes "[[Paul McCartney]] is a well-known [[Guitar/Bass]]
Taw has pointed out that on the old UseMod wiki software, putting text
in a <pre> tag disabled interpretation of wiki markup as well as being
preformatted. On the Polish wikipedia, this was extensively used for
programming examples, where markup interpretation (links, lists, etc)
could horribly break the code.
At some point this was changed on the new software, so that to get the
same effect you have to also put in a <nowiki> tag inside the <pre> tag;
this means the many code examples are broken until they have yet more
tags added to them; Taw has requested that the old behavior be restored
Is there any objection to making this change? Preformatted text with
wikicode interpretation has always been available by putting a blank
space at the beginning of each line, making <pre> redundant.
The change might require some pages on the English wiki to be altered to
remove now-redundant <nowiki> tags.
An additional question: while UseMod's <pre> and <nowiki> tags both
suppressed HTML tags (ie, <b>bold</b> appeared as raw text), neither
suppressed character references (ie, ĉ appeared as
c-with-circumflex, not as raw text). The current <nowiki> behavior
suppresses both tags and char references. Which is preferred?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)