Mailing List Archive

Erik Moeller wrote:
> sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
> following course of action:
>
> 1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
>
> 2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
> wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
>
> 3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
> static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
> Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
> it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
> to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.

All sounds good to me.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare approves of Erik's proposal. Then again, James Hare likes hearing
James Hare talk about James Hare. JAMES HARE!

On 9/25/06, Brion Vibber <brion@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
> > following course of action:
> >
> > 1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
> >
> > 2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
> > wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
> >
> > 3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
> > static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
> > Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
> > it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
> > to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.
>
> All sounds good to me.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:

>sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
>following course of action:
>
>1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
>
>2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
>wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
>
>3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
>static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
>Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
>it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
>to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.
>
>Does this sound like a sensible course of action?
>
>If you are a volunteer, and willing to host the content, please send
>me a private e-mail response.
>
>

Just out of general interest, why exactly is this course of action being
followed, particularly for complete dumping of the 9/11 wiki? Are there
bandwidth issues that are getting out of hand here? Is this really
taking up so much hard drive space that it could be better used for a
much more worthy Wikimedia project?

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this wiki be turned back on and left
alone for vandals to play with as they have done so in the relatively
recent past, nor am I asking the WMF to deal with all kinds of useless
garbage that does eventually clog up some Wikimedia projects over time.

From my understanding of the sep11 wikipedia and why it was
established, that there were many very heartfelt additions to Wikipedia
in the days, weeks, and months after the 9/11 attacks on the USA.
Rather than simply culling all of this content from Wikipedia,
particularly for the "not noteworthy" individuals who had substantial
information added about them only to be nominated for deletion on
Wikipedia, this Wiki was set up to deal with that traffic and serve as a
repository of that information and go into depth about the 9/11 attacks.

At this point I would agree that this has become an historical archive
of generally 1st hand reports (again, another reason for culling on
en.wikipedia) and other information about the events of that attack.
This also deals with the general issue of how the WMF deals with
information of historcal nature.

If this is a worry about hard drive space on the computers, I would
offer another alternative: How about deleting all archival edits that
are more than two years old? I mean, do we really need to read some of
Jimbo's early edits to Wikipedia from over five years ago that are now
completely rewritten? At least this is something to think about if hard
drive space is becoming a substantial issue, as even the most obscure
and neglected project or even article is likely to get at least some
attention by somebody over the course of two years to revert any major
vandalism requiring edits going back any further.

BTW, offers have been made in the past to privately host this content
(the sep11.wikipedia) but those offers are all more than a year old and
circumstances have indeed changed. I'm not exactly sure where to go
with it, but closing it down completely just doesn't seem right to me.
I do support the "freeze" on the database, as I think the effort to add
substantial quantities of content has essentially run its course.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

"I mean, do we really need to read some of
Jimbo's early edits to Wikipedia from over five years ago that are now
completely rewritten? At least this is something to think about if hard
drive space is becoming a substantial issue, as even the most obscure
and neglected project or even article is likely to get at least some
attention by somebody over the course of two years to revert any major
vandalism requiring edits going back any further."

1) Hard drive space is not an issue. It's the fact that we no longer have a
need to keep the wiki open.
2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire history of
articles.

On 9/25/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
> >following course of action:
> >
> >1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
> >
> >2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
> >wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
> >
> >3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
> >static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
> >Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
> >it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
> >to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.
> >
> >Does this sound like a sensible course of action?
> >
> >If you are a volunteer, and willing to host the content, please send
> >me a private e-mail response.
> >
> >
>
> Just out of general interest, why exactly is this course of action being
> followed, particularly for complete dumping of the 9/11 wiki? Are there
> bandwidth issues that are getting out of hand here? Is this really
> taking up so much hard drive space that it could be better used for a
> much more worthy Wikimedia project?
>
> Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this wiki be turned back on and left
> alone for vandals to play with as they have done so in the relatively
> recent past, nor am I asking the WMF to deal with all kinds of useless
> garbage that does eventually clog up some Wikimedia projects over time.
>
> From my understanding of the sep11 wikipedia and why it was
> established, that there were many very heartfelt additions to Wikipedia
> in the days, weeks, and months after the 9/11 attacks on the USA.
> Rather than simply culling all of this content from Wikipedia,
> particularly for the "not noteworthy" individuals who had substantial
> information added about them only to be nominated for deletion on
> Wikipedia, this Wiki was set up to deal with that traffic and serve as a
> repository of that information and go into depth about the 9/11 attacks.
>
> At this point I would agree that this has become an historical archive
> of generally 1st hand reports (again, another reason for culling on
> en.wikipedia) and other information about the events of that attack.
> This also deals with the general issue of how the WMF deals with
> information of historcal nature.
>
> If this is a worry about hard drive space on the computers, I would
> offer another alternative: How about deleting all archival edits that
> are more than two years old? I mean, do we really need to read some of
> Jimbo's early edits to Wikipedia from over five years ago that are now
> completely rewritten? At least this is something to think about if hard
> drive space is becoming a substantial issue, as even the most obscure
> and neglected project or even article is likely to get at least some
> attention by somebody over the course of two years to revert any major
> vandalism requiring edits going back any further.
>
> BTW, offers have been made in the past to privately host this content
> (the sep11.wikipedia) but those offers are all more than a year old and
> circumstances have indeed changed. I'm not exactly sure where to go
> with it, but closing it down completely just doesn't seem right to me.
> I do support the "freeze" on the database, as I think the effort to add
> substantial quantities of content has essentially run its course.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> If this is a worry about hard drive space on the computers,

Nope. The space is trivial.

> BTW, offers have been made in the past to privately host this content
> (the sep11.wikipedia) but those offers are all more than a year old and
> circumstances have indeed changed. I'm not exactly sure where to go
> with it, but closing it down completely just doesn't seem right to me.
> I do support the "freeze" on the database, as I think the effort to add
> substantial quantities of content has essentially run its course.

Anyone anywhere is welcome to grab the dump files and host it at any time, as
they have been for years.

Personally I don't care whether Wikimedia continues to host the site or not; its
purpose was and remains simply to preserve pages that were being deleted from
Wikipedia.

If it's distracting to have it on an open but unattended wiki, of course, then
it becomes a nuisance; that's why it's been locked and there's talk of shutting
it down altogether.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/25/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:


(...)

I'm not exactly sure where to go
> with it, but closing it down completely just doesn't seem right to me.
>

But for at least 104 editors [1], sep11wiki isn't welcome on Wikimedia
servers.

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Archive#Closure_of_September_11_Wiki
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/25/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> BTW, offers have been made in the past to privately host this content
> (the sep11.wikipedia) but those offers are all more than a year old and
> circumstances have indeed changed. I'm not exactly sure where to go
> with it, but closing it down completely just doesn't seem right to me.
> I do support the "freeze" on the database, as I think the effort to add
> substantial quantities of content has essentially run its course.

I don't think sep11.wikipedia.org falls within the mission of the WMF,
or ever did. It has been perceived, and mentioned, as a "sister
project," but really is not. Cleaning it up and moving it to a
dedicated domain name, then abandoning the relationship with the WMF
does not delete the history; to the contrary, it shows our dedication
to preserving even off-topic content of historical interset. A
volunteer has now been found and a dedicated domain name has been
registered for this purpose.

This proposed process reflects many many past discussions on the
matter and I'd like to close it relatively quickly now.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:

>"I mean, do we really need to read some of
>Jimbo's early edits to Wikipedia from over five years ago that are now
>completely rewritten? At least this is something to think about if hard
>drive space is becoming a substantial issue, as even the most obscure
>and neglected project or even article is likely to get at least some
>attention by somebody over the course of two years to revert any major
>vandalism requiring edits going back any further."
>
>1) Hard drive space is not an issue. It's the fact that we no longer have a
>need to keep the wiki open.
>2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire history of
>articles.
>
>
Where in the GFDL is this stated?

You do not need to keep a running history of every edit and every
possible version that was added. All you need to do is list all of the
contributors to the article, which isn't the same thing as keeping the
full edit history. I guess an edit count would be nice as well, but it
is not strictly necessary, nor is preserving in the edit history
anything that was completely reverted due to being a troll. This simply
isn't factual based on any legal requirement of the GFDL. This is
simply old-time Wiki practices that have been assumed over the years.

Think about this. When Wikipedia is over 100 years old, is it really
going to be necessary to preserve each and every edit to every article?
If the hard drive space is available, I guess it wouldn't hurt, but
this does approach the level of absurdity when there are decades of edit
history to revert to. While I find it very interesting to read some
very early versions of some articles, it is not written in stone that
these early versions must always be available.

I'm just suggesting that for some articles that this massive back
history isn't necessary and if hard drive is really an issue, that
culling all of the early edits from en.wikipedia alone would be more
than enough to perhaps give room for almost all of the rest of the
Wikimedia projects combined. Or at least it would be an interesting
question to research and certainly would do far more to save hard drive
space than shutting down one very, very obscure Wikimedia project that
really doesn't take up that much hard drive space anyway.

I'm also suggesting that the advocates of shutting down sep11.wikipedia
completely are doing so based on irrational fears or emotional
justifications, not based on any technical need or hardship to the
Wikimedia Foundation.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:


(...)

> I'm also suggesting that the advocates of shutting down sep11.wikipedia
> completely are doing so based on irrational fears or emotional
> justifications, not based on any technical need or hardship to the
> Wikimedia Foundation.


Stop imediatle with [[WP:XFD]] if this is the problem. Wikimedia is a global
organization or a organization for United States of America?
sep11.wikipedia(wikipedia??) isn't a global memorial wiki... This is
the point.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Luiz Augusto wrote:

>On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>James Hare wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>(...)
>
>
>
>>I'm also suggesting that the advocates of shutting down sep11.wikipedia
>>completely are doing so based on irrational fears or emotional
>>justifications, not based on any technical need or hardship to the
>>Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>>
>
>
>Stop imediatle with [[WP:XFD]] if this is the problem. Wikimedia is a global
>organization or a organization for United States of America?
>sep11.wikipedia(wikipedia??) isn't a global memorial wiki... This is
>the point.
>
>
>
I'm not trying to suggest that new projects of similar scope be created
here. Far from it, and I would be against any similar project from
being created. But the point here is that the project has been created
and does have a community of participants that have been working on it
for some time.

I'm also not advocating that this project be left on as a fully editable
public wiki, but I am saying that it appears from the responses and
comments that have been offered on this mailing list that it is a
foregone conclusion that this project is not only to be put into
inactive read-only mode but that it is to be completely removed from the
Wikimedia Foundation servers. I am merely trying to raise an objection
and try to find out exactly why this is being done and instead I'm
getting emotional responses rather than objective quantifiable
justifications.

As for objective quantifiable justifications for shutting down
completely and removing this project from the servers, I mentioned
network bandwidth and hard drive space. Since neither of these are
being used as justification for culling this from Wikimedia servers, I
leave the rest to other neutral observers to come to their own
conclusion as to why this is being removed, such as anti-American
attitudes. A project that is in a read-only has no need for admins to
revert vandalism nor is there need to even put the project into the cron
cycle for the database dumps. Those are also objective quantifiable
justifications for culling that also don't seem to be a problem at the
moment. That developers would have to perhaps explicitly add some small
amount of code to the project database processes to make sure it doesn't
go through the dump process that the rest of Wikimedia project go
through would be an annoyance, but dealing with broken links going into
the sep11.wikipedia would also be as much of an issue if it were removed
completely.

Another very reasonable objection would be to help pay for domain costs,
such as wikipedia.org, wikibooks.org, etc. Only there isn't an
objective monitary cost involved in keeping sep11.wikipedia.org as a
domain beyond the costs of keeping wikipedia.org, which I don't see as
being a problem.

I guess there isn't any other advocate to see that this information is
simply kept and otherwise ignored on Wikimedia servers. The only reason
why I'm bringing this up at all is that there is a larger issue involved
here about what to do with any Wikimedia project that has been closed
down and otherwise deemed to be "unworthy" of continued support,
whatever that reason may be. This includes the Klingon Wikipedia, for
instance, which is also in read-only mode. Whatever happens to the
sep11.wikipedia is going to set a preceedent for all future Wikimedia
projects that enjoy a similar fate.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> Whatever happens to the
> sep11.wikipedia is going to set a preceedent for all future Wikimedia
> projects that enjoy a similar fate.

Well, there's at least three very different types of situations:

a) a project we really do not want anymore, because it falls outside
our scope and mission. Solution: Find a willing host to preserve the
content and remove it from WMF servers. While tlh.wp is still around
as a read-only site, tokipona.wp was deleted AFAICT (tokipona.wp is
blank) and restarted on Wikia. So precedent appears to exist.

b) a project that falls within our scope & mission, but has fallen out
of use, e.g., many of the Wikinews editions. Here we might place a
notice of lock-down and have some reactivation process.

c) a project that falls within our scope & mission, but is in very
serious violation of policy/law, esp. copyright law. Here the project
may have to be restarted from scratch (cf. closure of
fr.wikiquote.org).

In terms of Internet history, I would also point out that, in addition
to our own efforts to preserve this content by finding suitable hosts
for it, there is the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at
www.archive.org, which takes regular snapshots of web content. Given
the value of its historical archives and the shrinking costs of
storage space & bandwidth, I think it is highly likely that they will
be preserved for a long time.

IMHO the distinction between "projects" and "pages" is actually rather
arbitrary here. We delete off-topic content all the time. But I do
think we should, indendently of whether we are dealing with projects
or pages, make an effort to give large identifiable _sets_ of at least
superficially useful content an appropriate new home if we remove them
from our servers.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Luiz Augusto wrote:
>
> >On 9/26/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>James Hare wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


(...)


> I leave the rest to other neutral observers to come to their own
> conclusion as to why this is being removed, such as anti-American
> attitudes.


No, I don't have nothing against americans. If you see this question based
in xenophobic and non-xenophobic peoples... I don't have any necessity to
try to reply to you in any another point, because this discussion is based
in a fallacy. World isn't based in pro-americans and against-americans. Have
a nice day.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire history of
> articles.
>
That's blatantly false. Under the GFDL you are required to keep the
names and years of the historical versions, but you don't have to keep
the text of them.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.

And in 100 years, while the amount of edits will add up, better hard drives
with more capacity will become cheaper. Much cheaper. Heck, it'll become
much better and much cheaper in 10 years.

On 9/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) According to the GFDL, yes, we are required to keep the entire
> history of
> > articles.
> >
> That's blatantly false. Under the GFDL you are required to keep the
> names and years of the historical versions, but you don't have to keep
> the text of them.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/24/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> sep11.wikipedia.org is currently in read-only mode. I suggest the
> following course of action:
>
> 1) That the wiki be opened again for a period of 4 weeks.
>
> 2) That an open message is to be sent out to ask for clean-up of the
> wiki -- remove irrelevant content, possible lingering spam, etc.
>
> 3) That, after the cleanup is complete, the wiki is exported as a
> static HTML dump and hosted by a volunteer external to the Wikimedia
> Foundation under its own domain name. No reference should be made to
> it from then on as an official Wikimedia project. It might be possible
> to arrange advance renumeration for the domain name cost and hosting.
>
> Does this sound like a sensible course of action?
>
I'd prefer that the wiki be kept, but assuming a rough majority of
people disagree with me, and feel that the wiki is outside the scope
of the foundation (which apparently is true), this seems like a
reasonable exit strategy, with one exception.

I don't think the export should be a static HTML dump. The full
history should be exported, as well. The details of how things were
edited and created is as much an important part of Internet history as
the resulting work, and Internet Archive isn't granular enough for
this. At the very least one final full-history dump should be made
and put up to download for a while. Really this should be done
*before* any administrative pages are deleted.

One thing that unfortunately will probably be lost is any articles
that have been deleted. Y'all won't agree to send me a copy of them
before totally destroying them, will you?

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/27/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
> I don't think the export should be a static HTML dump. The full
> history should be exported, as well.

It will actually be an import into a separate MediaWiki install which
will again be made read-only, so the history will be preserved. Jeff
Merkey has graciously volunteered to do this and registered the domain
name sep11memories.org for the purpose.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
> delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
> the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
> have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.
>
If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
mission of the foundation.

I suppose Wikimedia could continue to host it, on a separate domain
name, in read-only mode, without any reference to it being an official
project, but if someone else is willing to do this it would be better.

And I'm sure someone else *is* willing to do this. Erik, if no one
replies offering to host the project, I'll do it. I'll throw it up on
some $10/month hosting site (probably cheaper than that) in read-only
mode and be done with it. But I didn't respond to Erik because I
assume someone else is more willing and able to do so.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik said Jeff Merkey is willing to do the hosting.

On 9/26/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
> > delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over
> to
> > the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do
> what we
> > have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are
> cheap.
> >
> If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
> foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
> Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
> mission of the foundation.
>
> I suppose Wikimedia could continue to host it, on a separate domain
> name, in read-only mode, without any reference to it being an official
> project, but if someone else is willing to do this it would be better.
>
> And I'm sure someone else *is* willing to do this. Erik, if no one
> replies offering to host the project, I'll do it. I'll throw it up on
> some $10/month hosting site (probably cheaper than that) in read-only
> mode and be done with it. But I didn't respond to Erik because I
> assume someone else is more willing and able to do so.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony wrote:

>On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
>>delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
>>the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
>>have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.
>>
>>
>>
>If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
>foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
>Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
>mission of the foundation.
>

This, to me, is an ex-post facto redefinition of the scope and mission
of the Wikimedia Foundation, or something akin to backronyms. This is
only outside of the scope of the WMF because those involved with the day
to day affairs of the WMF just don't want to be bothered with this. It
isn't part of some more noble and legalistic attitude that seems to be
presented here.

I am suggesting that I and some others have a contrary viewpoint here,
and it shouldn't be assumed that this is an unanimous decision to shut
down this project in this manner. I admit that sometimes decisions like
this need to be made, but please be honest about why they are being made
rather than trying to sugar coat them to be for reasons that really
don't exist.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 28/09/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:

> This, to me, is an ex-post facto redefinition of the scope and mission
> of the Wikimedia Foundation, or something akin to backronyms. This is
> only outside of the scope of the WMF because those involved with the day
> to day affairs of the WMF just don't want to be bothered with this. It
> isn't part of some more noble and legalistic attitude that seems to be
> presented here.


Uh, not really. It was put on a separate wiki to get it the heck out
of Wikipedia.


> I am suggesting that I and some others have a contrary viewpoint here,
> and it shouldn't be assumed that this is an unanimous decision to shut
> down this project in this manner. I admit that sometimes decisions like
> this need to be made, but please be honest about why they are being made
> rather than trying to sugar coat them to be for reasons that really
> don't exist.


No, no. You don't understand. The Foundation is relentlessly
Americocentric and dedicated to the pursuit of en:wp running roughshod
over all other languages!


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:


> > I am suggesting that I and some others have a
> contrary viewpoint here,
> > and it shouldn't be assumed that this is an
> unanimous decision to shut
> > down this project in this manner. I admit that
> sometimes decisions like
> > this need to be made, but please be honest about
> why they are being made
> > rather than trying to sugar coat them to be for
> reasons that really
> > don't exist.
>
>
> No, no. You don't understand. The Foundation is
> relentlessly
> Americocentric and dedicated to the pursuit of en:wp
> running roughshod
> over all other languages!
>
>
> - d.
>


This is at least the third time you have you replied
in this manner to someone's concerns. I can't
articulate what is exactly wrong with your reply, but
I know that I personally dislike it. Please stop. It
does nothing to further disscusion or help find
solutions.

Birgitte SB




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:


> > I am suggesting that I and some others have a
> contrary viewpoint here,
> > and it shouldn't be assumed that this is an
> unanimous decision to shut
> > down this project in this manner. I admit that
> sometimes decisions like
> > this need to be made, but please be honest about
> why they are being made
> > rather than trying to sugar coat them to be for
> reasons that really
> > don't exist.
>
>
> No, no. You don't understand. The Foundation is
> relentlessly
> Americocentric and dedicated to the pursuit of en:wp
> running roughshod
> over all other languages!
>
>
> - d.
>


This is at least the third time you have you replied
in this manner to someone's concerns. I can't
articulate what is exactly wrong with your reply, but
I know that I personally dislike it. Please stop. It
does nothing to further disscusion or help find
solutions.

Birgitte SB




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi Wikipedians,

Robert Scott Horning schrieb am 28.09.2006 18:26:
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
>>foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
>>Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
>>mission of the foundation.
>
> This, to me, is an ex-post facto redefinition of the scope and mission
> of the Wikimedia Foundation, or something akin to backronyms. This is
> only outside of the scope of the WMF because those involved with the day
> to day affairs of the WMF just don't want to be bothered with this. It
> isn't part of some more noble and legalistic attitude that seems to be
> presented here.

It seems crystal clear to me, that their is a big difference between
sep11 and any other WM project, take the NPOV for an example. It also
seems to irritate people from the outside. We had supporters in germany
- mainly two big universities - who stated that they are very unhappy in
helping us out with projects or mirroring the wikipedia dvd/books/mobile
files (yeah, I know, theese are project from third parties) in the
future, because they disagree that sep11 suits into the WM project
portfolio and the "scope & mission" and that they are unable to support
us further.

Well, not to be misunderstood: This concrete occurence is more than a
year old and I don't argue, that we should do what outsiders demands
from us only to get their support. This should only be an example that
many people think, that sep11 don't fit to our mission and that they are
confused indeed.

Bye and sorry for my bad English, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 28/09/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No, no. You don't understand. The Foundation is
> > relentlessly
> > Americocentric and dedicated to the pursuit of en:wp
> > running roughshod
> > over all other languages!

> This is at least the third time you have you replied
> in this manner to someone's concerns. I can't
> articulate what is exactly wrong with your reply, but
> I know that I personally dislike it. Please stop. It
> does nothing to further disscusion or help find
> solutions.


I mean that this appears to be a belief held by many non-Americans
around this list, so I found it strange that someone then accused the
Foundation of doing the opposite. My apologies if I offended.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l