The privacy policy (lonnnnng awaited) was approved by the board at the
last meeting. It was just copied on foundation wiki.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
It would be great that the policy be translated in all languages (see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy). Once most languages are
translated, we would like to link it from the footer of pages.
Ant
Hi, I have just joined this mailing list so excuse me
if I'm posting in the wrong place by not "continuing"
the thread about the disputes regarding the Romanian
and Moldovan Wikipedias.
I think, as Mark (Node) highlighted, people are
arguing two separate issues here which should not be
combined. One is whether Moldovan or Romanian is the
same language, the other is over what to use mo.wiki
for. Now the first issue could be argued for forever,
and that's not really the focus of the discussion.
The actual dispute is due to what to use mo.wiki for.
I think the fundamental idea lies in this: Mark wants
to use mo.wiki for Cyrillic only, with an explanation
redirecting people to Latin content on the Main Page.
I think the logic behind this is that since we already
have mo.wiki, and it's no use putting up Latin content
because it would be nearly identical to the ro.wiki
content, we should use mo.wiki for Cyrillic. I believe
that this is a practical reason, and I would agree
that this is the "easiest" solution because it would
require simply maintaining the status quo.
My proposal has been that we actually make the mo.wiki
a disambiguation Wikipedia, sort of like the
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, not in the sense that
theMoldovan issue is similar to Serbo-Croatian issue,
but just technically. There would be two columns
there, one redirecting users to a Moldovan Cyrillic
subdomain the other to ro.wiki. Now, the subdomain
should be mo-cyr not ro-cyr simply because out of the
people who write Moldovan-Romanian in Cyrillic, most
of them will say they speak Moldovan, and nearly all
of them live in Moldova. So it's only correct to call
that language Moldovan and set up the subdomain. The
reason why I think my proposal would work best is
because mo.wiki cannote be Cyrillic-only, even with a
Latin script redirect, simply because Cyrillic is the
minority script. We should provide content for that
minority, but not as if they were the majority. Those
who want Moldovan in Latin script, which is the
majority of speakers, even who say they speak Moldovan
not Romanian, can go to ro.wiki. If there is actually
demand, then perhaps we could form a Moldovan
Wikipedia in Latin script, even though practically
that would be a tad pointless due to the
near-identicality of Ro-Latin and Mo-Latin.
Just to clear something up here about language
separation - I believe that Romanian and Moldovan are
not separate languages lingusitically. However, I do
believe that we can regard them as separate languages
politically. The definition of a language is not only
scientific, or purely linguistic, but rather has a
human/political element to it. Because the Moldovan
government constitutionally recognises "Moldovan" as
their language, then Wikipedia should recognise the
existence of the
So when Mark said, "it should be noted that
Ronline believes - at least it would seem he does -
that Romanian and Moldovan are truly separate
languages", he was half-right. I mean, I don't believe
they're separate languages, but I'm not saying that we
shouldn't regard them as such. Basically, I'm not
going to argue any side in that issue of whether ro
and mo are separate because that's not really the key
to the so-called conflict.
Now, about meddling into the affairs of other
Wikipedias. Mark made a very valid point about
Romanian users involving themselves in Moldovan
affairs. What I'd like to point out is that our
involvement in the Moldovan issue is not so much in
our role as ro.wiki contributors but rather as members
of the broader Wikimedia community. We're involving
ourselves because we're close to Moldova, our language
is the same, or at least very similar, and the
Romanian wiki communities and Moldovan communities
have a considerable degree of overlap. It's true
though that I haven't visited Moldova and that perhaps
we're not all that knowledgeable on Moldovan affairs,
but in any case we're much closer to them and
therefore know a lot more about them than probably any
other nation in the world (don't want to sound
arrogant here, but Moldova's "closest" country in
Romania, not politically but culturally,
linguistically, etc).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
In reply to Sj:
"If we're going to have an mo: encyclopedia (and it's
not at all
obvious to me that this is the right solution), then
it had better
allow the inclusion of text in the official Moldovan
alphabet."
Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. The
Moldovan Wikipedia cannot be Cyrillic-only, even if
there is a notice redirecting Latin-script users to
ro.wiki.
"But should WP really have a "Moldovan" Wikipedia?"
Personally, I wouldn't really mind if the Moldovan
Wikipedia would just continue to redirect to the
Romanian Wikipedia. However, the issue of Cyrillic
content still remains. There are clearly contributors
who want to provide content in Moldovan Cyrillic.
Therefore, we need to facilitate that. Or we cannot.
We can simply say that we won't accept Cyrillic
content, just how we won't accept Romanian written
without diacritics even though 75% of the online
Romanian users doesn't use them, or just how we don't
accept Latin script in the Russian Wikipedia. However,
because 10% of the Moldovan language speakers use
Cyrillic script, I think we should facilitate content
in that script. The best way to do that would be to
set up a new subdomain at mo-cyr.wikipedia.org.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Hi, I have just joined this mailing list so excuse me
if I'm posting in the wrong place by not "continuing"
the thread about the disputes regarding the Romanian
and Moldovan Wikipedias.
I think, as Mark (Node) highlighted, people are
arguing two separate issues here which should not be
combined. One is whether Moldovan or Romanian is the
same language, the other is over what to use mo.wiki
for. Now the first issue could be argued for forever,
and that's not really the focus of the discussion.
The actual dispute is due to what to use mo.wiki for.
I think the fundamental idea lies in this: Mark wants
to use mo.wiki for Cyrillic only, with an explanation
redirecting people to Latin content on the Main Page.
I think the logic behind this is that since we already
have mo.wiki, and it's no use putting up Latin content
because it would be nearly identical to the ro.wiki
content, we should use mo.wiki for Cyrillic. I believe
that this is a practical reason, and I would agree
that this is the "easiest" solution because it would
require simply maintaining the status quo.
My proposal has been that we actually make the mo.wiki
a disambiguation Wikipedia, sort of like the
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, not in the sense that
theMoldovan issue is similar to Serbo-Croatian issue,
but just technically. There would be two columns
there, one redirecting users to a Moldovan Cyrillic
subdomain the other to ro.wiki. Now, the subdomain
should be mo-cyr not ro-cyr simply because out of the
people who write Moldovan-Romanian in Cyrillic, most
of them will say they speak Moldovan, and nearly all
of them live in Moldova. So it's only correct to call
that language Moldovan and set up the subdomain. The
reason why I think my proposal would work best is
because mo.wiki cannote be Cyrillic-only, even with a
Latin script redirect, simply because Cyrillic is the
minority script. We should provide content for that
minority, but not as if they were the majority. Those
who want Moldovan in Latin script, which is the
majority of speakers, even who say they speak Moldovan
not Romanian, can go to ro.wiki. If there is actually
demand, then perhaps we could form a Moldovan
Wikipedia in Latin script, even though practically
that would be a tad pointless due to the
near-identicality of Ro-Latin and Mo-Latin.
Just to clear something up here about language
separation - I believe that Romanian and Moldovan are
not separate languages lingusitically. However, I do
believe that we can regard them as separate languages
politically. The definition of a language is not only
scientific, or purely linguistic, but rather has a
human/political element to it. Because the Moldovan
government constitutionally recognises "Moldovan" as
their language, then Wikipedia should recognise the
existence of the
So when Mark said, "it should be noted that
Ronline believes - at least it would seem he does -
that Romanian and Moldovan are truly separate
languages", he was half-right. I mean, I don't believe
they're separate languages, but I'm not saying that we
shouldn't regard them as such. Basically, I'm not
going to argue any side in that issue of whether ro
and mo are separate because that's not really the key
to the so-called conflict.
Now, about meddling into the affairs of other
Wikipedias. Mark made a very valid point about
Romanian users involving themselves in Moldovan
affairs. What I'd like to point out is that our
involvement in the Moldovan issue is not so much in
our role as ro.wiki contributors but rather as members
of the broader Wikimedia community. We're involving
ourselves because we're close to Moldova, our language
is the same, or at least very similar, and the
Romanian wiki communities and Moldovan communities
have a considerable degree of overlap. It's true
though that I haven't visited Moldova and that perhaps
we're not all that knowledgeable on Moldovan affairs,
but in any case we're much closer to them and
therefore know a lot more about them than probably any
other nation in the world (don't want to sound
arrogant here, but Moldova's "closest" country in
Romania, not politically but culturally,
linguistically, etc).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
The previous message was by me, Ronline. Sorry, I
didn't realise that at the mailing list the message is
posted by your e-mail name rather than the name
specified when you joined the list.
--Ronline
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Puddl Duk (puddlduk(a)gmail.com) [050413 02:36]:
> On Apr 12, 2005 8:35 AM, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > ...invasion of privacy by potentially removing anonymity from the use of
> > > Wikipedia. Please let this tool be a last resort in serious cases.
> > Precisely. That's why anyone using it needs to have an awareness of these
> > issues and proceed with extreme caution.
> Guarantees of restraint from the current users of this feature are
> fine, I'm sure that Tim and David are trustworthy, but that's the here
> and now. The feature needs some built in oversight.
Those with access to it see all uses, ever. Tim has also made this list
available to others.
> Users should be notified when CheckUser is run on them (something like
> a message notice, that only they can see). Waerth noted that this
> will cause some controversy with users when they see they have been
> investigated, which is true. But this makes a good deterrent of abuse.
> Anyone who runs it will have a damn good reason, knowing that they
> may have to explain themselves. Also, many requests for sockpuppet
> checks are public, so informing the users who were checked isn't any
> different in these cases.
You're writing the code to do this, then?
> Waerth also notes on, meta, that 90% of the checks will be on innocent
> users. If this is the case, then I have to question how solid the
> reasoning is for checking those 90%.
One thing I've just asked on [[m:CheckUser]] is for ideas on what the
criteria should be. As I noted, spurious allegations of sockpuppetry are de
rigeur on en: arbitration cases. One thing that frustrates me at present is
there are quite a few I think I should *maybe* look into but don't feel
certain enough to because there isn't a clear case to hand.
> Finally, notifying a registered user when their identity is checked is
> just a decent thing to do.
There is that. OTOH, when I was investigating the socks of the 'Baku Ibne'
troll, I came across use of the same IPs by good users and checked their
IPs as well. Now, should we be revealing too much information to them about
an ongoing investigation?
And also: any website will look through the logs in detail if they suspect
abuse. The devs do this *all the time already*. And they *do not* notify
anyone in particular. The key to this feature is not doing anything that
isn't done already, it's giving access to a small subset of it to people
who aren't actually Wikimedia system administrators, mostly so the system
administrators can get on with running the site.
- d.
We are pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation and Yahoo!
have reached an agreement by which Yahoo will provide hosting capacity
to Wikimedia.
Yahoo will dedicate a significant number of servers in one of its
Asian facilities for hosting Wikimedia's free content websites.
As of today, Yahoo! will also test the integration of Wikipedia
content in its French-language Yahoo! Search shortcuts to be followed
by other languages to accommodate users in Asia, Latin America,
Europe, and the U.S. The shortcuts will show contextually relevant
abstracts of Wikipedia articles in response to user queries.
For full details, please see:
*Announcement: <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_announces_Yaho…>
*Press release: <http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050407/75258.html?.v=1>
*Jimbo on the Yahoo! Search blog:
<http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000100.html>
Angela
--
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia Foundation
--- Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> >To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> >Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio
> >Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:54:44 +0100 (BST)
> >
> >--- Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Wouter wrote:
> > > > > Suppose, by comparision, that I suggested for fun that orthodox
> >Muslims
> > > >were
> > > > > right in saying homosexuals should be executioned. I don't think
> >that
> > > >would
> > > > > make you smile; in your position, I would ask for immediate removal
> >of
> > > >the
> > > > > offender from the mailing list and permanent blocking on Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > >Why on earth should such a person be blocked?
> > > >
> > > >-- Matt
> > >
> > > Because I would take it serious and don't want people with this and
> >similar
> > > views to edit Wikipedia.
> >
> >Why shouldn't people with such views edit Wikipedia? What about NPOV
> >(Neutral
> >Point of View)?
>
> NPOV has its limits, Matt. Such persons would probably start modfiing pages
> like [[Homosexuality]], [[Sexuality]], [[Osama bin Laden]], [[George Bush]]
> etc etc, just because extremists cannot distinguish fact and opinion. Of
> course, they cannot be removed after a lot of such violations.
We should welcome extremists modifying such pages, as long as they follow our
policies (like NPOV). I don't see how we should exclude editors because of what
they think. We can exclude them if they edit in violation of our policies, of
course. But remember that it is quite possible for editors to hold extreme
views, even views that you may find obnoxious, and yet still be a moderate and
valuable Wikipedia contributor.
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com