Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

>
> Might be nice to wait with enwiki implementation too until we have
> something that we know will not have Evil Repercussions.
>
> Else we end up forking enwiki, if my spidey^Wwiki senses don't
> betray me. O:-)
>

Definitely. I will personally bankroll any fork that will have the momentum
of one third of editorship behind it, or in a pinch just a quarter of
editorship,
if nearly half of the core editors are included in that quarter.

I guess I should qualify the above by saying I will not bankroll a hostile
fork. I will not bankroll somebodys private project. Has to have real
momentum, otherwise no point in forking, might as well try to work
things out *within* the community.

Just to be clear, I might not join a hypothetical fork myself as an editor,
but I feel the ability to fork is so precious a boon for projects like us, that
it would be worth it to bankroll one purely on the principle of the thing.

-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/16/11 12:38 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp  wrote:
>> I think that the phrase meaning refered to Wikipedia is "the sum of all
>> human knowledge which is notable and encyclopedic".
>>
>> Not ALL, ALL, ALL human knowledge. MySpace discarded.
> When you look back to when that quote was issued (at least 2004), I
> think I tend to see it as broader and more aspirational.  Wikipedia
> was already the biggest project, but we still imagined ourselves
> making a statement with Wikinews and Wiktionary and everything else.
> Back in the day, I can certainly imagine Wikimedia wanting to
> encompass all forms of human knowledge, including projects going far
> beyond the confines of what we now see as notable and encyclopedic.
> We have retreated from that quite a lot.  Even within Wikipedia our
> notions of what was acceptable and what was not were far more fluid.
>
> The projects have accomplished an incredible amount, and we should all
> be very proud and amazed at what we have done.  However, I do think we
> have lost some of that early dream.  Back in the day, it was easy to
> imagine that we would eventually encompass all human knowledge, and
> now we tend to draw our goals more narrowly.  In part, I think our
> perceptions of that famous quote have been evolving alongside our
> perceptions of what Wikimedia and Wikipedia have become.
>

Strictly speaking, "the sum of" is a redundancy, but its English 
idiomatic use tends to emphasize comprehensiveness. For those of us who 
saw the dream earlier on being "notable and encyclopedic" was never part 
of the dream, and still isn't. A literal interpretation of "the sum of 
all human knowledge" is still impossible; it's simply too big and 
constantly growing. It still warns us to avoid restrictive 
preconceptions about what is notable and encyclopedic.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 21:38, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> I don't see a big money issue for Wiktionary either.

It's not about big money, it's about money necessary for a project to live.

Targeting articles in medicine is quite good, as they are necessary
and not covered as well as, for example, astronomy is. But, it shows
that even English Wikipedia requires organized (not spontaneous) work
to cover some areas of knowledge. Wikinews needs it for the roots.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)

[Thomas Morton]

On 17 Sep 2011, at 09:41, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 09/16/11 12:38 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp  wrote:
>>> I think that the phrase meaning refered to Wikipedia is "the sum of all
>>> human knowledge which is notable and encyclopedic".
>>>
>>> Not ALL, ALL, ALL human knowledge. MySpace discarded.
>> When you look back to when that quote was issued (at least 2004), I
>> think I tend to see it as broader and more aspirational.  Wikipedia
>> was already the biggest project, but we still imagined ourselves
>> making a statement with Wikinews and Wiktionary and everything else.
>> Back in the day, I can certainly imagine Wikimedia wanting to
>> encompass all forms of human knowledge, including projects going far
>> beyond the confines of what we now see as notable and encyclopedic.
>> We have retreated from that quite a lot.  Even within Wikipedia our
>> notions of what was acceptable and what was not were far more fluid.
>>
>> The projects have accomplished an incredible amount, and we should all
>> be very proud and amazed at what we have done.  However, I do think we
>> have lost some of that early dream.  Back in the day, it was easy to
>> imagine that we would eventually encompass all human knowledge, and
>> now we tend to draw our goals more narrowly.  In part, I think our
>> perceptions of that famous quote have been evolving alongside our
>> perceptions of what Wikimedia and Wikipedia have become.
>>
>
> Strictly speaking, "the sum of" is a redundancy, but its English
> idiomatic use tends to emphasize comprehensiveness. For those of us who
> saw the dream earlier on being "notable and encyclopedic" was never part
> of the dream, and still isn't. A literal interpretation of "the sum of
> all human knowledge" is still impossible; it's simply too big and
> constantly growing. It still warns us to avoid restrictive
> preconceptions about what is notable and encyclopedic.
>
> Ray


"sum" is a representation of the total value of a sequence.

Similarly the sum of all knowledge is the representation of our
sequence of knowledge.

So we take a large body of disorganised information and collate it
into something of greater value.

Statements like that are not so much about size or scope; but about value.

Tom

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Gerard]

On 17 September 2011 09:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> Just to be clear, I might not join a hypothetical fork myself as an editor,
> but I feel the ability to fork is so precious a boon for projects like us, 
> that
> it would be worth it to bankroll one purely on the principle of the thing.


We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
en:wp dump, an images dump, a copy of MediaWiki and relevant
extensions and making it functional and documenting the procedure.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> ...
> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..

Is there an images dump?

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Gerard]

On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..

> Is there an images dump?


If there isn't, there should be.

(I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
my bandwidth allowances ever.)


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard  wrote:
> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> my bandwidth allowances ever.)

Something like:
rsync -av --bwlimit=50 (if you want to give ~5Mbps; number is in KiBps)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats)

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/12/11 10:05 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:04, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>> Also, if there was no group let us give a random example - in Macedonia -
>> who wanted to organize the contest, still it would be a good idea to open a
>> category for WLM in Macedonia, just to get a chance to indeed involve new
>> people and to possibly get a number of good quality image previously
>> missing. Especially if people would know this in advance and could take
>> pictures for instance during the summer holidays.
> Eh, wrong example. There is Wikimedia Macedonia and they really hate
> monuments because every local tycoon builds monuments in Macedonia,
> presently.
>
>
This makes getting the pictures more important ... before their 
successors tear them down.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[とある白い猫]

  I am sorry but how is renaming ku.wikipedia to kmr.wikipedia a "Turkish
Nationalistic View"? Have you even read the proposal before assuming bad
faith? Do you understand how little the proposal intends to change?

   - The interwiki link for Sorani wikipedia is "کوردی" which means "Kurdi"
   or Kuridsh in Sorani dialect (this should perhaps include "سۆرانی‎‎"
   which means "Sorani").
   - Interwiki links for ku.wikipedia currently is Kurdî in latin script
   instead of dual Latin/Arabic script as Kurdish can be written in multiple
   scripts if we are referring to the macro-language Kurdish and not the
   Kurmanji dialect.
   - Interwiki links for kmr would probably be something like "Kurdî" or
   "Kurdî (Kurmancî)" as already discussed on the meta page.

  In other words from the perspective of interwiki links we may at most
include the dialect name in parenthesis to include the dialect of Kurdish.

  So in sum I proposed the macrolanguage code ku to be replaced with kmr to
properly represent the dialect the wiki covers with possible modification of
interwiki links label to specify the dialect. What motive could I have for
this (in your words "biassed") request?

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)


On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 01:55, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:45 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
> >
> > Let me add to this that some of the same people compared my actions, in
> > supporting a technical move to change the ISO code of a Wikipedia, to
> those
> > of a group of Turkish soldiers who attempted to murder Kurdish women and
> > children. This game of nationalism and accusations is nothing new on
> > Wikipedia. I have been called a Russian, a Soviet, a Jew, a Kurdish
> > nationalist and many other things.
> >
> > I was even told once that I was an official enemy of the Romanian people
> and
> > that my name and face had been stored in a secret Romanian government
> > database of enemies of the Romanian nation and that I would be targeted
> for
> > elimination. So please, let's keep nationality out of this. I am not
> Turkish
> > but I am a linguist and a geek and this move makes linguistic and
> technical
> > sense. I am more a supporter of the aspirations of peoples to be
> > independent, but I'd rather not take sides in every single geopolitical
> > conflict because this does not need to be tied to that. It is a simple
> > technical and linguistic issue with two options for a solution that
> should
> > be chosen based on common sense, not nationalist sentiments or loyalties,
> > and I have chosen my side without those unnecessary influences.
> >
> >
>
> Mark, your objections would make sense if I had only said "Oh by the
> way, he's Turkish." I didn't. As a matter of fact, White Cat has an
> extensive history of being subject to dispute resolution, editing
> restrictions, blocks etc. for disruptive editing with a Turkish
> nationalist point of view. While I do understand that you may
> disagree, I personally think that strongly held biases in the matter
> at hand are relevant to the decision he asks the community to make.
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> 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] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Strainu]

2011/9/17 David Gerard :
> On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
>>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
>
>> Is there an images dump?
>
>
> If there isn't, there should be.
>
> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> my bandwidth allowances ever.)

I have no traffic limit on my home connection. Just ship a big enough
storage device and I'll be happy to provide you a full dump :P

Just kidding, of course. On a more serious note, what do you expect
the difficulties to be? I believe the most difficult part would be to
replicate the foundation's "secret sauce", i.e. the configuration
files that are not made public, if such thing exists. Then would come
the whole traffic balancing/caching/optimization settings, which would
greatly depend on the actual traffic a fork would have.

Strainu

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Fred Bauder]

> the foundation's "secret sauce", i.e. the configuration
> files that are not made public, if such thing exists. Then would come
> the whole traffic balancing/caching/optimization settings, which would
> greatly depend on the actual traffic a fork would have.
>
> Strainu

If you control your own servers, vital for a fully functioning fork,
you'll eventually work out the technical details.

However, I'm afraid the "secret sauce" involves interpersonal elements,
including respecting the sensitivities of others on a global basis.

Fred



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

[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Sarah Stierch]

Hi everyone,

I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?

I don't remember...

Thanks :)

-Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Oliver Koslowski]

Am 17.09.2011 13:51, schrieb Fred Bauder:
> However, I'm afraid the "secret sauce" involves interpersonal elements,
> including respecting the sensitivities of others on a global basis.

Yeah, as the 86% rejection rate in the German-speaking Wikipedia has 
shown, the WMF board has paid special attention to sensitivities of 
others here. ;-)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Béria Lima]

No.

You can see all the questions here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Vote_interface/en
_
*Béria Lima*
(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer .*


On 17 September 2011 13:08, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?
>
> I don't remember...
>
> Thanks :)
>
> -Sarah
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> ___
> 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] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Sarah Stierch]

Thanks Beria! :)  A shame, it would have been really fascinating to see if
there was a gender gap in this matter.

-Sarah

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:

> No.
>
> You can see all the questions here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Vote_interface/en
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> (351) 925 171 484
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre
> acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
> fazer .*
>
>
> On 17 September 2011 13:08, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?
> >
> > I don't remember...
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
> > -Sarah
> >
> > --
> > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> > Art
> > and
> > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > --
> > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 00:38, Nathan  wrote:
> I don't think White_Cat's nomination is purely without ulterior motive,
> unfortunately. As some editors from ku.wp have alluded to, the issue of the
> name and designation of the "Kurdish Wikipedia" has ethnic and nationalist
> ramifications on both sides of the debate. Several of the ku.wp editors are
> on one side of that debate, and White_Cat (who is Turkish) is traditionally
> on the other.

The proposal is definitely a good faith one.

I've read relevant articles about Kurdish political disputes and there
is no [relevant] political dispute on the ethnolinguistic lines.
Actually, Sorani area [1] in Iraq is actually held [2] by Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan [3], which is supported by Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK) [4]. Northern area in Iraq is controlled by Kurdistan Democratic
Party [5], supported by Turkey in Iraqi Kurdish Civil War [6].

If White Cat has pro-Turkish bias, he wouldn't support Sorani
speakers, as they are "on PKK's side" and PKK is the archenemy of
Turkey. However, much more relevant factor in inter-Kurdish disputes
are personal and political feuds, not ethnic tension.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dialects.jpg
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iraq_kurdish_areas_2003_vector.svg
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_of_Kurdistan
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Democratic_Party
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdish_Civil_War

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
>>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
>>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
> 
>> Is there an images dump?
> 
> If there isn't, there should be.
> 
> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> my bandwidth allowances ever.)

It's easy enough to get a VPS with unlimited bandwidth. It's a few terabytes
of data, though, depending on what you're talking about. Thumbnails, current
images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The
sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then
having them mail it back.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Peter Coombe]

On 17 September 2011 15:06, MZMcBride  wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>
 We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
 en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
>>
>>> Is there an images dump?
>>
>> If there isn't, there should be.
>>
>> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
>> my bandwidth allowances ever.)
>
> It's easy enough to get a VPS with unlimited bandwidth. It's a few terabytes
> of data, though, depending on what you're talking about. Thumbnails, current
> images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The
> sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then
> having them mail it back.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Of course if you're only thinking about forking Wikipedia, rather than
Commons, you can just use InstantCommons [1]. For English Wikipedia
you'd still have a lot of fair use to copy, but German and many other
languages wouldn't have that problem.

That said, there really ought to be an image dump available too.

Pete / the wub

[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/InstantCommons

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:42:08PM +0300, Strainu wrote:

> I believe the most difficult part would be to
> replicate the foundation's "secret sauce", i.e. the configuration
> files that are not made public, if such thing exists. 

Special:Version has always been good enough for me ;-)

> Then would come the whole traffic balancing/caching/optimization
> settings, which would greatly depend on the actual traffic a fork
> would have.

My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
things will cost. You can always start a bit small and work your way
up. 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

(
To help jumpstart maths: 

Renting a 49 unit 19" rack with 1TB traffic, 1GB/sec costs around Eur
200/month these days. You still have to buy equipment to mount in that
rack and set it all up, of course, which might cost you around
50KEur[1] Rent+obsoleting over 3 years gets in the ballpark of about
20K/year amortized.  Extra traffic allowance can typically be ordered 
separately.

You may need more, or less, than a single rack, depending on traffic.

* http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats//trafficstats-hourly.png
* http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats//trafficstats-monthly.png
For the entire cluster(all projects), it looks like traffic can peak to
6Gbit/s at the moment

* http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
enwiki: 7,976,862 views per hour
dewiki: 1,054,677 views per hour

[1] @~Eur 1000/system. Note that you also need to mount switches, UPS, etc,
so you can't use the whole rack just for computation. Also note that
things like blade servers or NAS servers can fit more processor power
or storage into less rackspace, where required. 

)

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[David Gerard]

On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
> things will cost. You can always start a bit small and work your way
> up.


Starting small is *most definitely* the way to go. Citizendium burned
through enough funding for *20 years* in three years by ridiculously
overestimating their server needs.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 03:35:44PM +0100, Peter Coombe wrote:
> 
> Of course if you're only thinking about forking Wikipedia, rather than
> Commons, you can just use InstantCommons [1]. For English Wikipedia
> you'd still have a lot of fair use to copy, but German and many other
> languages wouldn't have that problem.
> 
> That said, there really ought to be an image dump available too.
> 
> Pete / the wub
> 
> [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/InstantCommons

I think we want to investigate forking commons too.

If any of you fine folks could use a vps, what specs do you need?
I prolly have a little space to make one. :-) Debian ok for starters?

I'm not sure forking is a good idea right here, right now,
but it's always useful to check that failing to
an external backup is still tractable.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

[Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[WereSpielChequers]

Sanity in IT terms and practicality in regulatory terms don't always go hand
in hand. Transporting an image dump on a hard drive might well be the most
practical way to move that much data - though it should be encrypted at
least whilst in transit. But forking doesn't sound to me a good reason to
disclose deleted edits. Or for that matter account passwords. So that drive
would need to be an extract of the material covered in the license.


WereSpielChequers



--

>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:08 -0400
> From: MZMcBride 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the
>introduction of the personal image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="US-ASCII"
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard 
> wrote:
> >
> >>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
> >>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
> >
> >> Is there an images dump?
> >
> > If there isn't, there should be.
> >
> > (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> > my bandwidth allowances ever.)
>
> It's easy enough to get a VPS with unlimited bandwidth. It's a few
> terabytes
> of data, though, depending on what you're talking about. Thumbnails,
> current
> images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The
> sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then
> having them mail it back.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Fred Bauder]

> On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>
>> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
>> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
>> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
>> things will cost. You can always start a bit small and work your way
>> up.
>
>
> Starting small is *most definitely* the way to go. Citizendium burned
> through enough funding for *20 years* in three years by ridiculously
> overestimating their server needs.
>
>
> - d.
>

May I suggest a Apple Mini Mac with the Lion server, loaded with plenty
of memory and storage of course.

Fred


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[Nathan]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:49 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
> And if I were to ask the community to make it? I would be perfectly willing
> to do the same thing. This should not be relevant in Wikimedia. If a
> pedophile says "We should put a picture of a naked child on every page of
> Wikipedia!", we should refute his idea on its merits, not based on the fact
> that he's a pedophile. I have been thinking for a long time now that ku.wp
> should be moved to kmr.wp, I am just not a big fan of all of the bureaucracy
> and so avoided doing it myself. Now someone else has done it, and I support
> it.
>
> So it really bothers me that you're judging a proposal based on the
> (supposed) ethnicity of the person who suggested it, especially since the
> proposal has always had merit and I could've easily been the proposer
> myself. If an argument has no merit, then say so based on the argument. Ad
> hominem is never right, and that's actually exactly what you've done here.
>

You are, again, jumping to conclusions unsupported by what I actually
wrote. I didn't "judge the proposal" based on his ethnicity. If you
can't be bothered to read what I've posted, then please refrain from
further replies.

---
Millosh wrote:

If White Cat has pro-Turkish bias, he wouldn't support Sorani
speakers, as they are "on PKK's side" and PKK is the archenemy of
Turkey. However, much more relevant factor in inter-Kurdish disputes
are personal and political feuds, not ethnic tension.
---

Here's a situation where there may be unknown ramifications to the
action requested. In a period of ethnic and political conflict between
two groups, even minor and seemingly apolitical maneuvers may have
larger significance not apparent to outsiders. Since we don't have all
the details, it can be helpful to understand the background of the
people involved in a dispute - in this case, virtually all of the
Kurdish editors are against the proposed rename, while White Cat (who
has an amply documented history of pro-Turkish editing which should
not be doubted) is in favor. If, as you say, it's a purely logical and
reasonable argument, then the nature of the two sides is an
interesting coincidence. Perhaps the Kurdish editors prefer having a
"Kurdish Wikipedia" as an emblem of their unified ethnic identity, or
perhaps there are other factors at play.

Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 05:04:33PM +0100, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Sanity in IT terms and practicality in regulatory terms don't always go hand
> in hand. Transporting an image dump on a hard drive might well be the most
> practical way to move that much data - though it should be encrypted at
> least whilst in transit. 

Encrypted?

> But forking doesn't sound to me a good reason to
> disclose deleted edits. Or for that matter account passwords. So that drive
> would need to be an extract of the material covered in the license.

Right, if we do this, we don't need to encrypt.

And now you know why we always kept warning people why
"delete" actually really *does* mean delete. At some point in time,
the deleted data will actually be lost.


If all is well, all data needed to replicate en.wikipedia should
be online and downloadable. It's definitely a good idea to test
that at some point!

sincerly,
Kim Bruning
-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Kim Bruning]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 04:52:46PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> 
> > My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
> > de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
> > all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
> > things will cost. You can always start a bit small and work your way
> > up.
> 
> 
> Starting small is *most definitely* the way to go. Citizendium burned
> through enough funding for *20 years* in three years by ridiculously
> overestimating their server needs.


Zigzacktly.

Rent for a decent single server these days is around Eur 100/month
(with a one-off setup fee around the same numbers)

It's probably wise to have a plan (and a little spare cash) on hand, 
should usage skyrocket, of course.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[M. Williamson]

Nathan, what about the fact that all the "Kurdish editors" are speakers of
Kurmanji? White Cat solicited opinions from the Sorani and Zazaki Wikipedias
but nobody from there has commented yet. It should be noted that ku.wp users
have a history of reacting angrily to the creation of Wikipedias for Kurdish
languages like Sorani, and languages that they believe to be Kurdish like
Zazaki. Gomada was seen around Meta complaining recently about the fact that
Zazaki has lots of new stub articles... why, if Gomada has never edited the
Zazaki Wikipedia before? Well, it's obvious: he doesn't want any "dialect"
Wikipedia to overtake the Kurmanji Wikipedia in number of articles.

If all Kurdish editors had been in favor of having a "Kurdish Wikipedia" as
an "emblem of their unified ethnic identity", as you claim, then there would
never have been a separate Sorani Wikipedia.


2011/9/17 Nathan 

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:49 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
> > And if I were to ask the community to make it? I would be perfectly
> willing
> > to do the same thing. This should not be relevant in Wikimedia. If a
> > pedophile says "We should put a picture of a naked child on every page of
> > Wikipedia!", we should refute his idea on its merits, not based on the
> fact
> > that he's a pedophile. I have been thinking for a long time now that
> ku.wp
> > should be moved to kmr.wp, I am just not a big fan of all of the
> bureaucracy
> > and so avoided doing it myself. Now someone else has done it, and I
> support
> > it.
> >
> > So it really bothers me that you're judging a proposal based on the
> > (supposed) ethnicity of the person who suggested it, especially since the
> > proposal has always had merit and I could've easily been the proposer
> > myself. If an argument has no merit, then say so based on the argument.
> Ad
> > hominem is never right, and that's actually exactly what you've done
> here.
> >
>
> You are, again, jumping to conclusions unsupported by what I actually
> wrote. I didn't "judge the proposal" based on his ethnicity. If you
> can't be bothered to read what I've posted, then please refrain from
> further replies.
>
> ---
> Millosh wrote:
>
> If White Cat has pro-Turkish bias, he wouldn't support Sorani
> speakers, as they are "on PKK's side" and PKK is the archenemy of
> Turkey. However, much more relevant factor in inter-Kurdish disputes
> are personal and political feuds, not ethnic tension.
> ---
>
> Here's a situation where there may be unknown ramifications to the
> action requested. In a period of ethnic and political conflict between
> two groups, even minor and seemingly apolitical maneuvers may have
> larger significance not apparent to outsiders. Since we don't have all
> the details, it can be helpful to understand the background of the
> people involved in a dispute - in this case, virtually all of the
> Kurdish editors are against the proposed rename, while White Cat (who
> has an amply documented history of pro-Turkish editing which should
> not be doubted) is in favor. If, as you say, it's a purely logical and
> reasonable argument, then the nature of the two sides is an
> interesting coincidence. Perhaps the Kurdish editors prefer having a
> "Kurdish Wikipedia" as an emblem of their unified ethnic identity, or
> perhaps there are other factors at play.
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> 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] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 18:35, M. Williamson  wrote:
> If all Kurdish editors had been in favor of having a "Kurdish Wikipedia" as
> an "emblem of their unified ethnic identity", as you claim, then there would
> never have been a separate Sorani Wikipedia.

That's true. For example, we have just one Azerbaijani Wikipedia with
significant admin pool from Iran and South Azerbaijani Wikipedia
proposal doesn't have any support. (South Azerbaijani, spoken in Iran,
is written in Arabic script.)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[M. Williamson]

Azeri/Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a good example of a Wikipedia that is truly
available to users in both varieties, 10% of pages on the Wiki are in a
different variety and it is also featured prominently on the main page.
ku.wp users have been trying to make the case that they are the same, but
the comparison falls flat: 99% of content on ku.wp is in Kurmanji; all
content in Sorani except for 6 pages was deleted/transwikied when Sorani
Wikipedia was created, and mainpage is only available in Kurmanji, as is the
interface itself. It is clearly not a useful site to people who do not speak
Kurmanji, so there is no reason it should be located at anywhere except the
code for Kurmanji, which is kmr.


2011/9/17 Milos Rancic 

> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 18:35, M. Williamson  wrote:
> > If all Kurdish editors had been in favor of having a "Kurdish Wikipedia"
> as
> > an "emblem of their unified ethnic identity", as you claim, then there
> would
> > never have been a separate Sorani Wikipedia.
>
> That's true. For example, we have just one Azerbaijani Wikipedia with
> significant admin pool from Iran and South Azerbaijani Wikipedia
> proposal doesn't have any support. (South Azerbaijani, spoken in Iran,
> is written in Arabic script.)
>
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcome to Wikimedia D.C.

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:01:23AM -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Congratulations and welcome to Wikimedia District of Columbia, the
> 36th Wikimedia chapter and 2nd chapter to be formed in the U.S.:
> 
> Board resolution approving the chapter:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognition_of_Wikimedia_District_of_Columbia
> For more information about the chapter:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_District_of_Columbia


\o/,  o/


sincerely,
Kim Bruning



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rename proposal of Kurdish wikipedia

[とある白い猫]

az.wikipedia hosts content for both dialects of Azerbaijani language. As
long as a wiki is willing to host multiple dialects under a macro-language
banner and said dialects are willing to be hosted under that banner there is
no problem for us to fix. However, if one of the two az.wiki dialects
decided to form a separate wiki, I would request the remaining wiki to be
renamed as well. Azerbaijani dialects:

   - az – Macrolanguage
   - azj – North Azerbaijani
   - azb – South Azerbaijani

This is not the same situation with Kurdish as we only have one dialect left
at ku.wiki and other already separated with the support of the relevant
communities. The only remaining dialect is Kurmanji.

Nathan, I am sorry but it is neither the purpose nor business of LangCom,
Wikipedia projects or even the Foundation to take political sides. This is
even present at the language proposal policy:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy Requisites
#3. LangCom (or Foundation-l) is *NOT* the place to address complex ethnic
issues. I do not know what Nathan hopes to achieve but he seems to have a
one sided personal feud with me rather than actual objections in a
linguistic or technical manner and seems to be more politically motivated.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 18:39, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 18:35, M. Williamson  wrote:
> > If all Kurdish editors had been in favor of having a "Kurdish Wikipedia"
> as
> > an "emblem of their unified ethnic identity", as you claim, then there
> would
> > never have been a separate Sorani Wikipedia.
>
> That's true. For example, we have just one Azerbaijani Wikipedia with
> significant admin pool from Iran and South Azerbaijani Wikipedia
> proposal doesn't have any support. (South Azerbaijani, spoken in Iran,
> is written in Arabic script.)
>
> ___
> 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] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[rupert THURNER]

do you propose questions like the following?

knowledge level  o a-level o university   o...
race                    o african     o cacausian  o...
gender                o female     o male   o...
main wikipedia    o de  o en o fr
...

to see if there are other gaps as well than gender?

rupert

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 14:48, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
>
> Thanks Beria! :)  A shame, it would have been really fascinating to see if
> there was a gender gap in this matter.
>
> -Sarah
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:
>
> > No.
> >
> > You can see all the questions here:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Vote_interface/en
> > _
> > *Béria Lima*
> > (351) 925 171 484
> >
> > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > livre
> > acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
> > fazer .*
> >
> >
> > On 17 September 2011 13:08, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?
> > >
> > > I don't remember...
> > >
> > > Thanks :)
> > >
> > > -Sarah
> > >
> > > --
> > > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> > > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> > > Art
> > > and
> > > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > > --
> > > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> ___
> 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] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Sarah Stierch]

I'm always interested in demographics and culture specifics when it comes to
surveys, etc. Just part of the researcher in me I suppose (and four years of
studying under an anthropologist mentor). :) Especially surveys that are
inciting heavily heated discussions that reflect cultural difference and
belief systems around the world and within small communities.

-Sarah (Stierch)





On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:32 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:

> do you propose questions like the following?
>
> knowledge level  o a-level o university   o...
> raceo african o cacausian  o...
> gendero female o male   o...
> main wikipediao de  o en o fr
> ...
>
> to see if there are other gaps as well than gender?
>
> rupert
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 14:48, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Beria! :)  A shame, it would have been really fascinating to see
> if
> > there was a gender gap in this matter.
> >
> > -Sarah
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:
> >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > You can see all the questions here:
> > >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Vote_interface/en
> > > _
> > > *Béria Lima*
> > > (351) 925 171 484
> > >
> > > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > > livre
> > > acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos
> a
> > > fazer .*
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17 September 2011 13:08, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I can't remember - was user gender a "question" in the survey?
> > > >
> > > > I don't remember...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks :)
> > > >
> > > > -Sarah
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <
> http://www.glamwiki.org>
> > > > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> > > > Art
> > > > and
> > > > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > > > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> > Art
> > and
> > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > --
> > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Fajro]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> I'm always interested in demographics and culture specifics when it comes to
> surveys, etc.

We should have a WikiSurveys project.

-- 
Fajro

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Levy]

Peter Gervai wrote:

> But then you state that WMF will make it compulsory for all projects
> to activate the feature? (Citation is welcome, sure, but not
> required.)

"The feature will be developed for, and implemented on, all projects."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/en

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Levy]

André Engels wrote:

> As said before, just get different categories, and let people choose among
> them. The priest could then choose to block "full nudity", "female
> toplessness", "people in underwear" and "people in swimwear", but not
> "images containing naked bellies" or "unveiled women", whereas the atheist
> could for example choose to only block "photographs of sexual organs" and
> watch the rest.

As Tobias Oelgarte noted, it simply isn't feasible to categorize
images in this manner (keeping in mind that those are merely examples
of the countless categories that we would need to apply to millions of
images, with thousands more uploaded every day), let alone to present
such a large quantity of filter options to readers.

> I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter. Surely,
> giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is
> _less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is
> objectionable?

You're mischaracterizing the status quo.  We haven't determined that
"nothing is objectionable" to anyone;  we rightly assume that
_everything_ is potentially objectionable to someone (and refrain from
favoring certain objections over others).

> What is POV about labelling something as being an image containing a nude
> human or an illustration supposed to represent a religious figure?

Tobias Oelgarte described one key problem.  Another lies in the
labeling of some things and not others.  Unless we were to create and
apply a label for literally everything that someone finds
objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that only
certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) are reasonable.

You mentioned a hypothetical "unveiled women" category.  Do you
honestly believe that the idea of tagging images in this manner is
remotely realistic?

What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
many people strongly object)?  Are we to have such a category?

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Andre Engels]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:16 PM, David Levy  wrote:

>  > I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter.
> Surely,
> > giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is
> > _less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is
> > objectionable?
>
> You're mischaracterizing the status quo.  We haven't determined that
> "nothing is objectionable" to anyone;  we rightly assume that
> _everything_ is potentially objectionable to someone (and refrain from
> favoring certain objections over others).
>

Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are
others who we can't give what they want. If we had the same attitude towards
article creation, we would not have published Wikipedia until we had
articles on all subjects we could think of.


> > What is POV about labelling something as being an image containing a nude
> > human or an illustration supposed to represent a religious figure?
>
> Tobias Oelgarte described one key problem.  Another lies in the
> labeling of some things and not others.  Unless we were to create and
> apply a label for literally everything that someone finds
> objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that only
> certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) are reasonable.
>

We don't say they're unreasonable, we say that we don't cater to it, or at
least not yet. That may be non-neutral, but no more non-neutral than that
one subject has an article and the other not, or one picture is used to
describe an article and the other not, or one category is deemed important
enough to be used to categorize our articles, books, words and images and
another not.

Or even clearer: that one language has a Wikipedia and another not. Wid we
make a non-neutral choice that only certain languages (the ones for which
Wikipedias exist) are valid languages to use for spreading knowledge?


> You mentioned a hypothetical "unveiled women" category.  Do you
> honestly believe that the idea of tagging images in this manner is
> remotely realistic?
>

I'd say it is, provided there are people wanting to use the filter, and not
minding the fact that in the beginning it will be far from perfect.


> What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
> many people strongly object)?  Are we to have such a category?
>

I'd say if there are people actually wanting to use such a filter, then yes,
I would think we might well get one.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter - Gender?

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/17/11 11:08 AM, Fajro wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Sarah Stierch  
> wrote:
>> I'm always interested in demographics and culture specifics when it comes to
>> surveys, etc.
> We should have a WikiSurveys project.
>
WikiMonkey???

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

[Ray Saintonge]

On 09/17/11 8:52 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
>> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
>> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
>> things will cost. You can always start a bit small and work your way
>> up.
> Starting small is *most definitely* the way to go. Citizendium burned
> through enough funding for *20 years* in three years by ridiculously
> overestimating their server needs.
>
>
Optimism is a key characteristic of those who believe they have a killer 
site.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Levy]

I wrote:

> > You're mischaracterizing the status quo.  We haven't determined that
> > "nothing is objectionable" to anyone;  we rightly assume that
> > _everything_ is potentially objectionable to someone (and refrain from
> > favoring certain objections over others).

André Engels replied:

> Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are
> others who we can't give what they want.

I don't advocate maintaining the status quo.  I support an alternative
image filter implementation (endorsed by WMF trustee Samuel Klein),
which would accommodate _everyone_ and require no determinations on
the part of the community (let alone analysis/tagging of millions of
files, with thousands more uploaded every day).

Please see the relevant discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5

> > Unless we were to create and apply a label for literally everything that
> > someone finds objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that
> > only certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) exist) are
> > reasonable.

> We don't say they're unreasonable, we say that we don't cater to it, or at
> least not yet.

On what basis shall we determine the objections to which we cater?

Presumably, we would start by weeding out objections held by
relatively small numbers of people.  (This is problematic, but let's
set aside that issue.)

Then what?  To select only certain objections from the resultant pool,
what criterion other than reasonableness (a completely subjective
judgement) remains?

You might argue that we needn't narrow the aforementioned pool, but a
large number of filter categories is unsustainable (both in its
creation/maintenance and in its presentation to readers).

> That may be non-neutral, but no more non-neutral than that one subject has
> an article and the other not, or one picture is used to describe an article
> and the other not, or one category is deemed important enough to be used to
> categorize our articles, books, words and images and another not.

All of those decisions are based — at least in part — on objective
criteria.  More importantly, all of those decisions are intrinsic to
the WMF projects' operation.

Conversely, the image filter implementation that you advocate is
neither essential nor technically feasible.

> Or even clearer: that one language has a Wikipedia and another not. Wid we
> make a non-neutral choice that only certain languages (the ones for which
> Wikipedias exist) are valid languages to use for spreading knowledge?

You're describing an imbalance that exists through misfortune, *not*
by design.  Ideally, we would include every written language utilized
as a primary means of communication.  Sadly, some projects simply
aren't viable (because they lack sufficient user bases).

No analogous situation forces us to treat readers differently based on
their personal beliefs regarding what images are/aren't objectionable.

> > You mentioned a hypothetical "unveiled women" category.  Do you
> > honestly believe that the idea of tagging images in this manner is
> > remotely realistic?

> I'd say it is, provided there are people wanting to use the filter, and not
> minding the fact that in the beginning it will be far from perfect.

So we eventually will analyze millions of images (and monitor the
thousands uploaded on a daily basis) to tag each and every one
containing an unveiled woman?

> > What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
> > many people strongly object)?  Are we to have such a category?

> I'd say if there are people actually wanting to use such a filter, then yes,
> I would think we might well get one.

I admire your consistency, but I regard this approach as stupendously
infeasible.

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Andre Engels wrote:
>Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are
>others who we can't give what they want. If we had the same attitude towards
>article creation, we would not have published Wikipedia until we had
>articles on all subjects we could think of.

They are given plenty, in fact there are all sorts of filters already in
place that lead to people not being exposed to media they do not wish to
be exposed to, starting with laws, what people regard as appropriate for
encyclopedic content, and local cultural norms affecting the latter, to
name just a few examples. They also get to see images they do not object
to without additional effort, and they have the option to hide them all,
and they can be careful which articles they load, avoiding those likely
to feature media they do not want. Exposure to things you are uncomfort-
able with, where the feeling is not overwhelmingly shared, like when you
click a link to a foreign Wikipedia, is also giving them something, most
likely something good (consider images that cannot legally be displayed
publically in some jurisdiction; they will be so displayed in others in-
cluding on Wikipedias where they are relevant, with no filtering for the
users from the jurisdiction that banned it, up to where it's likely that
a court that Wikimedia cares about orders the image to be taken down).

You can consider the last point from the other direction: if you don't
like to see media with human suffering, horror, graphic violence, so you
filter them, what should you see when reading about Nazi concentration
camps? Profile pictures of Nazi leaders, architecture, maps maybe, but
please, not the prisoners? What about people who find it wrong to make
it easy for others to scroll down a Wikipedia article without the reader
being visually confronted with human suffering if there is a consensus
to display it at all in the article in this manner? Or, for that matter,
that in this context it is wrong to require the reader to tell the com-
puter "Yes, please show me piles or rotting corpses of starved people!"?
Note that it may be the user of the filter who thinks this, in which
case not giving them a filter that would do this is addressing one of
their needs aswell (while failing to address another need; giving them a
context-aware filter that avoids this problem would work of course, but
then the system would be harder to use making it worse, and so on).

So we already do plenty so people are not overexposed to media that they
reasonably do not wish to be exposed to (note that I use "wish" broadly,
someone suffering phobiae for instance has more of a need than a wish to
avoid certain kinds of media). To a point really where I am unsure what
is left that can realistically be optimized even further, and I am some-
what surprised the "referendum" had so many people voting that this is
of the highest priority (whatever that means given that this wasn't com-
pared to other things that should be of high priority), though since it
was already decided to introduce a filter because there is a problem, it
can be assumed that some of the votes are subject to confirmation bias.

(I do not know people who would say they frequently encounter articles
on Wikipedia featuring images that would disturb them no matter where
they appear and would thus prefer to have those pictures hidden for
them, though I do know people who would prefer that medical articles
concerning humans feature images that go beyond nudity, like showing the
symptoms of a disease, or a corpse that has been cut open, towards the
end in a specially labeled section, and people who do not like insects
much, and thus do not browse around articles on insects. Neither of the
two examples leads to me thinking a filter as proposed is the solution.)

>We don't say they're unreasonable, we say that we don't cater to it, or at
>least not yet. That may be non-neutral, but no more non-neutral than that
>one subject has an article and the other not, or one picture is used to
>describe an article and the other not, or one category is deemed important
>enough to be used to categorize our articles, books, words and images and
>another not.
>
>Or even clearer: that one language has a Wikipedia and another not. Wid we
>make a non-neutral choice that only certain languages (the ones for which
>Wikipedias exist) are valid languages to use for spreading knowledge?

These analogies are all invalid as individual preference is rejected as
argument in all of these cases, while the filter is solely concerned
with individual preference (rather: aggregated individual preferences).
Tagging an image with tag X, knowing that this will lead to the image
being hidden to users who chose to hide all X images, is a matter of
whether these users want the image to be hidden, who are in a minority,
because if the majority agrees an image should be hidden, it would not
be shown at all, no need for a personal filter; with the added problem
th

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Stephen Bain]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 4:16 AM, David Levy  wrote:
>
> Tobias Oelgarte described one key problem.  Another lies in the
> labeling of some things and not others.  Unless we were to create and
> apply a label for literally everything that someone finds
> objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that only
> certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) are reasonable.

NPOV involves determining whether viewpoints are widely held, are held
by substantial or significant minorities, or are held by an extremely
small or vastly limited minority and therefore not suitable to be
covered in articles. This is an editorial decision-making process that
all editors perform all the time. Determining which filters to work on
is entirely analogous to this process, which is inherently neutral.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 18.09.2011 02:45, schrieb Stephen Bain:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 4:16 AM, David Levy  wrote:
>> Tobias Oelgarte described one key problem.  Another lies in the
>> labeling of some things and not others.  Unless we were to create and
>> apply a label for literally everything that someone finds
>> objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that only
>> certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) are reasonable.
> NPOV involves determining whether viewpoints are widely held, are held
> by substantial or significant minorities, or are held by an extremely
> small or vastly limited minority and therefore not suitable to be
> covered in articles. This is an editorial decision-making process that
> all editors perform all the time. Determining which filters to work on
> is entirely analogous to this process, which is inherently neutral.
>
You must be kidding me to describe that as "inherently neutral". You 
miss the point that articles are build upon reputable sources. Therefore 
the sources are the ones that state the different point of views. We 
quote that points and gather them. We only exclude viewpoints which did 
not pass an editorial process already.

Categorizing the images is not the same as gathering viewpoints from 
sources. It is the viewpoint of the contributer.

Given your argumentation we would only need to write about one opinion. 
Our opinion.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:20 AM, David Levy  wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> > You're mischaracterizing the status quo.  We haven't determined that
>> > "nothing is objectionable" to anyone;  we rightly assume that
>> > _everything_ is potentially objectionable to someone (and refrain from
>> > favoring certain objections over others).
>
> André Engels replied:
>
> No analogous situation forces us to treat readers differently based on
> their personal beliefs regarding what images are/aren't objectionable.
>
>> > You mentioned a hypothetical "unveiled women" category.  Do you
>> > honestly believe that the idea of tagging images in this manner is
>> > remotely realistic?
>
>> I'd say it is, provided there are people wanting to use the filter, and not
>> minding the fact that in the beginning it will be far from perfect.
>
> So we eventually will analyze millions of images (and monitor the
> thousands uploaded on a daily basis) to tag each and every one
> containing an unveiled woman?
>
>> > What about images depicting miscegenation (another concept to which
>> > many people strongly object)?  Are we to have such a category?
>
>> I'd say if there are people actually wanting to use such a filter, then yes,
>> I would think we might well get one.
>

Wikimedia *used* to hold the position that we wouldn't aid China to block
images of the Tianamen Massacre, and went to great lengths to assure
that chinese users of Wikipedia could evade blocks to viewing. I am not
sure you are on a right track with regards to our traditions and values here.




-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

[Foundation-l] Do I miss my bet?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Without seeing the responses to the "referendum", I am betting you
have in the comments a huge amount of _committed_ "You are on crack; I
will never stand for this." comments, a wide field of wishy washies
giving conditionals, and an almost as wide field of supports on the
lines of "I wouldn't use it, nor make my children use it, but meh, if
somebody want's it..." and last and definitely least, a tiny hardcore
segment of "Won't anyone think of the children!"  -- Do I lose my bet?

-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[David Levy]

Stephen Bain wrote:

> NPOV involves determining whether viewpoints are widely held, are held
> by substantial or significant minorities, or are held by an extremely
> small or vastly limited minority and therefore not suitable to be
> covered in articles. This is an editorial decision-making process that
> all editors perform all the time. Determining which filters to work on
> is entirely analogous to this process, which is inherently neutral.

Gauging a viewpoint's level of coverage by reliable sources is
achievable via objective criteria.  We don't take anyone's side and
aren't bound by practical limitations on the number of widely covered
views we can document (irrespective of the quantity of articles
required).

Conversely, category-based filtering would require us to accept/reject
our readers' views in a binary fashion.  (A type of "objectionable"
image would either receive a filter or not.)  This would convey a
formal determination that x beliefs warrant accommodation and y
beliefs don't, which isn't remotely the same as documenting these
views in a neutral manner.

Perhaps you have in mind that we could accommodate objections that are
"widely held" or "held by substantial or significant minorities,"
thereby excluding only the ones "held by an extremely small or vastly
limited minority."  As I noted in another reply, setting aside any
philosophical issues, this isn't technically feasible.  For logistical
reasons, the numerical limit would be far lower (with an example of
"5–10 categories" cited by the WMF).

The above doesn't even touch on the categories' population, which
would entail non-stop argumentation over whether particular images
belong in particular categories.  Once again, contrary to the creation
of articles documenting a wide range of views, the decision would be
binary: filter or don't filter.  Unlike our normal categorization
scheme's large number of objective classifications, this would rely on
a small number of subjective ones (created not to provide neutral
descriptions, but to label the images' subjects "potentially
objectionable").

There's no need for any of this.  We can accommodate _everyone_ via a
vastly simpler, fully neutral setup.  If you haven't already, please
see the relevant discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do I miss my bet?

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen  wrote:

> Without seeing the responses to the "referendum", I am betting you
> have in the comments a huge amount of _committed_ "You are on crack; I
> will never stand for this." comments, a wide field of wishy washies
> giving conditionals, and an almost as wide field of supports on the
> lines of "I wouldn't use it, nor make my children use it, but meh, if
> somebody want's it..." and last and definitely least, a tiny hardcore
> segment of "Won't anyone think of the children!"  -- Do I lose my bet?
>
> --
> --


Am I reading that correctly to be a standard bell curve, slight shifted
towards the left (i.e. more extreme no responses than extreme yes
responses?)

Because that doesn't match the bimodal nature of the answers to the scored
questions, which implies to me that they were not well written, as others
have suggested. Or are we just speculating on the comments -- I didn't know
they were released yet.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l