Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions) for English Wikipedia.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote in message news:4ac226e2.7010...@gmail.com... Indeed I fully agree that ensuring that using the extension on massively edited pages is something that works fine, is entirely prudent; whereas ensuring perfect functionality for the full force of the extension for application on all English wikipedia pages, is probably less so. It's not just that. On a technological level, considerable sections of the FlaggedRevs code are called on *every* page view, whether the page has FlaggedRevs behaviour or not. Even if it's eventually saying no, carry on normally in 99% of the cases, the question is still asked. And asked on every one of those six billion pageviews. When the answer is yes, we need to do something special here, of course, the load that the FlaggedRevs extension applies to the servers increases further, but every extension installed affects performance on every pageview, to a greater or lesser degree. In the case of the site that carries such a huge proportion of our load *anyway*, lesser is definitely the degree to aim for. --HM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] National Portrait Gallery
IANAL, but I don't think I need to be to say the The Foundation is not in legal jeopardy here unless it chooses to be. It's protected by a four-thousand-mile moat, a war of independence, several layers of legal code and a US Supreme Court decision. It doesn't have any assets in the UK as far as I'm aware; there is absolutely nothing a UK court could punish them with. That's not the same as saying that a UK court case couldn't result in a judgment that was disadvantageous to the Foundation. For instance, I *believe* from the same set of legal issues as those surrounding peer-to-peer filesharing, that if the images were unequivocally found to be copyright violations in the UK, then any UK reader or editor who accessed them could be exposed to some sort of legal nastiness. I agree that any comment, however informal, from someone who *is* an English lawyer, would be very useful. --HM peter boelens pb...@xs4all.nl wrote in message news:cf6dc9a6b75e4d7583ccdca394fc6...@cc1070822a... I probably missed a few posts, but the way this is going raises some serious questions. It would be helpfull if someone with good knowledge of English Law would explain the risks of going trough the English Courts. I am a lawyer, but not an English one. What I do know of the English Legal system is that losing a lawsuit there is a very expensive excercise. And if this thing goes to court there is a real chance that the Foundation will loose. So a deal with NPG would be the sensible thing, and if a deal is not possible deleting seems the better option. Peter b. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution on small interactive devices andsystems
We need to think a little bit outside the box, here; this domain should really be available, and make sense to use, for *all* WMF sites. http://www.wm.org is only occupied by a websquatter at the moment, AFAICT; I think a schema like http://wm.org/wiki_code/article_title or http://wm.org/wiki_code/?oldid=oldid would be cleanest. For enwiki it would be http://wm.org/enwiki/Foo; the worst-case scenario is AFAIK http://wm.org/mediawikiwiki/Foo; still only 28 characters plus the title. Use one of the qqx reserved codes for stuff like copyright, and you have a complete service. --HM Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote in message news:5924f50a0907170633ofbf108al8b2486ae889cc...@mail.gmail.com... On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/7/17 Harald Krichel harald.kric...@googlemail.com: Shouldn't we set up our own URL-aliasing service? This would also have the advantage that you could be sure that the wikimedia shortened urls only lead to wikimedia domains. eg.: http://wp.cx/3tT5u7Z redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=302589573 I discovered yesterday that: enwp.org/Article redirects to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article Sadly, it doesn't work with revision IDs, but it's a start! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Yes it does, enwp.org/?oldid=60372135 should redirect you to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=60372135 which is a 2006 revision of [[Old-Timers' Day]] (thanks Special:Random). -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 63, Issue 39
Something tells me that this was put back and forth through a machine translator... :-D --HM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote in message news:41a006820906150349r26bb0335ve99c0dd42130...@mail.gmail.com... Hoi, It would be nice if you rephrase this. I do not have a clue what you are trying to say. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/15 Shannon Miller shanmiller...@yahoo.com I wish to see no political limitation towards the exploitation of googletranslate technology to the success of wikipedia and its underwriting pockets; because the majority of top google hits equal wikipedia entries, co-existing translation technology should be obsolete as well as necessary for cosmo-consequential agreement. sMilla94070 From: foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:00:06 AM Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 63, Issue 39 Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of foundation-l digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles (picus-viridis) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:20:36 +0200 From: picus-viridis picus-viri...@o2.pl Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: f06edb3.781cdd1.4a33d1d4.93...@o2.pl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Let me disagree. Hungarian is not in the same group by far, and the results make it possible to understand more than 50% of the text (sometimes I'd say above 90%). While this is far from proper translation it is by no means _useless_, since its obvious use is to understand a completely foreign text to some extents. IMHO automatic translations into Polish are useless, as they only allow rough orientation in the contents of an article. It concerns not only translations from Hungarian (in which part of the words whose Polish counterparts were unknown to the automatic translator were left untranslated or translated into English), but even translations from German. (I was trying articles on the children's literature ;-) Picus viridis -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 63, Issue 39 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] pt:wiki policies
Yes, that's definitely true. But our ultimate guiding principle is the greater good of the project. Anyone can edit should apply to, as you say, anyone who is prepared to work constructively with the project, regardless of any disability (we take great pains, for instance, to make pages *editable*, not just readable, by blind users). However, if a user is unable to cause a net benefit to the project through their contributions, for *whatever* reason, then our obligation then becomes one of minimising any damage caused, often by blocking and banning. IIRC there have been past incidents involving editors with mental illnesses; I can imagine a similar problem resulting from an editor with Tourette's. If a contributor is destructive to the project as a result of physical or mental impairment, our actions shouldn't, IMO, be affected by that impairment (partly because it's difficult or impossible to *verify* such a situation). Attempting to get troublesome editors to accept mentorship, or other similar methods, is *always* better for the project than an outright ban, at least initially; the presence or absence of medical conditions doesn't change that either. But Virgilio, it is perfectly possible, and reasonably common, for communities to decide that the most efficient, and beneficial to the project, way of reacting to certain editors' contributions, is to ask them to exercise their right to leave. Banning is a viable action when a user is consistently and irredeemably unconstructive. To us, *why* they are acting in such a way is ultimately irrelevant. --HM David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote in message news:480eb3150906061751s1bb90d18o4a96b57bbd9a3...@mail.gmail.com... The key phrase here is basic policy applicable here is that anybody can edit Naturally, we can do interpret it as meaning anybody who is willing to cooperate with the rules and customs of the site. We also by necessity must interpret it as anyone is able to have access to the internet. Regardless of the possible lack of legal obligations in present law to accommodate medical conditions (and what country's law would apply here?) -- I think we are morally obliged to, to the extent we can do so without inordinate difficulty. The moral obligation is based on the likelihood that we would want accommodations made for ourselves if we needed them. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Happy-melonhappy-me...@live.com wrote: The Wikimedia wikis are, ultimately, private websites, owned and operated by the Foundation. That the software they run happens to allow millions of users the ability to make changes to said site is ultimately just fortunate coincidence: the ability to edit Wikimedia wikis is a privilege, not a right, and one that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. with the usual IANAL disclaimer, legal non-discrimination mandates have no force here. If the issue were a Wikimedia *employee* being fired or blocked with the additional factor of said disability, the situation would be very different. That is not the case. In this context, we are guided only by our own ethics, and the values and goals of the project. --HM Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote in message news:7e948df10906051150h79d82524ha325aeb59ae9f...@mail.gmail.com... Virgilio, you simply have not provided or described sufficient evidence to back up the conclusion that the people who run pt.wp are have severe emotional problems. Such accusations serve only to call your own integrity into question, which I'm sure you wish to avoid. It should be noted that most disability access laws refer to the right of access to certain classes of goods and services and employment. Editing Wikipedia would not seem to fall into any of the typically covered categories, even were it under the jurisdiction of such laws. While I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm not aware of any laws that even require access to the Internet, let alone resources or activities accessed through it. So the question of law is really separate; if you want to make a case about access, it needs to be done on other grounds. In the last discussion it was said by many that the primary role of editors is the contribution and improvement of free content, and the privilege of editing access is provided for that purpose. If we can help people with certain disabilities be productive as editors, we should. If a disabled editor, as any editor, becomes disruptive and impedes the goal of the project (and assistance fails to solve the problem) then that person should be blocked. My suggestion is that if you have a specific problem you'd like addressed, bring that specific problem to the front. The way you've written your post, it seems like you are trying to elicit statements that you can bring back to pt.wp and use in a dispute - all
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third partycompanies #2
bug18898 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18898) is relevant, both in the technical response proposed, which is more appropriate for the parallel wikitech-l thread, and in that the wiki in question is frwiki. The external URL linked (http://pacli.appspot.com/posterstats/tick) seems to be clearly a stats-collector which probably has similar privacy issues. I closed the bug as not being relevant to MediaWiki itself, but asked the OP to take it to frwiki's admins, the Wikimedia Forum on meta, or the Ombudsmen, depending on how severe they thought it. It doesn't look like any of these options were taken. Is this something that should also be looked at in the same way? --HM ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] pt:wiki policies
The Wikimedia wikis are, ultimately, private websites, owned and operated by the Foundation. That the software they run happens to allow millions of users the ability to make changes to said site is ultimately just fortunate coincidence: the ability to edit Wikimedia wikis is a privilege, not a right, and one that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. with the usual IANAL disclaimer, legal non-discrimination mandates have no force here. If the issue were a Wikimedia *employee* being fired or blocked with the additional factor of said disability, the situation would be very different. That is not the case. In this context, we are guided only by our own ethics, and the values and goals of the project. --HM Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote in message news:7e948df10906051150h79d82524ha325aeb59ae9f...@mail.gmail.com... Virgilio, you simply have not provided or described sufficient evidence to back up the conclusion that the people who run pt.wp are have severe emotional problems. Such accusations serve only to call your own integrity into question, which I'm sure you wish to avoid. It should be noted that most disability access laws refer to the right of access to certain classes of goods and services and employment. Editing Wikipedia would not seem to fall into any of the typically covered categories, even were it under the jurisdiction of such laws. While I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm not aware of any laws that even require access to the Internet, let alone resources or activities accessed through it. So the question of law is really separate; if you want to make a case about access, it needs to be done on other grounds. In the last discussion it was said by many that the primary role of editors is the contribution and improvement of free content, and the privilege of editing access is provided for that purpose. If we can help people with certain disabilities be productive as editors, we should. If a disabled editor, as any editor, becomes disruptive and impedes the goal of the project (and assistance fails to solve the problem) then that person should be blocked. My suggestion is that if you have a specific problem you'd like addressed, bring that specific problem to the front. The way you've written your post, it seems like you are trying to elicit statements that you can bring back to pt.wp and use in a dispute - all without telling us what the actual dispute is. That doesn't really fly here. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
