[WikiEN-l] Flagged revisions in The Sunday Times

[stevertigo]

Sam Blacketer wrote:

"[The article] Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'." 

Actually, it says "hot topics [..] will have to be scrutinised by arbitrators 
chosen from Wikipedia’s most active volunteer contributors."

"Administrators" don't make content decisions. And an administrator who makes 
decisions about content is no longer acting as an administrator, they are 
acting as an editor. "Arbitrator" suffices, and gives appropriate connotations.

What was interesting about it was the fatalism and give-up-ness, as if somehow 
people didn't make these criticisms before, and as if those criticisms' 
dismissal with extreme prejudice never happened.
 
-s

Original message:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece

Slightly confused article headed "The wiki-snobs are taking over" by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author claims "My entry features at least two errors, one libellous (unless
my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley's son)"
which has me befuddled since there is no entry on Giles Hattersley nor was
there ever one (unless it's been oversighted).

-- 
Sam Blacketer



  


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] So much for the Obama scandal

[stevertigo]

There is probably some truth in that. Most people who deal with online
identity have to deal with the online disinhibition effect (ODE), and
many of us have certain experience of expressing ourselves using
less-than-ideal concepts.

But that's no less true for the few partisans trying to turn the Obama
Wikipedia article into the Obama Conservapedia article. Learning to
compose one's concepts better is one thing. Learning or not learning
the value of NPOV is another, and arguably just as important.

-SV

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Bill Carter  wrote:
> What's amusing is how self-righteous you are all acting. I guess given your 
> own firsthand experiences making such gaffes you all have great insight into 
> Mr. Klein's stupidities.
>
> Bill

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Sourcemonkeys

[stevertigo]

There was some discussion recently about WikiMedia paying for user
accounts on proprietary source engines, to aid in providing sources to
Wikipedia articles. I'm curious as to how that inquiry was dealt with,
and how it was resolved.

Seems like a good idea. If feasible, there would presumably be a
limited number of assigned accounts given to specific interested
users, who would have to commit themselves to assisting others in
sourcing particular concepts, statements, and phrases. A common case
may be where the Wikipedia author may be writing from knowledge, or
may be referencing an inferior source, and can't directly quote from a
superior or particular text because it is not readily available to
them.

-SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Sourcemonkeys

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> I could probably negotiate a license with any publisher that would let
> a medium or large defined number of users to use the material to source 
> articles;

Ideas? Which publishers?

> I do not think I could obtain a license which would permit a small group to 
> regularly download
> articles and send them to other people for their use in sourcing articles.

That's not the idea: the idea is that people try to write about a
subject as best they can, and see if that expression is in accord with
published concepts. We do this anyway; instead of quoting things
wholesale we reformulate the concepts expressed in the source into
free expressions.

The sourcemonkey only needs to do three things: take requests for
sourcing particular statements, find and offer a selection of excised
relevant quotations (small), and aid in determining which sources are
superior to others (reliability, authorship, date of publication,
citations of, etc.)

> Occasional and sporadic, yes; regular & organized, no.  If regular and 
> organized is
> what you have in mind, i doubt I could find a publisher who would
> agree, nor would I agree if i were a publisher. I would expect payment
> based upon the actual number of potential end-users.

I don't think they would do that, and if they did, we could deal just
with the ones that have a better concept. The idea is that the
sourcemonkeys would be trusted with 1) complying with publisher's
proprietary policies, and 2) aiding Wikipedians in improving public
articles. Particular sourcemonkeys may run afoul of either, and be
suspended from either, but that should not effect a relationship
between publisher and Wikipedia/WikiMedia.

> The question is that if I asked for a license for, say 2,000 or 20,000
> users, whether the cost would be affordable. I am not aware of any
> pricing precedent for ad hoc groups like ours.

Ostensibly (just looking at Lexis), we could qualify for either
corporate, academic, or (perhaps) legal accounts, or more than one.
There are lots of sub-genre account types, though, and the selection
of which seems to be more of an issue than affordability. Ideally they
would offer a grab-bag for a modest number of accounts. We are not an
"ad-hoc group" by the way - we are the most powerful and universal
learning and publication institution on the planet. :-)

> The general price range
> price per publisher for packages is on the order of a few dollars per
> user per year. If anyone at the foundation would like me to ask, I
> know whom to ask.

That would be great if some foundational someone seconded this.

> But most people at Wikipedia have not even bothered to find out what
> their public or school library may already be paying for. Almost all
> of them buy at least some packages.

Excellent point. We already have people with access - they just don't
know that they can be wikipedia:sourcemonkeys yet; neutrally assisting
average Wikipedians in the course of normal everyday article
development.

SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Poetry thread

[stevertigo]

I'll start her off:

 If you come to rule them all,
 And people look like ants,
 Remember being one foot tall,
 and crapping in your pants.

SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Sourcemonkeys

[stevertigo]

Sometimes its good to create a policy/proposal/essay/jokes page on the
Wikipedia itself, rather than just here. Just because. I have thus
accomplished it in perfection:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sourcemonkeys

Revert ninjas (silent but deadly) please speedily undo any so-called
"changes" to it.

-SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] OBT

[stevertigo]

Certain thready discussions on certain contentious talk pages would
benefit from less disorganized (ie. standard format) talk pages, and
more topical-based ones. I wrote up a basic concept at WP:TP (direct
shortcut WP:OBT ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page#Organization_by_topic

仇恨郵件
最值得歡迎的

-SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Poetry thread

[stevertigo]

Durova, perhaps taking some cue from Gwern, wrote some poetically
critical and even ugly things above. But while Gwern mostly attacked
the concept of poetry on wikien-l (oh-so-cleverly I might add), Durova
appeared to have made it personal, and, for lack of a better word,
ugly. I don't quite understand how a silly or even stupid poem like
the one I posted might deserve such a response, but I have given it
some thought and broken it down a little.

I was motivated to write this by three things 1) personal hate attacks
and the concepts behind them need to be destroyed, 2) I needed to
address it in order to move on to other list contributions (I've been
away so long; I had forgotten we had jerks on this list) and 3)
correcting Durova's own personal misconceptions, which firstly appears
to be that she can personally attack someone, without real cause even,
and she would receive respect, love, and even grace for it. And
secondly, that she can attempt to destroy someone personally and not
meet certain undeniable correction.

The dominant theories are:
1) Durova and Gwern were motivated to make the point that poetry (even
bad poetry like mine) is altogether unwelcome on wikien. Attempting to
sound ironic, but sounding rather more unpleasant, they used poetry
itself to make their point. An insipid point, to be sure; even moreso
than my pointless, harmless, poem and the posting thereof. 2) Durova
(less so Gwern) appeared to have and express some animosity toward me
personally. I don't know quite why; I can't remember even having said
a word to her personally, on any matter at all.

3) It also occurs to me that certain people might mismanage certain
concepts: Someone without sufficient self-conceptual distance between
their head and their glutes might so misinterpret a harmless everyday
concept like "poo" and feel entirely soiled by it. The solution is not
to get personally uglier and uglier; lashing out at the very concept
as it were; but to simply use personal force of mind to create some
distance between the two bodily concepts in question.

All is now forgiven. We disembodied online beings can now go and do
other and maybe better things. With all apologies.. for the poetry.

-SV

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] OBT

[stevertigo]

Interesting. Just to be disruptive, I proposed OBT for Talk:Obama: People
WP:DONTLIKEIT was the only concept I got from scanning the responses. The
only point I remember; one user mentioned his watchlist; missing the point
that he could just simply add particular topic talk subpages to his
watchlist. I didn't mention there for various reasons.

-Sv

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Jay Litwyn  wrote:

> Organizing [[talk_prion]]  was the first thing I did where no rules apply.
> All I did was entitle threads and answer what I could. When you are
> scanning
> for changes, headings help you identify the end of a thread. Once you hav
> entitled the threads, you can see which threads are actually members of the
> same thread. I did not get to that.
> ___
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:brewh...@edmc.net
>
> "stevertigo"  wrote in message
> news:7c402e010903121840o2a719b7cua27e899aacddf...@mail.gmail.com...
> > Certain thready discussions on certain contentious talk pages would
> > benefit from less disorganized (ie. standard format) talk pages, and
> > more topical-based ones. I wrote up a basic concept at WP:TP (direct
> > shortcut WP:OBT ):
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page#Organization_by_topic
> >
> > 仇恨郵件
> > 最值得歡迎的
> >
> > -SV
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Toolspam: Insert references from viewing mode

[stevertigo]

You forgot to mention people need to put this:

importScript('User:Magnus_Manske/insertref.js');

into their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/monobook.css

Checking it out now. :)

-SV



On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Magnus Manske  wrote:

> I found it annoying that, to enter a new reference, you'd have to go
> to edit mode, find the position again, and then put in the reference.
>
> So I wrote a little javascript...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/insertref.js
>
> Works like this:
> 1. In /view/ mode, select some text (has to be unique, no fotmatting)
> 2. Click on the "Insert reference" link in the toolbox
> 3. The script internally loads the raw wikitext, looks if it can find
> the selected text uniquely in the wikitext (stops with error
> otherwise)
> 4. The script asks for the reference text and "insert right or left of
> selection"
> 5. The script adds  section if necessary, then opens edit
> mode with the changes made, ready to save
>
> Some issues:
> * If you select a (unique) link, it will try to "break out" of the
> link before inserting the reference, but success is not guaranteed
> * I couldn't make it open diff mode by default - yet...
> * Some fancier reference entry mechanism would be nice. Ideas?
> * It might be possible to make the selection mechanism more
> "formatting-tolerant"
> * This mechanism could be used to enter other things (turn text into a
> link, add images, templates, etc.) - might be worth investigating
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Toolspam: Insert references from viewing mode

[stevertigo]

No, you're right.

SV

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM, ABCD  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> stevertigo wrote:
> > You forgot to mention people need to put this:
> >
> > importScript('User:Magnus_Manske/insertref.js');
> >
> > into their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/monobook.css
> >
> > Checking it out now. :)
> >
> > -SV
>
> That should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/monobook.js,
> I would think.
>
> - --
> ABCD
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknIdhkACgkQOypDUo0oQOo0qgCcDeWzNqXUSxquplRH19qALHI8
> j38AoJ1ZhimaJCX3vWz41kEBl0csel5z
> =DsmL
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Sourcemonkeys

[stevertigo]

Yeah, that's true. And TPB works pretty well too.
BTW, a t-stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Digital_library

and a related t-stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Online_database

SV

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Jay Litwyn <
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:

> Libraries already do this for us. At least mine does. There is a health
> database, for example. It was not what I was looking for. I was looking for
> a book summarizing the role of elements and vitamins, their greatest
> natural
> sources, manufacturing, their purpose in animals --had it in 1996-- quite a
> bit more interesting than Earl Mindell. Stuff like that is probably in the
> database, and it is nothing I can sit down and try to remember and then
> find
> support for. I probably could not read the whole database now at the
> library
> in my lifetime.
> ___
> You can find about 135 hits in pubmed from a search on [[white cabbage
> ulcer]]. Red cabbage lends a more appealing colour to pineapple smoothies,
> and the pineapple's flavour completely overpowers the cabbage. Research on
> cabbage juice obscures the benefit of fibre in a recipe for morning
> sickness.
>
> "stevertigo"  wrote in message
> news:7c402e010903121355h52b76b4ev72bf200b9a0b...@mail.gmail.com...
> > There was some discussion recently about WikiMedia paying for user
> > accounts on proprietary source engines, to aid in providing sources to
> > Wikipedia articles. I'm curious as to how that inquiry was dealt with,
> > and how it was resolved.
> >
> > Seems like a good idea. If feasible, there would presumably be a
> > limited number of assigned accounts given to specific interested
> > users, who would have to commit themselves to assisting others in
> > sourcing particular concepts, statements, and phrases. A common case
> > may be where the Wikipedia author may be writing from knowledge, or
> > may be referencing an inferior source, and can't directly quote from a
> > superior or particular text because it is not readily available to
> > them.
> >
> > -SV
> >
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] a language issue

[stevertigo]

Listers,

I've submitted a suggestion at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burials
with regard to how burials can be referenced in more encyclopedic language
than currently used.
Comments and criticism welcome.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Slog rate

[stevertigo]

I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified value based on both.

The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to
go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has
been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such
we need to figure out ways to lower that number.

Regards,
SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] a language issue

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

>
> The distinction that you make is unlikely to be appreciated by many
> people.[citation needed] Burying the person rather than the body may indeed
> be
> colloquial though I'm unaware of evidence in support of either
> position. Is there an English style manual that says anything about this?
>
> While you are certainly free to change articles in the manner that you
> seek, any campaign to impose this will inevitably be seen by many as a
> slide into pedantry.
>

There is no "English style manual" on the matter, AFAIK. And if there was,
would it make a difference to us, if they dealt with the matter
inaccurately? "Campaign?" Suggestion. "Pedantry?" I understand "pedantry"
very well. The issue does go beyond Wikipedia though. Colloquialisms, while
not belonging in an authoritative encyclopedia, nevertheless appear in
journalism pieces, as well as colloquially-written encyclopedias.

The concept came to mind recently after a spree killing not long ago in the
American South. The husband of a woman and infant child who "were killed"
(ie. who's "bodies were destroyed") made a statement to the press
(paraphrasing) expressing "I know they are in Heaven now." Ie. "in Heaven"
means something like "not dead, just relocated."  Some TV reporter however
went on to say that (paraphrasing) 'people were highly emotional, knowing
that they would never see their loved ones again' (directly contradicting
the ("former") husband/father just seconds before).

Now, in a certain respect, its true that "dead" people will never be "seen"
again with the eyes that people typically use to see things around these
parts: Their former bodies (not theirs anymore are they?) are destroyed and
therefore their abilities to interface with the material realm are gone. But
to say that they "are dead" and that their family "will never see them
again" is at best tacky insensitive OR; based simply on a misconception that
arises from an attempted extraction of meaning from the colloquial
expressions.

Of course the distinctions deal directly with the concept that "death"
itself is simply a misnomer, and I understand nobody wants to go there. Not
yet, anyway. But, why are the colloquialisms innacurate at all? Chomsky (a
linguist of some sort) put it this way: "*Death and genitals* are things
that frighten people, and when people are frightened, they develop means of
concealment and aggression." The "aggression" part is a bit aggravated when
used out of context, but the concepts are straightforward: The
colloquialisms follow concepts of concealment. I am under the principled
delusion that The Encyclopedia follow principles such as revelation (compare
concealment) and explanation (compare non-explanation).

Granted, the spiritualistic/religious view that people live on "after death"
in some sort of "after life" is a fringe theory; one that only ~95.2%
percent of the world give any credence to. And because microscopes can only
show cells, bacteria, prions, etc. the sciencey minority tends to regard
such (~92.5%) theories as based in "not fact," (where, by sciencey
circumlocution, what constitutes "fact" is itself determined by science
philosophy). With all that said, that's not to say that I am promoting a
view that "after life" (haw!) concepts be supported; simply that we not use
inaccurate (and unimportant) colloquial language which by coincidence can be
ambiguous, and use instead language for which even secular and religious
concepts are in agreement.

Regards,
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Slog rate

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

>
> Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
>
> Ec


Oh sorry. I forgot to define the term. "Slog" simply refers to the
degeneration of a higher quality article into a lower quality article.

Regards,
SV


Stevertigo wrote:
> I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
> My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
> the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
> make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
> as unified value based on both.
>
> The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to
> go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has
> been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such
> we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
>
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Oh look, it's another "Wikipedia killer"

[stevertigo]

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> http://www.businesspundit.com/wolfram-alpha-may-beat-wikipedia-not-google/
>
> This time it's Wolfram Alpha.


Wikipedia kills itself just fine thanks.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Slog rate

[stevertigo]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog
> rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog
> rank?
>

I'm using "rank" here to refer to a level of deterioration within an
article, derived from a rating of particular diffs. What the scale is, what
the terms are, and what the method for combining diff rankings is, is
entirely fluid. I'm using "rate" here to refer to the degree to which
deterioration overtakes improvement within a particular timeframe. Its not
quite as useful, and probably can't be combined into some general sitewide
evaluation.

Certain articles get hit worse than others, because nobody notices them. So
article/concept importance factors into it, make slog on pokemon articles
less important than slog on science articles for example. Still, each of us
has seen slog in science articles, and can come up with several articles,
sections, statements which wev'e noted to ourselves to get around to doing
something about. And that too is also "slog;" cause I just don't have any
new terminology for it; the degree to which editors notice problems that
need fixing, but don't fix them or even mention them, for one reason or
another; lack of time, energy, out of scope of interest, or difficulty.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Perfection

[stevertigo]

Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:

Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is
meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and
within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A
paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and
in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Durova  wrote:

> Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration
> does any more damage.
>
> -Durova
>

And the thought that "NPOV enforcers" would be doing this "enforcing," is..
it.. it just does not generate the warm and fuzzy feeling we look for in
good ideas.

It's bad enough we have an Arbcom that likes to think it should'nt have to
explain itself to anybody, let alone discuss things openly. Your vision of
enforcement only conjures up a vision of Sean Connery in red daipers and on
horseback, shooting at people indiscriminately with a revolver.

SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious.
Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in
that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad.

SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it
works.."  Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of
[abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like
Zardoz to me.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Sam Korn  wrote:


> The other problem is that the system pretends that "it should be clear
> to any reasonable ... onlooker" how the editor is trying to act.
> Often, this will be the case.  Just as often, however, it will not be
> so very absolutely clear and will rely greatly on the perception of
> the onlooker.  This, I think, is the fatal flaw, because it is the
> assumption that the whole proposal rests on, that it is always so
> obvious who is trying to edit in a neutral and helpful fashion and who
> is being biased.
>
> (One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy --
> Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a
> rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom.  I don't think that that would be a
> positive change.)
>

SV might have a point, with regard to focused "committees," however, (Yes, I
did just annihilate her concept two posts above), in spite the fears that it
might "create bureaucracy" - We already have "bureaucracy" of Arbcom and
admins and "policy" and such. We just don't quite understand how awful it
is, because we think it works.
The idea that the Arbcom can deal with issues at all is a useless one, if
anyone has ever jumped into the workings of the Arbcom. And the current
"enforcers;" an army of geeky overgrown teenagers full of concept and little
being, likewise can be problematic.

So, SV has an idea with regard to some kind of oversight council which deals
with one particular area. Why not have a council that deals with these
things on a regular basis. The Arbcom wants to be a hanging court? Fine, let
them. Let's set up something else that actually deals with issues, and not
just punishments.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, SlimVirgin  wrote:

>
> This is the key point, I think.  We don't have an absolute definition
> of neutrality.  We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of
> system.  Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress.  Now,
>


> That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith
> efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to
> control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to
> reflect that.


You lost me. If you say its all about the content, I'd be on board. You say
its about "behaviour[-alism]," and I go now elsewhere to let you rethink the
idea entirely.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Durova  wrote:

> Lilliputian nationalist form a network and come over to Wikipedia, turning
> the article about Blefuscu into a travesty.  A lone Blefuscu native sees
> the
> imbalance and tries to address it, engaging in mediation and eventually
> arbitration.  Afterward the Lilliputians successfully get the Blefuscuan
> topic banned because the Blefuscuan isn't adding to the imbalance of
> negative information about his own country.


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> I'm afraid the proposal will work to the advantage of one side of the
> dispute, to the detriment of the other. One side is generally well
> educated and familiar with looking at both sides of an issue; the other
> is not, with no meaningful access to either education or sophisticated
> cultural memes.
>

Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the
other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how
does it help our
discussion to to say either of these things?

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard  wrote:


> The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few
> problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans.
> (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than
> NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors
> accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and
> don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as
> they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
>

Well, at least English language training can help, at least to give people a
foundation. And for those with sufficient English proficiency and the
interest to come and participate, Wikipedia can give them an education - one
way or another. It's in everybody's interest that such education be less
"enforced" and be instead more enlightening, and that's why I think people
aren't so interested in concepts of "enforcement" as they are in
collaboration.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM, SlimVirgin  wrote:

> Controlling content = "this article should or should not say X"
>
> Controlling behaviour = "this editor should or should not do X"
>
> In that sense, this proposal is about behaviour, because it is about
> good-faith editing (behaviour) and not the result of it (content).
>
> However, the whole content v. behaviour thing is something of a false
> distinction. ArbCom prides itself on not controlling content,
> but it does it all the time indirectly by controlling who can edit,
> ruling on what counts as a reliable source, etc.
>
> This is a proposal to enforce behaviour that upholds our own core
> content policy, and there's no problem with that tension.
> In fact, it's quite strange that none of our core content policies are
> currently enforced, except for BLPs.
>

"Enforcement" is not the problem. We have plenty of eager admins who are
more than happy to "enforce policy." The issue (aside from indoctrinating
new people into NPOV culture, accomplished via any means ranging from
lifetime bans to inane amounts of barnstars), is getting a decent conceptual
overview of how groups of articles need to be improved and then finding
consensus to act on that impetus.

Such endeavors might be called something like "Wikipedia:WikiProject
[Scope]," though the usage of the above terminology is attributable to a
unfortunate convergence of factors (bottom)**.

The idea you have, Sarah, deals largely with bringing a certain concept of
'officiousness' to settling content disputes. You say its not about content,
but fail to say why we would need a kind of special-purpose Arbcom. I and
others have sufficiently destroyed your "enforcement" concept (perhaps
taking a little too much gusto in doing so), but nevertheless some of us
appear to want to salvage something from it, and thus can to some degree
appreciate your general idea of shaking things up a bit, making changes,
taking stands, focusing on areas which need better handling, and getting
more hands-on rather than simply staying conceptual and borking ourselves
with policy.

So I suggest not dealing with the Wikipublic at all: People such as myself
wield no power, and can at best occasionally state only chuckleworthy
things.

Make a proposal directly to Arbcom. Ask them to consider ways in which they
can implement improvements to how they do things, and how they can sort of
get people in on the game plan. Naturally we all know Arbcom (a metonym for
the Wikipedian government, whether it officially exists or not), has lots of
room for improvement. But they might not know that, and as such we would be
quite wise not be too blunt about giving them the news.

Still, as critical as I am of Arbcom at this point (not impressed with their
[mis-]re-conceptualization of the I case I filed recently), Arbcom the
institution, I mean, I understand that the committee is made up of
individuals, that not one of them is useless, and that they each and all can
and will act to make some changes, when they start to understand that they
actually can. We already know that they could (make improvements), and (dare
we say it) should shake the cobwebs loose and get creative about how to make
themselves and Wikipedia better.

But I realize, as do others, that it's important also not to suggest too
much. Because aside from the fact that they might not like people telling
them 1) that there's room for improvement, 2) that they should institute
improvements, 3) telling them why they should improve, 4) and how, most
conceptual people in general (and that's all of us) just don't like
accepting anyone's existence, let alone their intelligence and creativity;
and by extension the products of these qualities as we manifest them in what
we might consider "helpful" proposals.

In that context, we can simply say "its up to them; help them O Ceiling
Cat," and go back to our editing.

Regards,

-SV-1

**1) An unfortunate technical/technocratic inability to use the word
"Project" as a namespace (which would produce something elegant like
"Project:[Scope]")

2) A likewise unfortunate tendency to honor CamelCase as a kind of
Wikipudlian meme, and

3) An equally unfortunate propensity we all have for using the word "wiki"
in any context imaginable.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

Wondering how difficult to write a template (or templates) to deal with the
future tense / past event problem.
I imagine that its not too difficult for someone who knows what they are
doing, and simply involves writing a conditional switch template that shows
one text until a certain date, upon which it shows another.

 "The re-imagined Sledge Hammer! {{dateswitch|will premeire|premeired|on
June 19th, 2009|in mid-June}}, starring Paul
 Reubens as the titular character, and Abe Vigoda as his sidekick, Abe."

Naturally the "dateswitch" template takes the two values and by some genious
of technology hides the one and shows the other, switching them on the
stated date. I added the "in mid-June" just to indicate the possibility that
the date itself might not be desired visible text, but I'm not clear about
how words like "on" would affect the parsing of a timestamp.

The uncertainty of stating something "will" or "is due to" doesn't seem to
be as big an issue as the past-tense problem.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> Better to say "as of , this is known". That way the reader knows
> they are reading something written at a certain date, and editors know
> from what point they need to carry on updating. If things change, the
> conditional template will be saying the wrong thing. I'm also wary of
> having templates spit out article text, as changes to the template
> will affect not only current versions of the article, but also the old
> versions of the article if you look at them in the page history.


"As of" is great for ongoing concepts which require only occasiona updates,
but that convention doesn't deal at all with the problem that we make dated
statements because we have to, but this leaves the problem that they must
then be manually updated. We don't for example say:

"As of May 2009, the 2009 Wikimania will be held on August 26-28, 2009."
Different concept altogether, though they are indeed both date-related.

Better to do something like:
"Wikimania {{dateswitch|is scheduled to begin on|began on|August 26, 2009}},
and {{dateswitch|will run until|ran until|August 28, 2009}}"

Or (simpler):
"Wikimania {{dateswitch|will run from|ran from|August 26-28, 2009}}.

Producing:
ante) "Wikimania will run from August 26-28, 2009.
post) "Wikimania ran from August 26-28, 2009.

BTW, a bot can cull any templates which have been switched to their post
position, replacing the tag with plain text. And we use in-article templates
all the time now, anyway, so I dunno what your concern was there. The real
concern should be in removing any such outdated phrasing, and making the
usage of tense clauses less of a hassle, and more uniform.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] [News Article] Wikipedia editors: Coverage of Israel 'problematic'

[stevertigo]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:29 PM, K. Peachey  wrote:

> Full Article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082777.html


It would be interesting if they did any research and published it, along
with any arguments they might have for why they think something should be
such. I'm not too impressed with the notion of sticking a label like
"Holocaust-denier" on anyone, just as I would advise against using any other
"denier" labels we might think of...

And the real point here is that someone like Mahmoud is not so much a
"denier" as he is an 'Iranian conservative Islamic theocrat politician' who
for merely geographic reasons alone, has to pander to the local anti-Israel
blame-game. Just as Israeli hawks do successfully with their own pet issues.
And moreover people aren't really ever "deniers" anyway, as much as they are
just "people who reject certain concepts, for certain reasons," and "people
who think and say really stupid things."

So anyway while the labels make for pleasant and efficient stigmanyms, they
ultimately only piss decent people off, and demonstrate a concept of
ill-will on the part of the labeller(s). And anyway it's more important to
just accurately quote the idiotic things certain people like Mahmoud and
others sometimes say, and let such speak for itself.

A label can be quite heated. And what more does one need to know but that
heat is not light.

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Luna  wrote:

> I've whipped up a quick example at <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luna_Santin/Dateswitch>, currently:
>
>   - {{dateswitch | text before date | text on or after date | date}}
>

:D

Nice, Luna Santin. I just tried it out briefly on the Wikimania article. I
tried to use:

"The upcoming [[Wikimania 2009]] {{User:Luna Santin/Dateswitch|will be held
on|was held on|August 26-28, 2009}} in [[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]]."

But this does not work, probably due to the hyphenated dating?

Trying to reformulate it as separate dating gave me:

The upcoming [[Wikimania 2009]] {{dateswitch|will begin on|began on|August
26, 2009}} and {{dateswitch|will run until|ran until|August 28, 2009}}, in
[[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]].

Not terrible, but presents the problem of redundancy, and putting the
compound dates before the location makes it read not smoothly. Working it
the other way presents another issue that "in [Buenos..]" must be replaced
with a tense verb. So a similar more generalized date-based switch that does
not show the date might work:

The upcoming [[Wikimania 2009]] {{tenseswitch|will be held|was held|August
28, 2009}} in [[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]], {{User:Luna
Santin/Dateswitch|will begin on|began on|August 26, 2009}} and {{User:Luna
Santin/Dateswitch|will run until|ran until|August 28, 2009}}.

Dunno though. One date-tense template has now led to two, and two might lede
to three, and then ninety, which would be unacceptable to some people.
Thoughts?

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> Yeah, it's suboptimal, but people
> don't seem unduly distressed by it on a day-to-day basis.
>

"Suboptimal" means something like "not as good as it could be" doesn't it?
Are you promoting a status quo or else an editorial standard that WP should
be not quite all that it can be? I agree its not quite as useful as finding
water in the Sahara, but I disagree that any suboptimal situation that can
be corrected, shouldn't, nor any attempt at such be made.

More importantly, there's two new problems that this template would
> introduce, aside from the markup concerns.
> a) It makes us a hostage to fortune.
> b) It gives a spurious sense of timeliness.


Using language like "hostage to fortune" and "spurious... timeliness" is a
bit dispensensational and hyperbolic.

Assuming this possible "factually incorrect" aspect will be any more
compounded than it already is, or else is worse than the incorrectness of
future/past tense clauses, one possible solution is simply to have the
dateswitch show a small flag. Maybe a red colored asterix next to the
datestamp, indicating that a date flag has been switched and needs to be
checked: "Wikimania will begin on August 26, 2009*." Don't know how to deal
with the containment problem with the period being outside the tag.

And I also don't know if its wise to use visible inline editorial tags
anyway, though I do know we currently use a dozen or more even more
conspicuous such tags and they appear to work extremely well.


> If I read an article which says
> something *did* happen last week, however, I assume it's been written
> in the past few days, that it's fairly up-to-date, etc. Are we doing
> our readers a disservice by giving off these signals when the actual
> content of the article hasn't been changed?
>

Disservice? Using basic tagging, template computing, server automation and
scheduling funtionalities to make uniform switching between tenses accross
all articles is a disservice?

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:10 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

>
> Maybe a red colored asterix next to the datestamp, indicating that a date
> flag has been switched and needs to be checked: "Wikimania will begin on
> August 26, 2009*."
>

Should be "Wikimania began on August 26, 2009*."
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Date conditional switching templates

[stevertigo]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Mark Nilrad  wrote:

> The thing about the template is that after the date it's useless; it can
> just be plain text. So, someone will come and remove it, which is just the
> same as having to update the date manually.
>

I suggested above that because these template tags can be categorized, and
are distinct from other text, and can contain also a simple way of
indicating (visibly or in code) their switched position, that they would be
easily visible to a bot, which could then check and replace switched tags
with the past tense text.

We could also I suppose automate other kinds of content in other simple
ways, but I can't think of anything that would be computationally feasible.
I suppose we already do present auto-calculated personal age based on their
birth date, or their birth and death date. Any other [[Wikipedia:Content
automation]] templates/tags/processes?

-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Slog rate

[stevertigo]

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> If it is all entirely fluid then it simply isn't quantified, so what
> on earth does "8.5%" mean?
>

I'm not certain.

 But consider for example the progress bar, which is the ubiquitous
representation of both a value and rate of task completion. In a certain
respect, article development can be viewed in this way; as a goal to be
reached, wherupon any article at any time can be said to be at a certain
point on that scale.


Upon further examination, I'm ashamed to say that my proposal, if there is
any sense at all to be made of it, appears to simply state that in addition
to "progress bars," we implement "lack of progress bars."


-SV
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Workflow for music excerpts

[stevertigo]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> Hi,
>  It is the happy circumstance that:
> a) Articles about pieces of classical music are much better with an
> excerpt of the music presented as an image
> b) PDFs of enormous amounts of classical music are available, in
> public domain, at the International Music Score Library Project
> (imslp.org). For example, Chopin's coverage is virtually
> comprehensive.
>

PDF to image(s) is a nice idea, within limits. But for music the best way
would be to use something like WikiTex (wikisophia.org), which turns
Lilypond code via LaTeX into a rendered PNG of the music, along with a
downloadable .mid file.

But it's been on the burner for like 4-5 years now because, *AIUI, nobody
can patch the security holes associated with taking complex input, and
anyway nobody wants sheet music, tengwar, go, chess, flowcharts, sylized
greek, and plotted graphs handled computatively or editably through
Wikipedia.

-S
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Perfection

[stevertigo]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson <
oskarsigvards...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Steve Bennett 
> wrote:
> > I must have been away too long, but seriously, guys, what's up with
> > this style of posting? "Here's my totally cryptic comment, see if you
> > can figure out what the hell I mean!"
> >
> > Do everyone a favour and give people a bit of context. This goes
> > equally for the "slog rank" post which inspired 10 replies and still
> > no one knows what the hell you were talking about or where that 8.5%
> > came from.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Hear! Hear!
>

Context "slog" - the mathies are still upset apparently.
But IIRC I dealt with it though, and quite thoroughly I might add,
in that "lack of progress bars" post earlier in this thread.

That out of the way I don't understand Steve how a couple
late offhand comments apparently inspired you to comment
on the original post, which you appear to suggest lacked
context. It had a link to a talk page discussion - an involved
description I did not give here because, well..

Anyway that debate at [[Talk:Perfect crime]] is on the back burner.
I've said all I have to say on that there, namely that:
  1) a literary superlative+concept does not a special well-defined article
make:
 1a) such that it be considered a formal well-defined concept
 1b) such that it exclude relevant, linkable concepts.
  2) a conceptual_negation+concept(~aspects) opens the door for
~negated_aspect:
 2a) to be at least mentioned.
 2b) to be defined in relative context.

Fanciful anti-theistic inconsequentialism apparently has its defenders
though.

-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Perfection

[stevertigo]

<  I hav  been placed on moderation for feeding a troll.
>

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM,  wrote:

> I don't remember it that way.  Maybe you could expand on that a  bit.


On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> Please don't. This list is not for discussions about the list, or its
> participants.
>

Or its trolls, either.

:)

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Durova  wrote:

> Hm.
> 31K, start-class
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought
> 79K, featured:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson
> That probably explains it, Fred.
> -Durova
>

Well, to be fair, "history of Western thought" has a number of problems in
its very premise that make it disinteresting for modern young people to deal
with:
1) It uses the "east west" dichotomy, which automatically attaches to it
certain qualitative assumptions and connotations about its distinctiveness
from "eastern thought."
2) Taking active participation in the cementation of such concepts in the
modern mind, when people really just want them obliterated and relegated to
a pre-hyperconnected world's history, is anathema to the emergent collective
mind.
3) And besides its a bit redundant; the concept of "western thought" is
historical and needs not be qualified as "history."
4) And worse, the word "history" innately implies that the concept that any
particularly "western" anything likewise has a similarly particular future,
which violates 2.

And anyway Bart Simpson is just plain freakin' timeless, regardless of his
novelty. Ah- the interesting dichotomy between relevant and historical
information, and (corollary) the dichotomy between the crusty old wiki
encyclopedia and the flashy new hyperintuitive one.

-Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] In the news: Leprosy

[stevertigo]

[[T:ITN]] : "The discovery of a 4,000-year-old skeleton showing the earliest
known evidence of *leprosy * *(example
pictured)* in the Indian 
stateof
Rajasthan  is announced."

Interesting that an article about an ancient disease, just now on its way
out (763K new cases in 2002 \\ 400K in 2004) can make ITN, even with a
minimal-importance update. I think its great, especially when it links to a
great article. (Even linking to a bad article is great too, if it gets that
article attention and development).

My issues particular to the leprosy article (relevant, I think, as its a
front-page link. Will deal with there directly) are:
1) Ugly hatnote..
  "For the malady found in the Hebrew Bible, see
Tzaraath.
For the
   album by the band Death, see Leprosy
(album)
."
...instead of a plain {{otheruses}} disambiguation note. Hatnotes to
hair/death/whatever "metal" bands on legitimate topic article, trivialize
wikipedia's coverage and are teh suck.

2) (Less important): The hatnote on [[leprosy]] references [[tzaraath]] as
"the malady found in the Hebrew Bible" rather than something more accurate
like "the original Hebrew Bible term for leprosy." The tzaraath article
claims that "some scholars suggest that any connection between tzaraath and
leprosy is altogether erroneous," though no actual citation or treatment of
this direct criticism is evident in the article aside from some necessary
treament of the conceptual variance in an old term. Thus the distinction is
terminological, not in the domain of medicine as implied by the term
"malady."

-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Workflow for music excerpts

[stevertigo]

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> Sure, Lilypond is nice - but typesetting it is a lot more work than
> simply screenshotting an existing PDF. And IMHO old publications (eg,
> 1902) look nicer than Lilypond...
>
> Fwiw, the workflow I've ended up going with goes like this:
> 1. Load up the PDF for one opus (generally 2-3 compositions)
> 2. Screenshot 2-3 excerpts per piece
> 3. Upload all the screenshots, tweaking the contents of an info
> template, rather than filling in fields
> 4. Stick all the screenshots in the relevant article.
>
> In other words, batching each phase of the operation, rather than
> doing the whole cycle for each excerpt. I've now done all the
> nocturnes except the last two posthumous ones. Example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnes_Op._9_(Chopin)


I understand. And the necessity of editable notation, presentation as an
image, and output as audio media is not yet substantiated for any WikiMedia
projects. Someone would have to demonstrate that such editable notation was
useful in some way, like for transcribing certain motifs, phrasings, etc.,
or helping music education overseas.

-S
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] a language issue

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

>
> The issue is a matter of much ado about nothing.  Should the Monty
> Python skit say that it was the parrot's body that was nailed to the
> perch and not the parrot itself?
>
> In the interests of mutual respect an editor who wants to include the
> word "body" in his writings is perfectly at liberty to do so, and they
> should be reassured at the same time that those who omit that same word
> are not doing so to troll the fears of the taphephobics.
>
> A general adoption of a formula to always include the reference to a
> "body" (or a synonym thereto) strikes me as an excess of politically
> correct theology.
>

Language and the concepts expressed in statements are not "much ado about
nothing." And I don't know or care what Monty Python should or should not
say, or (your actual point) what people in non-encyclopedic contexts should
say.

The point is that its using an English figure of speech to say "Grant is
buried in Grant's tomb," rather than using English itself, to say something
like "Grant's body is probably just dust at this point." Anyway precision is
preferable, is it not, in certain contexts, if not others. What context
would I be mainly thinking of?

In this case the idea of bumping up precision in a certain small area
reveals some wider human conceptual miasmas with regard to croaking. Which
is normal and understandable. The only real problem is that the association
of person <=> body comes from that typically excessive qualitative assertion
of empiricism that states that life is entirely biological.

Just taking one of the relevant dimensions, the issues with regard to the
way English Wikipedia articles translate via mechanical processes (Google
Translate is actually usable) to other languages, and what exactly people
can derive from those translations, are profoundly relevant to us:  The
first thing to note is that certain concepts may be missing and thus require
expansion to a definition to translate. Secondly, concept-to-word
orthographies aren't all the same, though being human means the important
ones shouldn't be too far off. And third thing to note is that because
idioms are idiomatic (ie. they often don't translate well), it therefore its
not a bad idea to curb idiom usage in contexts where information is likely
to be translated.

Formal modes of language can handle each of these, and translate quite
nicely if one follows certain expansion rules, even where the cultural
concepts might be somewhat different. This criticism follows from these
notions of expressive formalism, precision, and reducing idiomatic
expression - yes, with maybe a little divine orthography thrown in there
too.

-Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, geni  wrote:

> The BLP policy page is a broken mess of pseudo policy written by
> people looking to forward their positions.
> It has no place in rational discussion of the BLP issue.
>

If you were motivated to do so, how would you go about fixing it?

OT: BTW, how are those "replace this image" things working out?

-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Hi there, everybody!

[stevertigo]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Emily Monroe  wrote:

> Hey! I'm new here! Just joined today! I'm known as "I dream of horses" on
> Wikipedia. My real name is Emily, but a lot of people call me Em for short.
> I am 19 years old. I like music, particularly rock, and instrumental music.
> I also like to
> exercise, and to fidget. I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian.
> I am in the uncategorized and stub sorting wikiproject. i have also
> recent changes and new pages patrolled. However, I am becoming more
> interested in the "social" aspect of wikipedia, which is why I joined
> the list!
> Would anyone like to introduce themselves? Is there any kind of
> "mailing list etiquette" I should be aware of?
>

Welcome, Emily.

There's not much to speak of in terms of mailing list "etiquette," and there
are no wrong questions here, though people may want to keep discussions here
high-level (sitewide/policy issues) and thus may politely direct you to
pages on en.wikipedia that more directly relate to any *specific or topical
issues you may be interested in.

And before you hear anyone mention "MySpace," it should be stated that the
"social aspect of Wikipedia" has traditionally been a lower priority for the
basic reasons that almost all discussion be about improving the project, and
because there is a nagging concern that an exceedingly "social" Wikipedia
would stop being an "encyclopedia." (Also, note that very few of us are
actual social butterflies, real-life or otherwise). ;-]

But you will interact with people who have common interests, and make some
friends as well. Happy editing.  :-)

- Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Hi there, everybody!

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > However, I am becoming more
> > interested in the "social" aspect of wikipedia, which is why I joined
> > the list!
>

I like where Fred is going here. But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or
"collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects? My/our apparent
confusion/misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate fact that for many
people here, the word "social" is a kind of codeword for "community
interactions that have no aspect of the purpose of writing an encyclopedia
in mind."

Everyone is to some degree interested in "community," and that's why
Wikipedia works. But the connection between "social aspects" and community,
though essential, is still not yet well understood. Hence its my sense (?)
that many people think that "if the idea doesn't have the encyclopedia in
mind," it therefore must be "social," (discarded), often quite with little
regard for whether or not that "social" idea contributes to "community."
But, as with anything dynamic, there is a ongoing struggle to find a balance
between different forces.

If your interested, you might even do a little research into the history of
how social aspects have tried to coexist with the prime directive of
building (and even writing) an encyclopedia. Maybe writing up a meta page
about that history would help people get an overview. Places to look:
Barnstars, Userboxes, IRC and Meetups (after Geni), Projects (of course),
and Medcom / other WP:DRR, and Signpost (late addition). Maybe after
checking these out you can have an idea or two of your own.

You may be interested to know that there have been times when people have
been quite at odds about the "social aspects." Search "userboxes" + "wheel
war" for example --a very important example of when the "community" decided
(somehow) to stomp on the "society." I still consider the mass removal of
userboxes from the meta namespace to the user namespace to have been a
"social" faux pax.

To wrap this up, people-oriented people have always helped very much to
create a more integrated community. Those that get themselves involved in
content issues often help to keep things from blowing up. And some have even
been entrusted by the community to positions of authority.

-Steve

You sound like a wonderful addition to our community. One of the problems
> we might have (others may disagree) is that the social side of Wikipedia
> is somewhat underdeveloped. That is certainly a legitimate topic of
> discussion on this list: how we might make Wikipedia a friendlier, more
> welcoming place.
>


> I first found Wikipedia in 2002, back in the days when articles like
> "Colorado" had not even been started. There was this guy, Larry Sanger,
> who while not in charge, had a lot of clout. And Jimmy Wales, was very
> hands on, following developments closely.
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there)

[stevertigo]

> Stevertigo wrote:
>
> But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
> > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or
> > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?
> Emily Monroe  wrote:
> Yes, that's what I mean!
>
I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.
>

(Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've retitled the thread)

It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a question or idea.
If your stated interest can be translated into a question, it might go
something like:
   What socially-oriented ideas might make Wikipedia better?

Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still would not be out
of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially when you want to
start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal with a few
different things at once, and who knows what might come up?

I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made into
bumperstickers.

-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute
resolution issues.
I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are
closed-source,
and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling
disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).

I have spoken.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Al Tally wrote:

>
> What's wrong with the wiki, for wiki-related things?


I have not said anything was "wrong with the wiki," only that there should
be a mailing list for dealing with dispute resolution.  Can you clarify your
question a bit?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Public dispute resolution happens on wiki, private dispute resolution
> happens on closed mailing lists. Where is the gap in the market that
> would be filled by a public dispute resolution mailing list?
>

Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has public
and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute
resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me. Is
there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> No problem, we might as well take a stab at it. However, my experience
> here is of deadlock, not resolution. Deadlock characterized by sterile
> repetition of fixed positions.
>

Great. One of us should ask the techies to get it set up.


[To Alex] Entire revolutions can occur the wiki without coming to a user's
> attention. A mailing list devoted to dispute resolution would focus
> attention, even if all it did was point to significant on wiki
> discussions. The functionaries list and, presumably the arbitration list
> already do this. A dispute resolution list would clue everyone in, not
> just functionaries and arbitrators.
>

Indeed. Ostensibly, the list would deal with not just specific dispute
resolutions, but with dispute resolution itself - how it works, etc. These
concepts haven't changed much since late 2003, and as such there may need to
be adjustments - people have ideas I'm sure. And of course, dealing with
both specific cases and with general concepts in the same context makes it a
bit of an integration issue. And that's another answer for Alex's question -
integration based on a particular concept. If the concept was Electric
Trains, then of course a separate mailing list wouldn't be justified.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:


> The List would need two (at least) Moderators: One that would be very
> familiar with the technical and policy aspects of the Project; and one that
> could focus on the interpersonal dialogue itself.
>

I nominate Fred for one. Angela for the other.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
>


> > Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has
> public
> > and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute
> > resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me.
> Is
> > there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
>
> I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is.
> Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no
> reason to change it.
>

You could start a thread called  "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances.
:-)

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:


> Contact a server admin on IRC in #wikimedia-tech
>

I've filed a bug on mediazilla - with a link to this discussion.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
>


> > You could start a thread called  "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and
> there
> > we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
> appliances.
> > :-)
>
> That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke"
> and "fix".


Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"

Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every
edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7
years ago.
You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
"convention" is not a "system."

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Risker  wrote:

> It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended
> to solve.
>

Great comments, Risker.

For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do
things because they are experimental or synergistic.

Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss
> content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear
> at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to
> content.
>

Excellent point. In a certain way, it seems that there must be some
limitation upon what depth content disputes may be discussed on list. In
another respect, a certain integration between talk page and list discussion
may help to 1) abstract conflicts from being localized to unseen talk pages,
and 2) bring abstract general-interest attention to specific talk pages.  In
reality, this is the way wikien-l used to work, before it got all
abstractified and focused exclusively on talking about what newspapers are
saying about us.

Behaviour disputes?  How will a mailing list address these better than
> current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to
> hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s)
> whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to
> join the mailing list?
>

Indeed, the list should not replace anything else. Rather it should give
people an eagle-eye view of disputes, and from this vantage this offers a
certain extra dimension to using RFC's, etc.

Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and what
> happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
>

Very good point. Again, as far as specific conflicts go, it would be more of
an announce list. As far as general discussion goes, well this aspect at
least to my mind is quite necessary, as general discussion on talk pages is
not useful to anyone.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:


> 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
>

> For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do
> > things because they are experimental or synergistic.
>
> Ok, you may not want to solve a problem, but presumably you want to
> achieve something. What is your goal?


 My goal is total and complete synergy.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder :
> > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would
> > not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
>
> That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed.
> I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble
> across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if
> people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them?


I don't see Fred's ideas or insights as being particularly in conflict with
the idea I proposed.
In fact, as I proposed it, I didn't get into any particular details. I
simply assumed that if people
agreed on the general scope, they could also agree on the scope such a list
might have.

Indeed, someone who might be interested in getting help for a particular
edit conflict and might want to drop a note to the mailing list might like
not getting their head bitten off by someone on this one.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
> > Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
>
> Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and
> stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those.
>

My arguments tend to be more rational than "logical."

> Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:"
> Every
> > edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was
> 5.7
> > years ago.
> > You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
> > "convention" is not a "system."
>
> I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit
> the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't
> see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't
> explained how your system would be better than the current one (which
> is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR).
>

Not all "conflicts" rise to the level of "wars."  So not all edit conflicts
are "edit wars." The latter term has implications that transcend most
"conflicts between editors" or "editorial conflicts."

The technical usage of "edit conflict" to mean a state wherein a session has
been interrupted by changes by another user, in a certain way usurps the
canonical (common English) usage of the word "conflict" for a technical
purpose.  And even in technical context, its a bit of an outdated misnomer:

* Outdated, because since  section editing was implemented five years ago,
they rarely happen.
* Misnomer, because those "conflicts" are technical and not "edit"-orial,
and anyway are not so much "conflicts" as they are "interrupts." (Note that
other wiki software have these handled via simple usage of session lockouts.
Not to say that such would work for us, though).

If its got a simple technical solution, its probably not the "conflict" we
are talking about. This should correct not just your terminology, but our
general conventional misuse which I too once or twice have been a party to.
Its been a while since Ive had an "edit interrupt" myself.  Edit conflicts
(not "wars") however occur hourly. :-)

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
> >
> > One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution
> > (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for
> > those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real
> > life time constraints.
> >
> > Two, discussion.
> >
> > Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I
> > think some people would be more interested in just announcements.  I
> > would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the
> > option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their
> > bandwidth...
>
> I think this is a good refinement of the idea.
>

I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness,
George, but I have no objection.  I don't know now it would be populated
either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not
a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first
though.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
> Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing
> list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups
> and
> see how many people sign up?
>
>
Risker, from experience, I know what you say to be not true. I remember
Brion starting several language mailing lists in about 10 minutes with
nothing more than a casual request on intlwiki-l.

Even you and Thomas who have expressed several critical concerns and
questions, do not outright state your opposition to such a lists' creation.
If you are receiving transmissions that indiate other concerns, please list
those concerns along with their sources here, so we can deal with those.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third
> party.
>

Well, I took his meaning to be something like "go Google yourself," albeit
put in very nice terms.


> Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes.
>

Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome!

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

>
> In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic
> frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons,
> a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
>

I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:

> on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
> >
> > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss
> > dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
> > This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
> > arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
> >
> Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process
> of dispute resolution?
>

I has already been stated twice or thrice in this thread that general
discussion of "dispute resolution" itself would be within the scope of the
"dispute resolution" mailing list. Several have voiced support for the use
of this list for any range of legitimate dispute resolution issues --large
and small. AGK gave a very straightforward rebuttal to the idea that a list
need be confined in accord to narrow frameworks.

In any case it does not make too much sense to prejudice a concept with
loaded questions about its scope before it has even been tested in the
field.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a
> list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an
> elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute
> resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list.  Such as
> BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters,  or overview of current activity
> (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly
> get advocacy; would you not get canvassing?  Discussion of intractable
> edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and
> clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends
> to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect
> some fairly primitive knockabout.
>
> In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
> onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.


In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
authority
over disputes to make the lower tiers of dispute resolution correct --such
that they be actually usable and that people will innately know how to "use
them.. correctly."
It is the *customer that is always right, Charles. Not the vendor.

CM: "Blind men and an elephant.. different people come up with different
aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a
list" - This is exactly how mailing list technology works.

 CM: "You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing?
Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience?
Second-guessing appeals and clarifications?  Speculation about matters in
mediation?"

AGF and NOT generally answer these as well. But again, as with other stated
concerns, I do not see what value there is in being afraid of what may be
said by someone. People are intelligent enough to deal with whatever comes
up, and no amount of pre-programming is going to substitute for
intelligence.

CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be
done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout."

Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and modernistic
knockabout?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

Risker wrote:

> It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't
>> be
>> possible, sorry.
>>
>
Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of


> "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.

>
In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in
> "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve
> disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a
> scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list
> threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But
> of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the
> "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the
> right, and bring the business to a halt.
>
> I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list
> technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years
> of ArbCom mail.  It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will
> give good results, given the nature of lists.
>

Technically speaking, I was being a bit ironic in referring to mailing lists
as "technology [that works]." Maybe my irony was too subtle.

Solzhenitsyn. Consider that with each new context, the same ideas will be
reanimated to see if they actually work in the new context, even while they
failed in the old.

I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then),
as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the
context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and..
well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less
conducive to the things which make beings happy.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Social ideas (was Hi there)

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:


> Boy the Wikipedia GUI could be a lot better, but small tweaks aren't
> going to do much. I assume the various studies about its usability are
> intended to drive some new GUI effort.
>

It bears mentioning that monobook and its various tweaks took maybe a week
to deal with, and it took maybe another three days for people to agree to
make the upgrade and then implement it.

Now, apparently we are conducting "usability studies" that may or may not be
related to actually getting some CSS written.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM, stevertigo  wrote:

I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then),
> as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the
> context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and..
> well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less
> conducive to the things which make beings happy.
>

Heh. I forgot to mention "light."
Anyway, I've emailed CBass about starting up the new list.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Risker  wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo 
> > Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage
> > of "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.
> > In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
>
> As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial
> balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but
> fairly, before taking it public.  Strikes me that happens all the time, and
> doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be
> any group of people.


Risker saith: "it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon
amongst a known >group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly"

Hm. Strikes me that a public group can critique things quite "honestly but
fairly" also. I mean, that's how this list works isn't it? Otherwise I would
never submit ideas here at all.

Risker spoketh: "Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't
necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group
of people."

Hm. Don't you mean "any closed group of people"?

I mean, I'm inferring this from the context of our conversation. If, in your
statement you imply, without explicitly saying so, a change in our
conversational context from "closed groups" to "any groups,"  and I thus
just did not notice this change, please accept this is a kind of backhanded
apology.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

>  please accept this is* a kind of ...
>

as*

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK  wrote:

> You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the
> mailing
> list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up
> DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request
> with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join.
> Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or
> a
> bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in
> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
> Respectfully,


Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Charles Matthews
>
>
> I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the
> customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that
> were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be
> redundant in our context. And they are not.


The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom case
where "wikilawyering" was a finding?


> Anyone who really advocates
> for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take
> into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers",
> mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be
> "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just
> wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in
> onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
>

Hm. Interesting points for the dres-en mailing list, Charles.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo :
> > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>
> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>

Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my
humble opinion.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion
> than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive
> process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would
> work for that one.
>

I agree that mailing lists are poor technology. They don't allow
corrections, renaming, etc, logical restructuring, etc. But they do have a
kind of fluidity that others do not yet have and I suppose that is why I
promote this technology's usage for dispute resolution specifically. Or
generally, if one views DR as a larger issue.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
> actually intended to happen.
>

"dres-l" (see note at bottom) will at first deal with overall  dispute
resolution issues, and if specific things come up, we can point them in the
right direction on the wiki. We of course do not want to say that things
that should be dealt at Arbcom would be handled on dren-l

I understand you are under some impression that a "dres-l" list would
somehow be compromised if it dealt with specific issues. Think of it this
way: Someone in a dispute on Talk:Peace about the Peace article lead could
email the list (through a simple on-wiki interface, by the way), and say
"I've got a problem" -- dres listers could simply point them to a specific
page on Wiki, or even (gasp) help them get things done on the page itself.
Maybe even helping to resolve the conflict (less work for Arbcom), or
helping disputants file a compliant to formal DRR.

Keep in mind that while it makes sense to diversify certain processes
(cleanup, VFD/AFD, etc.) it also makes sense to integrate those things which
are too divergent and need a kind re-integration. For example, I put
together the WP:DRR page (now "Dispute resolution requests) to give people
an interface to all of the various dispute resolution processes. Its still a
mess for the simple reason that 1) each "dispute resolution" process has its
own unique rules, and submitting forms, helper templates, etc., and 2) some
of them are essentially useless: "Negotiation", (huh?) "Talk pages" (eh?),
Mediation Cabal (GMAB),  "Wikiquette" (WTF?). And note that ANI isn't even
on there. ANI is now perhaps the most central DR hub on the wiki, and its
not even considered as part of DR. "Integration" is the relevant concept.
Does anyone disagree that certain things along the lines of "integration"
would be good for DR?

So, things need to be done to DR. The valves are knocking, the timing is
off, and the temperature guage is spiking.

-Stevertigo

Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> > Why not discuss on this list?
>
> I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly
> adequate place for that.
>

Because dispute resolution is broad, general, and conceptual enough to deal
with separately from wikien-l, which, again, appears now largely devoted to
what the Daily Mirror says about us.

And of course, the fact that people on this list will routinely bounce or
bonk anyone who raises specific article issues may also be a factor in
dealing with dispute resolution separately.

Wiken-l would thus be entirely free to talk about how WP looks in the media
mirror.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo :
> > Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis
> submit?
>
> Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox
> full of emails written in languages I don't understand.
>

Hm. They do work. In fact wikipedia-l was a kind of international mailing
list, though in reality most people who deal with intnl issues write in
English anyway.

And this is to suppose that after some short time of usage, there wouldn't
be some language forking going on? Seems natural that when intl usage gets
too high, maybe 18%, then we can start forking.

There is also a neat little tool now called Google Translate - I use a
little toolbar button in ffox that does it in one click (much better than
the extensions that try to do it all, actually). Not perfect, and not usable
for certain things, but usable anyway to read things and to send terse,
grammatically formal and concise messages.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> [Gossip] - We talk about whatever people start threads on. If you have
> other
> discussion topics within the scope of the mailing list (like this one,
> for example), then start threads for them.



> [Bonk] - That's because there are already plenty of places to discuss
> issues
> with specific articles. You still haven't said why a mailing list
> would be better than any of the existing ways.
>

Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The
dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo :
> > Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was.
> The
> > dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
>
> I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
>

Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when
Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

David Gerard  wrote:


> It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to
> unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.


Well, there you go.

Thomas Dalton  wrote:


> wikipedia-l is pretty much dormant. I haven't counted, but I'd guess
> it gets about one thread every couple of months. I hardly thing that
> is an example of a list that works.
>

Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has
its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of
wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by
default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It
worked out pretty well, didn't it?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe  wrote:

> Just to add my voice in the conversation...
>

We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the
conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two
rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything.

I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have
> dispute resolution to happen.
>


> *About* resolution is another
> matter--I have no opinion about that.
>

Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers)
could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to
Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution).

We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are
probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus
doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is
unnecessary.

If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might
understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with.

Too much can happen.


Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms
"too much" and "can happen"?


> People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc.


Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism
Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore
they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails.
But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A
"dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to
forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the
email address, but shows the username.


> I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute
> resolution will cause a dispute.
>

The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came
back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of
reliable sources.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

Emily Monroe  wrote:
>> Too much can happen.
>
>
Stevertigo  wrote:
> Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms
"too much"
>  and "can happen"?

Note: For some reason, in my previous post, Emilys statement above was shown
unthreaded in the pipermail display, making it look like I said "too much
can happen" On my Gmail it looks fine. Dunno why.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM, stevertigo  wrote:

>
> A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up
> to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think.
>

This is not actually true. Apparently dres-l is too close to someone's
username. The account is user:dres-list. Will set up as needed.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> > It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to
> > unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.
> >
> > - d.
>
> Not really, I've been attending to it and have either unblocked or
> created accounts for about 50 people just this month.
>

Hm. I guess its a good thing for blocked people that David isn't the one
watching that list.

-Stevertigo
Excuse me: "Users." Not "people."
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/28 stevertigo :
> > Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language
> has
> > its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of
> > wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by
> > default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It
> > worked out pretty well, didn't it?
>
> I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a
> significant number of emails in languages other than English?
>

No
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Emily Monroe  wrote:

> I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an
> English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who
> can't interpret metamorphic speech very well.
>

Excellent points.

Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the
lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean
"idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' Interesting point, but in reality
we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial"
(language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," and thus
more direct.

> Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the
> terms "too much" and "can happen"?

> What I've already said, actually.


I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any specifics. That's
why I asked.


> I've read a
> little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't
> participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus
> there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/
> cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they
> participate on something that talks about Wikipedia?
>

Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't
participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?

-Stevertigo

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis
"Here comes the sun." - George Harrison
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> > No
>

> So what was your point?
>

Erm, I was answering.. your question.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

> Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal,"
> "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that
> are not "formal," and thus more direct.
>

Correction: "..not "formal" or "direct."

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to
> multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither
> multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point.
>

You definition of "success" is admirably vague. Does "America" have to
survive forever to be a "success" in promoting human freedom (such that
there eventually be no more need for a particular nation called the "U.S.A")
?  The defunct-ness of a thing is not an indication of its failure. Take
your ancestors for example.

And yes, it was originally an international mailing list, IIRC, albeit there
were few international wikis then, few people used it for such, wrote in
English anyway, and in any case IIRC the first fork from wikipedia-l was
en-l largely to separate the former for global wiki usage.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> > Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in
> openly
>
> discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
>
> If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-)
>

Hm. If Arbcom mood is the impeding issue, then anything the community can do
to mitigate Arbcom caseload is naturally the first solution. Beyond that,
issues related to how Arbcom members deal with stress, have to change their
editing patterns, have to reconceptualize how they interact with people,
etc. may require some kind of closed support group. I would not object even
proposals for Wikimedia to hire cousellors for our Arbcom members from each
of our various language wikis.

[I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.]
>

Identifying yourself as an Arbcom member might be appropriate. Something
like "User:Carcharoth (Arbcom, Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010, inactive)" would work.

More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case
> that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is
> closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of
> responses eventually.


Hm. By "right venue" do you mean arbcom-l or some IRC? Wouldn't a "dispute
resolution" mailing list work well for this purpose?


> The main problem, as those who are current
> arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to
> attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is
> pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with
> simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff
> - it's human nature really).
>

Hm. Issues that we can deal with on res-l, and perhaps we can even find
solutions for them. I have ideas for mitigating caseload, as I'm sure do you
and others. The main issue in that aspect is just dealing with them. A
closed list is not the place for brainstorming.

One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after
> the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing
> how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement
> of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved
> articles) have improved at all.


Good points, though "returning to the old discussions" implies that there
actually were "discussions," and that by being "old" they were also not
currently relevant. There are certain very old things that remain relevant,
despite what anyone says about their age. I'm sure this applies in the
context of Arbcom case arguments as well.

Another aspect of review would be
> whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles
> would gain community consensus  to be incorporated into polices.
>
Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies,
>
but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a
> certain area.


That's like finding that a house is on fire, and at the same time telling
the fire department that putting it out is optional, and subject to only
whims - whims that might mathematically resemble common housecat herding
patterns.

Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends
> on the resulting community discussions.


Isn't voting still evil?

Just like IAR is still a "pillar" of "principle?"


> In some cases, though, those
> community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews
> could point this out.
>

Six months is a long time. We should try living in the real world, instead
of a shell.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[stevertigo]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't
> > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
>
> Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on
> top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied
> over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open
> discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that.
>

Well it was Erik who finally convinced me of the superiority of open-sourced
over closed-source technology. Open-source software allows for a greater
degree of freedom of movement, which itself has a synergistic relationship
with greater social freedom concepts in general.

So I agree with your implied meaning, that in a very short amount of time,
we can make it so that no one has to buy or else deal with Microsoft's
products at all.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

I might have an interesting side note here. Sorry if this is a bit out of
context.

I have a source in a certain "other government agency," who knows about a
certain unnamed individual in Pakistan whom *we are going to bomb straight
into wherever terrorists go when they get bombed.

Through my source, I know much of the intel. I thus have considered
publishing it in certain semi-reputable news sources (I was certain the New
York Times was in this category, but apparently they think they aren't).

Anyway, I'm finishing up an indymedia piece right now - with anonymous
sources and everything. That in turn is going to be the basis for the
Wikipedia article on the impending killing, which I will publish no sooner
than 2.2 minutes after I publish the news story. The names are different, so
there's no conflict of interest.

The question though is, should I publish it? I mean, there's the higher
principle of "killing the bad guy" and all, and that's really what's
interesting about the story. Otherwise who cares?

But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's live with this story, and I guess that's what's
messing with me.

I guess its kind of the same scenario in reverse, I suppose.

-Stevertigo





On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> > I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
> > we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
> > really impose a decision without discussion.
>

> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

> But the fact is that by publishing, I just might save Mohammed Aziz Yousef
> Abdul Mohamed Ali Ben Gaba's *live with this story, and I guess that's
> what's messing with me.
>

Eugh!  *Life.

-Stevertigo
Email needs to be wiki. If only wiki were in some ways like email, though.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

Four thoughts:

1) Geni's question about Pajhwok Afghan News is valid. But also Al Jazeera,*
Adnkronos, Little Green Footballs, *The Jawa Report* and *Dan Cleary,
Political Insomniac*, also apparently qualify as "unreliable sources." Or
"temporarily unreliable sources," if that's the preffered term.

A cynic though might say the rationale looks something like: 'if its a third
string newspaper from a smelly third-world country, or else the largest Arab
world-based news agency, then "its [temporarily] not a reliable source."'

What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a
newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand
out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if
Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual
journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity
might be validated.

2) The idea that media attention would raise someone's ransom value is also
a bit tendentious and the subjectives involved make it.. subjective. Did
Rohde's Pulitzer factor into it? Obviously his New York Times status was an
issue: Would a Vanity Fair reporter get the same treatment or consideration?


3) Its conceivable that if Rohde was of some unpleasant design, then his
bosses might not have not bothered with the embargo. The "young white [fe]
male" dimension might have relevance.

Thus the story is also about how their personal love for one of their valued
own helped to temporarily redefine the journalistic priorities of news
organizations around the world. Wikipedia's participation was likewise not
based in vague concepts like professionalism or "reliable sources," but out
of love for a fellow accomplished and respected person from the
English-speaking world.

Accomplished people everywhere should now feel safe that as they - out of
professional interest in human destruction - wander into dusty, hostile, and
foreign lands, their stories will be tweaked a little bit. I do understand
though that if I sent someone to Mordor - to bring back profitable reportage
or whatever - I myself might pull some strings to get them back too. I might
even shoot at Al Jazeera.*

Anyway, apparently now NYT and Wired owe Wikipedia one each.

2) Found this on the Rohde talk page:
"Okay, [?] now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest [we also censor]
articles
about drugs, [as] that will probably save lives too. - 89.61... "

89 makes an interesting point. There are other things that kill people and
we write about them as if they are just another thing. Most of the
paraphilias qualify - much of that category is just plain destruction and
death.  Other concepts effectively promote destructive behaviours, and there
are notions that basically reduce to 'criminalistic inconsequentialism'
("perfect crime" etc.).

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

Three more points:

1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
officials, including perhaps some who may have sway with the kidnappers.
Publishing details of his kidnapping in a Muslim country would have raised
the issue of his work on behalf of human rights - of Muslims in particular -
and gotten significant airplay in the Muslim context.

2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact, makes
such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future. Tactics have the
problem of being exactly that - overt and discernible forms of movement that
after study can be countered. That's again assuming that these tactics were
substantially contributive to any success in this case.

3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
Western news orgs claim to follow?

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

stevertigo wrote:

> > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> > officials
>

George Herbert  Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM,
wrote:


> The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
> professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
> it.  They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
> them kidnapped before.
>
> I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
> they know perfect.
>

What's would make us "presume" that they know better? In fact your'e
comparing the management of a small newspaper to the staff of a very large
encyclopedia. It appears that you give great credit to management.

> 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact,
> makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future.
>
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.


And thus, if they have not the Google, nor the Wikipedia, why then black
them out?

That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
> Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
> after they're generally disclosed.


[Citation needed]


> Government intelligence agency and
> military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.
>

Seems this can be abstracted a bit to general social cognition concepts and
might remain true. But abstraction will probably reveal different dimensions
to the concept that you have perhaps "hardened" into a idea about government
intelligence.

A near-contradiction of terms, by the way.

> 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> > Western news orgs claim to follow?
>


> I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile.


The point being that it draws a seriously subjective distinction between
certain news orgs and others, in as far as how they deal with
extra-journalistic modes of operation that overlap or circumuvent journalism
itself.

Ostensibly, blacking out reportage of war crimes also "saves lives" too --
not the lives of the people in the conflict, but the lives of the soldiers
who happen to be associated with the hellbound jerks who committed the
crimes. The continued blackout of Iraq abuse photos qualifies. In reality
its a bit subjective. Not that anyone wants to actually see the photos --
its just that censorship of evidence of factual events deviates from our
understanding of human history.

Just to correct Mark (?) Al Jazeera at first did report it, but then joined
the blackout after being contacted by NYT.  An archived version of Al
Jazeera's story would have sufficed as a source, and bypassed their
blackout. This is all trying to deal a bit with Wales' point that if a less
illegitimate news source reported it, keeping it under wraps would have been
difficult. The real criticism here is not that they made the wrong call, but
that they appear to be attributing to their own cunning and skill what
better may be attributable to plain good-old good luck.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[stevertigo]

> George wrote:

> My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
> eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
> ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
> islamic terrorists.  I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
> way and I hope and think that they're right.
>

The first thing that Muslim world news orgs would have to do in that regard
is to stop calling terrorists "jihadis" or "jihadist organizations."  Both
Muslim and Western world sources use "jihad" incorrectly in reference to
Islamic terrorism:

1) In Muslim context, the word "jihad" has positive meaning.The word
"muharib" or "hirabis" on the other hand connote barbarianism, piracy,
vandalism, and uncleanliness (spiritual) etc. (AIUI).

2) The West in fact uses "jihad" in an ironic way -- to highlight
Muslim-world conventional usage of the term as being supportive and even
praising of murder.

Hence there is a sort of a dualistic game going on wherein both sides are
abusive of the terminology.

-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Brian  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > 2009/7/1 Brian :
> >> They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can
> >> program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the
> >> conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)
> >
> > "Program the encyclopaedia"? At least try and give people a meaningful
> > idea of what the thread you are pointing them towards is about...
>
> Dude. Go nitpick someone else.


Your response to Thomas' legitimate point is in poor form. Thomas is right:
You provide no context, no direct link to a substantive wikitech-l post, no
link to an overview on a meta page, and (more to the point) you gave no
indication that the techies actually want non-technical input.

-S
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Brian  wrote:

The fact that the "techies" do not actively seek out community input
> is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
> supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
> people who edit Wikipedia articles the most. They write code, fix
> servers etc...


You are not actually correct. Things develop the way they do because they
arise as the natural next step. All things improve incrementally, and in
accord with available tools and available understanding. You're too young to
remember what CamelCase is aren't you?

More technically minded
> folks believe that they can sit down and powwow about the technically best
> solution to a problem and can't even imagine what sort of input the
> community could possibly provide. It's totally backwards. The conversation
> should start on WikiEN-l, not wikitech-l. You have to first adequately
> characterize a problem before you start implementing solutions.


While you are certainly right about this idea that techs can get stuck in
certain places that non-tech insights could help with, you are wrong about
certain other things. The facts are: They deal with a lot already, they know
the work involved for any request, they understand the concepts well enough
to know what works and what doesn't, they can reconceptualize ideas and
solutions in ways that the rest of us cannot (seen this a dozen times here),
and they know very well where the tipping point is when things need to get
to the next step.

If there's a technical idea that the tech and general communities need to
interface about, write it up in detail on the meta wiki, and give us a link.
[[meta:New parser language]] or [[meta:New backend scripting language]]
might work.

-Stevertigo


PS: Other comments and responses:

The title says it all - MediaWiki is getting a new programming language.
>

What does that even mean? That everything in PHP code will be rewritten in
Python? Context for non-techies means something you may not yet understand.


It was wholly sufficient.


Your initial message, unlike perhaps your typical coded program, was neither
wholly sufficient nor actually sufficient. "Template parser functions" for
example, as Tom said, would have provided context.

I assume, having signed up to this list, that you understand what
> wikitech-l is and where it is located
>

1) Dont assume anything. 2) Always provide a link. 3) "Location" does not by
itself or in context indicate any relevance. 4) Terseness of the type you
provide does not facilitate *any understanding.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> The thing I find astonishing is that people are willing to work with
> these templates and actually maintain them. I've coded regexes, tcl,
> sh, prolog, haskell, C..., but I have absolutely no desire to get this
> crap on my hands.
>

Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now.

-Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Stevertigo wrote:
>> Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now.

> Hardly. The templating system has been a source of complaints and
> frustrations for a very long time.

Well, agreed. But its important to separate complaints about its
nested (and usually whitespace removed) syntax from complaints about
its limited functionality.  If we look at these issues of syntax and
functionality separately, its conceivable that the current "language"
can just be 1) cleaned up a bit, and 2) extended in functionality to a
satisfactory degree.

With regard to 2), the "new language" idea presumes that there are a
large number of serious useful functions that Wikimedians need, that a
language like Lua (the frontrunner) can provide, and that would be too
much of a pain to replicate in amended/extended functions.

With regard to 1), ostensibly just handling the whitespace issue
better would allow for better formatting, and thus better readability.

> The current system of parser functions is actually an improvement over
> what existed previously, because at least it provides for an if-then
> statement and some rudimentary calculations and logical branching.

What other specific functions are needed is thus the real question.

> It was because that system DIDN'T "work quite well" that parser functions were
> developed.

Things work only as well as they do. I'm trying to get more than 25
miles to the gallon from my vehicle (a Ukranian mini-bus shaped like a
taco), but that's what I've got.

> I should mention too that a number of Mediawiki extensions have been
> written over the years -- Semantic Mediawiki, for example -- which are
> also basically attempts to overcome the limitations of Mediawiki
> syntax and the templating system in particular.

Hm. Semantic MW doesn't qualify, AIUI, and I'm not aware of any other
particular extensions to parser functionality.

> I think they understand all too well that it's not a good system, and
> they also understand how difficult it will be to come up with a better
> alternative.

Hm. Interesting.

-Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM,  wrote:
> The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it 
> that
> means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively structured
> codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of our 
> contributors to
> even try to make a break into them.
> In addition to that, English-like languages are easier for programmers in 
> other
> languages to pick up because they seem more sensible than learning a whole new
> set of obscure codewords and symbols.? A language that uses "AND" instead of
> "&", "+" or "[]".? A language that uses "NOT" instead of "-", "/" or "_".

It's easy to be a native English speaker and then demand another
system to be parasitic to it. Note that if "English" itself isn't
sufficient where "English" lacks the required (programming) concepts.
And there's probably no issue of using Farsi or Bengali anyway, as
all/most programming languages are already parasitic to English. (Lua,
mentioned previously, written by Brazilians, does not use Portuguese
for anything other than its name).

Part of the idea to begin with for using arbitrary symbols for
operator symbols is to strengthen the projections between programming
and mathematics, and maybe also in a certain way to transcend natural
language peculiarities. It's not about efficiency == parasitism to
English, but its about representing computing as mathematics. AIUI. Of
course the ASCII dependency issue puts characteristic limitations
(what WJ calls "easier") on things, but that's out of scope.

-Steve

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l