Re: lies lies lies

--- C A S RINKLEFF <arinkleff@...> wrote:
> You people just lie all the time. This website is an amazing
> experiment in groupthink, juvenile insults, and a refusal to
> acknowledge even the most basic processes of judicial review. Not
> only was I banned; but, you people are so wrapped up in your
> deceit, you can't even acknowledge the ban! Lol -- its fascinating
> how messed up this site is becoming. When is the cabal going to
> grow up; all that power-tripping is gonna take its toll on you.

Dear Adam,

  I was wondering about all this myself, and was troubled. I am very
thankful for your frank evaluation of the matter. 

  As a long-term contributor to this project, I have an interest in
seeing it go forward in the best possible manner. 

  Of course, I understand your frustration, and while I hoped you
might have chosen a different approach, I nevertheless respect your
opinion and your desire to communicate it to us.

  I am looking forward to work with you to better Wikipedia. I
believe you have a lot to contribute as you seem dedicated and
indefatiguable. 

  On a more personal note, I sincerely hope you have overcome some of
the issues that had plagued you in times past.

  Again, I look forward to your contributions to the project.

Thumbnails

After discussion with some people (especially Tannin) on the 
en.wikipedia, I propose a few changes (more like additions) to the 
thumbnail function.

Here's the "main proposal":

    [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|some text]] generates a normal thumbnail
    [[image:bla.jpg|thumb=bla_small.jpg|some text]] uses "bla_small.jpg" 
as the thumbnail

This associates the manually created thumbnail with the larger image in 
a machine-readable fashion. It should only be used if the manual 
thumbnail is of significant better quality than the automatic one, or if 
the manual thumbnail shows an alternate view (e.g., only a part) of the 
larger image.

Additionally, the automatic thumbnail generation should be improved:
* Add a little sharpening, at least to photos (.jpg/.jpeg).
* Apparently, automatically generated thumbnails look nicer when they 
are recaled by an exact even number. For example, for a 640x480 image, a 
thumbnail of 200px is requested, generate one with a width of 213px 
instead, as this is a factor of 33.3%, or 1/3. I propose to use a 
variation of up to 10% from the requested width.

If there is no special reason *not* to do this, implementation can start 
soon. At least the "main proposal" should be easy enough to code.

Magnus

foundation list

I have now on three separate occasions in the last month tried to 
subscribe to the foundation mailing list with absolutely no result.  
What's happening there?

Ec

Re: foundation list

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I have now on three separate occasions in the last month tried to 
> subscribe to the foundation mailing list with absolutely no result.  
> What's happening there?

No idea, but I've just subscribed you to it manually.

-- brion vibber (brion  <at>  pobox.com)

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

Re: Thumbnails

Magnus Manske wrote:

> Here's the "main proposal":
> 
>    [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|some text]] generates a normal thumbnail
>    [[image:bla.jpg|thumb=bla_small.jpg|some text]] uses "bla_small.jpg" 
> as the thumbnail
> 
> This associates the manually created thumbnail with the larger image in 
> a machine-readable fashion. It should only be used if the manual 
> thumbnail is of significant better quality than the automatic one, or if 
> the manual thumbnail shows an alternate view (e.g., only a part) of the 
> larger image.

I'm neither voicing opposition nor support here, but I would like to 
point out that this is kind of asking for trouble: More and more people 
are inevitably going to claim that their manual thumbnails have 
"significantly better quality"...

Timwi

Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Some Restrictions May Apply

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:28:23 +0000 (UTC) "Dan Drake" <dd@...> 
wrote:

>These lines could be sorted by the submitter ot the change, turning the 
>faceless entities into something resembling people.  At present, of 
>course, if an edit looks like vandalism, one can check User Contributions 
>to see if that's the user's pattern of behavior; but having the user's 
>edits grouped together in this way would encourage looking at them 
>together, which would automatically bring out any patterns.

I already submitted something similar to Sourceforge Feature Requests a few 
weeks ago: A recent changes sorted by author.

I think its use would especially be in case a newbie or IP address was doing 
good work - check 1 or 2, and then go on to the next person. Even checking 
on the regulars could be done reasonably fast that way.

>Further: a list of recent edits by randomly selected anons & newbies could
>be a sort of alternate watchlist.  When I've made my daily check that the 
>articles I know about haven't been crapped on, I click on the alternate 
>list, and see what a few random new editors are doing.  Somebody else 
>clicks and gets a different list.  If a bunch of people did this, we'd 
>have a much improved spotting of new vandals, misguided flaming newbies, 
>and astoundingly good new contributors.  It could feed into some kind of 
>mentoring, as advocated by Ed Poor. 

One that I have thought of (with others at nl:): Give edits a 'trust' value. 
It starts low (say 0) for newbies, higher (say 1) for regulars and even 
higher (say 1.5) for sysops. When a regular or sysop watches the change, its 
trust value is heightened, with a cap at some maximal value (say 2).

Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Some Restrictions May Apply

--- Andre Engels <andrewiki@...> wrote:

> Then allow people to get a list of badly-trusted changes. This way
> we can 
> make it easier to have check-ups cover all messages instead of this
> one not 
> being checked and that one five times.

I like the concept. 
However, I would like to see little checkmarks next to the edits.
with the name of the checker on mouseover. Visually, then, the number
of checkmarks would help show who has looked at it.
Actually, since it would not confer a seal of approval, I would
rather see a pair of eyes, pair of glasses of some sort, to simply
indicate that a particular edit has been looked at, rather than give
the perhaps false sense of having been "validated and accepted".

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan@...
chris.mahan@...
http://www.christophermahan.com/

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: Thumbnails

--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske@...> wrote:
> After discussion with some people (especially Tannin) on the 
> en.wikipedia, I propose a few changes (more like additions) to the 
> thumbnail function.
> 
> Here's the "main proposal":
> 
>     [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|some text]] generates a normal thumbnail
>     [[image:bla.jpg|thumb=bla_small.jpg|some text]] uses "bla_small.jpg" 
> as the thumbnail

This would be very useful due to the fact that cropping needs to be extreme
with images that are displayed as small thumbs while cropping can be more lax
for images displayed as larger thumbs, and very lax on image description pages.
Alternatively one should be able to redirect the image page of the thumb to
point in the right place, but the result of that is ugly (the image from the
redirected page and the target page are displayed on the same page). Another
idea would be to specify the crop from within the image code, thus eliminating
the need for two uploaded images: 

[[image:blah.jpg|thumb|crop=right10%;left15%;top5%;bottom20%|some text]]

Other things that would be *very* nice
*re-enable the center tag
*create a 'caption' tag so that captions can be easily added to images which
are displayed at their actual size in articles. The only difference in look
from 'thumb' tagged images, would be the absence of the box within a box icon. 

> ...
> Additionally, the automatic thumbnail generation should be improved:

Forget mentoring systems, we need a web of trust

Partially cross posted to WikiEN-l since this is more of a global issue:

--- Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote on WikiEN-l:
>...
> However, I just noticed today that I've managed to make something like
> 70 edits from a single IP address, & no one's seemed to notice. Not that
> I care, but one has to wonder how many more anonymous contributors are
> quietly working away on a regular basis, adding positively to Wikipedia
> without anyone noticing.

Lots (especially small copyedits and adding interlanguage links). But most of
our vandalism and other newbie behavior also comes from IP addresses, meaning
people on RC patrol have to check *each* one (lots of duplicated effort). A
unified log-in system will cut down on the proportion of good anon edits vs bad
simply by displaying user name's of people who are adding interlanguage links. 

But what we really need is a way to share the workload by excluding or graying
out and reducing the font size of edits in a special RC once they have been
viewed more than x times (3 perhaps) by a certain group of users (a preference
choice between admins or non-newbie logged-in users would be nice, for
example). To be maximally useful, this would have to be applied to the newbie
RC that Brion gave a link to and the anon RC as well. 

In the long term though, we need a web of trust system where each logged-in
user can select the people they trust and even the people whose trust opinions
they trust - thus trusting by proxy. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014300.html 

Somebody created a page in the Wikipedia namespace on en.wiki about this, but I
can't find it. :(

Re: [Wikitech-l] Thumbnails

I have summarized all proposed changes on
    http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbnails

Marco Krohn wrote:

>it might be a solution to modify the code, such that
>
>  [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|200px ...]]
>
>gives the old result and
>
>  [[image:bla.jpg|thumb|~200px ...]]
>
>means that you want something which is roughly ~200 px
>

So funny, I thought of the exact same syntax befor I reached your mail 
in the thread. Must really be intuitive! 

Magnus