Re: [Foundation-l] Mediawiki and a standard template library

[Yann Forget]

2011/8/20 Martijn Hoekstra :
> On wikimedia projects that are not Wikipedia (Wikia in specific comes
> to mind) I often find myself using templates that have not been

Wikia is not a Wikimedia project.

Regards,

Yann

> defined on that installation. The English Wikipedia (which I am most
> familiar with) has many very usefull templates, especially the
> {{citeFoo}} templates, but numerous others as well. Trying to 'import'
> one is a bit of a pain though. Many templates depend on other
> templates, and it is not often very clear how (as a fun exercise for
> the reader, try to import the {{convert}} template to a new wiki, and
> see how easy it is!). I was wondering if it might be a good idea to
> include a standard template library to Wikimedia installations,
> containing a set of utility templates along with the Wikimedia
> distribution. I'm cross-posting foudation, for possible discussion if
> this is desirable, and wikitech, for possible discussion if this is
> feasable.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[David Goodman]

I suspect the only answer you are going to get is that some people or
places would need it.  What you will not  get is any explanation for
why the WMF itself should do it. instead of letting those who want it,
to do it as they wish outside Wikipedia, as our licensing permits.
(You might get the reason that we can do it more gently, and perhaps
we could, but then it would hardly satisfy those who really want to
censor. Any one on the board who wants to pursue that route is free to
set up an organization to enable their own gentle value judgments)
If someone wants to make what amounts to a skin for whatever purposes,
there is nothing to stop them. We are right to have a license that
permits this,  even if 95% of us disapprove of their purposes. They
can use whatever they might want from the neutral tags we should be
applying in our categorization, or devise whatever of their own they
find appropriate for expressing their own values..

Our principles of freedom for the use of our material are so broad
they make no value judgments at all, and include even the freedom to
censor.



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:21:23PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Board was aware of that, as the first Robert Harris' report included
>> very similar text from Canadian librarian association.
>
> I would then like to point out that there is no practical way to
> make a value-neutral categorisation scheme to use for filtering.
>
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the scheme is
> neutral *or* it contains a value judgement so as to be usable for
> filtering. Logic holds that there is no middle ground here. Further
> any value judgement once made cannot be culturally neutral in
> practice.
>
> I'm going to assume in good faith that the board was not aware of this
> minor flaw. But I can't really stretch it much further.
>
> Could board members please chime in and elucidate?
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
>
>
>
>
> --
> [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
> gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
> 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of three months access to Feminist Economics

[kgorman]

> Can anyone provide any info on what the journal carries? are we
> looking at pure theory or are their case studies?

You can see the table of contents for their current issue here:
http://www.feministeconomics.org/journal_spotlights/

It's not a perfect answer, but will at least give you some idea of what
they carry.  I have not yet found a better listing of their contents in an
open place.

---
Kevin Gorman


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of three months access to Feminist Economics

[geni]

On 23 August 2011 19:09, Slim Virgin  wrote:
> Routledge has kindly offered three months free online access to
> Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15
> Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Feminist_Economics and will
> open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.
>
> Please pass the word to anyone you think might be interested.
>
> Sarah

Can anyone provide any info on what the journal carries? are we
looking at pure theory or are their case studies?



-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Genuine, Generous, and Grateful

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

@itwikiquote is an experiment by WMI,
it's a bot that writes the Quote of the day via Twitter.
It work fairly well.

There are supposedly some more of them but we have some problems with 
templates in other languages.
https://twitter.com/#!/WikimediaItalia/wikiquote/members

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board of Trustees activity report - May-June 2011

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

phoebe ayers, 24/08/2011 18:39:
> Thanks Nemo!
> It is true that the first part of the report is a duplication of the
> resolutions&  meeting minutes that we publish. My assumption here was that
> not everyone keeps up with all of the board resolutions etc :) It is also
> nice to have a single record of everything we did in a given time period; I
> was mainly trying to be complete. Of course those who are already familiar
> with all of this should feel free to skip over this section. (But if there's
> a way to make it more useful, that would be great -- and if others think it
> should be dropped as well let me know!)

Good to know, now that you clarified this I know that I can avoid 
reading everything twice to spot the small differences :-p It can indeed 
be useful to put everything together and if it's not too much work for 
you, good for us. :-)

> I'm not sure why you say this is not for the general public. I would not
> mind if the general public read it -- there's nothing confidential. The only
> reason to not disseminate it as-is on the blog is that it is kind of dry and
> not especially well written :)

Yes, that's just it, you can write it with less effort if it's not meant 
for the blog.

> My hope here is that the reports would be: a) a way for our wider community
> (i.e. people who don't follow the wmfwiki) to know what the board is up to;
> b) a way for everyone, internally and externally, to see some of the other
> work the board does that is not well known -- for instance the board
> governance committee stuff; c) highlight some of the awesome work our
> trustees do on their own out in the world with communities and outreach.
> (And maybe some of these activities will turn into more interesting blog
> posts!)
>
> I imagine that the people potentially interested in this might be
> Wikimedians, internal folks of all types, and even external people like our
> partners. Part of my motivation is to answer the question "what does the
> board do???" which seems to come up at every board election :)
>
> At any rate I will be working on July-August this weekend and then I expect
> it will take a couple of weeks for the board members to get all of their
> submissions in and review the report. And then I hope to refine the schedule
> so we can get it out sooner. So please do keep the comments coming and let
> me know what needs to be changed.

Great!
Thank you,
Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Guillaume Paumier, 24/08/2011 17:39:
> Both concerns you raise are valid, and I agree with you, but globally
> enabling the extension by default is no different in that sense from
> enabling it one wiki at a time.
>
> Mischievous admins could be abusing AbuseFilter already on any small
> wiki where the extension was enabled following a request in bugzilla,
> and we wouldn't know about it if no one brought it up to the larger
> community.

The difference is that to request it on bugzilla you need community 
consensus, which means that the local community agrees, is aware of the 
existence and functioning of the extension at least at a basic level and 
can monitor it.

> Similarly, a group of POV-pushing could be blocking users, deleting
> pages or protecting POV versions on a small wiki, and we wouldn't know
> about it either unless someone reported it. Yet, this is not a reason
> for not giving all admins block, delete and protect rights by default.

Block, delete and protext are very simple actions; the AbuseFilter is 
harder to understand and often even the sysops using it don't know the 
effects of their filters. It's not a tragedy, but there must be some 
local control: compare the requirement for wikis to have at least two 
CheckUsers and not only one.

> Globally enabling the extension is merely more convenient for users
> (who don't have to wait until their shell request is processed) and
> shell users (who can spend time fulfilling other requests).

I'm not saying we should (I don't know), but we could by default 
restrict the abusefilter-modify right to an abusefilter group (as in 
en.wiki) which could be assigned only by stewards, who would then be in 
charge of actually enabling the AbuseFilter locally without shell 
requests. This wouldn't create an instruction creep, it could just 
require a local consensus to give all sysops that right, or stewards 
could just decide to assign the flag to all sysops who request it 
notifying the community.

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Alhen]

The filter works. On es@wiki we don't have a group. We just have a group of
people that add some rules when asked. The admins who know how to add rules
do it, the others, ask the ones that know about it, period.

I'm really happy people don't have to worry about certain types of
vandalism. I just hope all wikis can have access to a good tutorial that can
show them how to use it.

Alhen

@alhen_
alhen at wikipedia, wikihow, wikispaces, and most places.
Promotor de Wikimedia Bolivia
00-591-79592235




On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson  wrote:
>
> >
> > Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor.
> > Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the
> > police to control the population?
> > Who wants to live in that country?
> >
> >
> >
> I'm amused.
>
> The first sentence is condemning Victor for using an extreme case.
> The second is an extreme case comparing the abuse filter to a police state.
>
>  pb
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson  wrote:

>
> Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor.
> Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the
> police to control the population?
> Who wants to live in that country?
>
>
>
I'm amused.

The first sentence is condemning Victor for using an extreme case.
The second is an extreme case comparing the abuse filter to a police state.

 pb
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Thomas Morton]

On 24 August 2011 18:12, Wjhonson  wrote:

>
> Give me permission.
> I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team.
>
> Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point.
> I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content
> creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more
> clubs with which to club.
>
>
Doesn't that make the admin tools, well, defunct as pretty much everything
involves content somewhere along the line..

Wait, no, this is not an argument worth having; I think the lack of research
in your original comment says it all. Just sayin.

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Wjhonson]

Give me permission.
I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team.

Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point.
I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content 
creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more 
clubs with which to club.








-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 10:10 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by 
default today


Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.
>
 Admins should never be given powers over content.

erhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for
ome time. And even better, it is not a "sysop" group right. Instead it has
ts own group.
If you are volunteering to head up the abuse filter team and work to
mplement filters to  filter out the mass of junk and long term abusers,
lease let me know and I will be happy to give you the permission!
Otherwise.. perhaps get off the high horse? ;)

  Not now, not then, not ever.
 Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
 In every possible universe.

That sucks, I was trying to sort out the dire lack of coverage of my local
istory, but I guess you are right. Sorry - you won't find me near content
ver again. Sorry!
;)
Tom
__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Thomas Morton]

Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.

>
> Admins should never be given powers over content.


Perhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for
some time. And even better, it is not a "sysop" group right. Instead it has
its own group.

If you are volunteering to head up the abuse filter team and work to
implement filters to  filter out the mass of junk and long term abusers,
please let me know and I will be happy to give you the permission!

Otherwise.. perhaps get off the high horse? ;)


>  Not now, not then, not ever.
> Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
> In every possible universe.
>

That sucks, I was trying to sort out the dire lack of coverage of my local
history, but I guess you are right. Sorry - you won't find me near content
ever again. Sorry!

;)

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Wjhonson]

Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor.
Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the 
police to control the population?
Who wants to live in that country?






-Original Message-
From: Victor Vasiliev 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by 
default today


On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:
 Admins should never be given powers over content.  Not now, not then, not 
ver.
 Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
 In every possible universe.
Oh, sure. Especially when the content is "HELLO I CAN EDIT THIS PAGE
OU ARE PEDOPHILES".
--vvv
___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Victor Vasiliev]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:
> Admins should never be given powers over content.  Not now, not then, not 
> ever.
> Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
> In every possible universe.

Oh, sure. Especially when the content is "HELLO I CAN EDIT THIS PAGE
YOU ARE PEDOPHILES".

--vvv

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board of Trustees activity report - May-June 2011

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

> phoebe ayers, 04/08/2011 07:29:
> > The Board has been working on a report of our activities; please find the
> > first report, covering May and June of this year, below. This is a short
> > summary, meant to help share our work with the community and movement,
> and
> > help make Board work and trustee activities more accessible&
>  transparent.
>
> Thank you!
> For the next reports, you might consider to define the scope of the
> report better. For instance, it's probably not suitable for
> blog.wikimedia.org because it's not for the general public, but this
> means that you can worry less about some things which are difficult to
> explain.
> As far as I understand, it's meant to cover the activities of all board
> members and represent the board as a whole: this is going to be very
> hard work! But another consequence is that it will contain only
> "official board positions", as opposed to e.g. the point of view of the
> 3 or 3+2 community members. This is up to you, but then I don't
> understand the purpose of the first half of the report (before "Other
> Board work"): as it is, it might be just a duplicate of the resolutions
> and minutes on the wiki; not more informative, nor significantly
> shorter, nor providing different insights. In other words, you could
> consider to drop that part reducing your work and the community could
> just learn to read the resolutions (which are few and short) and minutes
> (which are not so long after all) on the wiki. For those who don't know,
> there are also feeds for them (as for any wiki page, hence quite raw,
> but still serving the purpose).
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&feed=atom&action=history
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Meetings&feed=atom&action=history
>
> Nemo
>
> Thanks Nemo!
It is true that the first part of the report is a duplication of the
resolutions & meeting minutes that we publish. My assumption here was that
not everyone keeps up with all of the board resolutions etc :) It is also
nice to have a single record of everything we did in a given time period; I
was mainly trying to be complete. Of course those who are already familiar
with all of this should feel free to skip over this section. (But if there's
a way to make it more useful, that would be great -- and if others think it
should be dropped as well let me know!)

I'm not sure why you say this is not for the general public. I would not
mind if the general public read it -- there's nothing confidential. The only
reason to not disseminate it as-is on the blog is that it is kind of dry and
not especially well written :)

My hope here is that the reports would be: a) a way for our wider community
(i.e. people who don't follow the wmfwiki) to know what the board is up to;
b) a way for everyone, internally and externally, to see some of the other
work the board does that is not well known -- for instance the board
governance committee stuff; c) highlight some of the awesome work our
trustees do on their own out in the world with communities and outreach.
(And maybe some of these activities will turn into more interesting blog
posts!)

I imagine that the people potentially interested in this might be
Wikimedians, internal folks of all types, and even external people like our
partners. Part of my motivation is to answer the question "what does the
board do???" which seems to come up at every board election :)

At any rate I will be working on July-August this weekend and then I expect
it will take a couple of weeks for the board members to get all of their
submissions in and review the report. And then I hope to refine the schedule
so we can get it out sooner. So please do keep the comments coming and let
me know what needs to be changed.

best,
phoebe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Wjhonson]

Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.

Admins should never be given powers over content.  Not now, not then, not ever.
Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
In every possible universe.

Will







-Original Message-
From: Wjhonson 
To: foundation-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:17 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by 
default today



dmins are once again given even more extensive content powers ?
nd that's a good thing right Captain Kirk?
t's a good thing right?
__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Wjhonson]

Admins are once again given even more extensive content powers ?
And that's a good thing right Captain Kirk?
It's a good thing right?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> Was there any discussion about giving every Wikimedia user an "abuse log"? I
> don't really have any objection to the AbuseFilter (beyond the performance
> implications, particularly with poorly written filters), but there are very
> legitimate issues with giving every user a publicly accessible "abuse log".
> The English Wikipedia basically renamed the entire extension to EditFilter.
> Subsequently messages such as "abuse log" were changed to "filter log". (The
> whole extension should be renamed to "ActionFilter" in my opinion.)
>
> Was there any discussion about the possible mischievous uses of this
> extension and how to curb them? Small wikis are particularly susceptible to
> abuse if a few local admins want every article to not include a particular
> viewpoint or particular phrases. Is there any plan to monitor this?

Both concerns you raise are valid, and I agree with you, but globally
enabling the extension by default is no different in that sense from
enabling it one wiki at a time.

Mischievous admins could be abusing AbuseFilter already on any small
wiki where the extension was enabled following a request in bugzilla,
and we wouldn't know about it if no one brought it up to the larger
community.

Similarly, a group of POV-pushing could be blocking users, deleting
pages or protecting POV versions on a small wiki, and we wouldn't know
about it either unless someone reported it. Yet, this is not a reason
for not giving all admins block, delete and protect rights by default.

Globally enabling the extension is merely more convenient for users
(who don't have to wait until their shell request is processed) and
shell users (who can spend time fulfilling other requests).

HTH,

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
http://donate.wikimedia.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[MZMcBride]

Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> The AbuseFilter extension for MediaWiki, which helps prevent vandalism
> on wikis, will be globally enabled on all Wikimedia projects later
> today.
> 
> More information is available at http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=6106

>From :
> AbuseFilter allows privileged users to set specific controls on actions by
> users, such as edits, and create automated reactions for certain behaviors.

Was there any discussion about giving every Wikimedia user an "abuse log"? I
don't really have any objection to the AbuseFilter (beyond the performance
implications, particularly with poorly written filters), but there are very
legitimate issues with giving every user a publicly accessible "abuse log".
The English Wikipedia basically renamed the entire extension to EditFilter.
Subsequently messages such as "abuse log" were changed to "filter log". (The
whole extension should be renamed to "ActionFilter" in my opinion.)

Was there any discussion about the possible mischievous uses of this
extension and how to curb them? Small wikis are particularly susceptible to
abuse if a few local admins want every article to not include a particular
viewpoint or particular phrases. Is there any plan to monitor this?

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Guillaume Paumier]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:57 PM, James Forrester  wrote:
> On 24 August 2011 15:55, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
>>
>> I know I can look at noc.wikimedia.org, but could you please add some
>> info about the default configuration so that at least sysops know what
>> to expect. Or is it supposed to be used only by [global sysops and]
>> stewards (as it happened on some small wikis recently)?
>
> It says in the blog post to which Guillaume linked that the default
> set up is blank, and that any sysop can set one up as they see fit,
> with a link to the documentation on how we've used in on enwiki (given
> that it's been active there for two years).

This is correct. Admins will be the ones able to create and manage
filters, and there will be no default filters.

The full configuration file is at
http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=abusefilter.php

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
http://donate.wikimedia.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Guillaume Paumier, 24/08/2011 16:36:
> The AbuseFilter extension for MediaWiki, which helps prevent vandalism
> on wikis, will be globally enabled on all Wikimedia projects later
> today.
>
> More information is available at
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/08/24/filter-preventing-abusive-edits-all-wikis/

I know I can look at noc.wikimedia.org, but could you please add some 
info about the default configuration so that at least sysops know what 
to expect. Or is it supposed to be used only by [global sysops and] 
stewards (as it happened on some small wikis recently)?
Thank you,
Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

[Guillaume Paumier]

Greetings,

The AbuseFilter extension for MediaWiki, which helps prevent vandalism
on wikis, will be globally enabled on all Wikimedia projects later
today.

More information is available at
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/08/24/filter-preventing-abusive-edits-all-wikis/

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
http://donate.wikimedia.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Thomas Morton]

No way, it's just resting!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Fae]

Agreed, this thread is definitely deceased ... following a prolonged squawk.

Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Kirill Lokshin]

Stop this thread at once!  It's gotten entirely too silly!

Kirill

2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad 

> I did, but it was deleted.  The deletion summary was "that's not
> *particularly
> *silly"
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> 2011/8/24 David Richfield 
>
> > 2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad :
> > > I'm glad I finally found you.  I have a silly walk, and I'd like to
> apply
> > > for a government grant to help me develop it.
> > >
> > > Newyorkbrad
> >
> > OK, first step: post a video of your walk to Commons under a free
> license.
> >
> > --
> > David Richfield
> > e^(πi)+1=0
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Chris Keating]

Just occasionally this Python sketch feels very relevant to Wikipedia;

M:   Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R:Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M:   No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you
thinking of taking a course?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argument_Sketch

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Newyorkbrad]

I did, but it was deleted.  The deletion summary was "that's not *particularly
*silly"

Newyorkbrad

2011/8/24 David Richfield 

> 2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad :
> > I'm glad I finally found you.  I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
> > for a government grant to help me develop it.
> >
> > Newyorkbrad
>
> OK, first step: post a video of your walk to Commons under a free license.
>
> --
> David Richfield
> e^(πi)+1=0
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[David Richfield]

2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad :
> I'm glad I finally found you.  I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
> for a government grant to help me develop it.
>
> Newyorkbrad

OK, first step: post a video of your walk to Commons under a free license.

-- 
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

[Newyorkbrad]

I'm glad I finally found you.  I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
for a government grant to help me develop it.

Newyorkbrad

2011/8/23 David Richfield 

> Wow, if all it takes to get exemption from road tax is a quick edit, I
> can guess there will soon be a number of highly improbable government
> departments.  I myself work for [[The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks]]
>
> --
> David Richfield
> e^(πi)+1=0
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l