from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Ruimu a rit:
>
>> "Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
>>
>>> Each wikipia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
>>> not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules.
>>> Respecting
>>> some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
>>
>> Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I guess.
>>
>> In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the
>> same entry
>> in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try
>> to reach
>> universalism.)
>>
>> Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be
>> the same
>> as French one or Rwandese one.
>
> I do not think in theory each wp entry should be a translation of the
> other languages. It is too ideal :-)
> I think each should have its specificity, its special taste. Then we
> can inspire from the other versions to set each local version.
>
> you are true that chinese npov should be the same than french or
> rwandese one of course. But that might be expressed differently.

I agree with Anth?re.  There are very few rules that should apply in the
same way to all languages.  The idea of NPOV should apply to all
languages, but the way it's implemented is going to change.  Something
might be a problem  for one language, but not for another.

The issue of whether to use simplified or traditional characters in
Chinese will be an issue since not all Chinese speaking countries have
adopted simplified characters.  This won't matter very much to English
or French speakers who would only occasionally write in Chinese characters.

In French and English, as well as in the other languages of the old
colonial powers, the languages have evolved separately in the mother
country and each of its former colonies.  France lost control of Canada
in 1763 when it was still a monarchy, so that a lot of ideas that were
fundamental to the French Revolution did not automatically become a part
of Canadian thinking.  That alone can make a single translation impossible.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Adam Bishop

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the
	FrenchWikipedia !

body:
I'm Canadian, and I try to work on the French wikipedia sometimes.
Malhereusement, le fran?ais n'est pas ma langue maternelle.  However, I'm
not sure it would help to have French-Canadians there, especially as the
French-Canadians on the English wikipedia can barely work together (with
themselves and with English-Canadians like me) on Quebec-related articles.

Adam Bishop

>From: "Constans, Camille (C.C.)" <cconsta4 at ford.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: "'anthere8 at yahoo.com'"
><anthere8 at yahoo.com>,"'wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org'"
><wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
>Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the
>FrenchWikipedia !
>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:18:44 -0500
>
> >
> >Just as Tarquin would put it (and put it on fr actually), the french
> >wikipedia is very much French, not french speaking. Some
> >outside call it
> >Wikipedia Fran?aise :-( Because it is essentially poved by
> >France culture.
>
>Most of people one fr are french.... It will be nice if we could have some
>africans or canadian to work with us.
>
> >Some articles on french cities, do not mention the city is in France,
> >because it is obvious :-)
>
>We dont think about other country :) But I make the same mistake for cities
>in other country, when I speak about Orlando, I think a Orlando in
>Florida...
>
> >Date articles, current events, are focused on french events
>
>We're french :)
>
> >When two words are used, one canadian, one french, some think the
> >*correct* one is the french (see previous discussion about gay
> >and gai,
> >and what is "correct" anyway)
>
>Difficult question. Why dont using the two words ? with a redirect
>
> >And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write
> >is the one
> >suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic
> >Code. Perhaps
> >Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in
> >Algeria about
> >how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>
>Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between American
>People and british people ?
>
> >We seek to have images legal issues respect the "french" legislation.
>
>Because most of wikipedians are french, and they hope to be able to speak
>or distribute the french wikip?dia "in law".
>
> >The association will be set in France.
>
>Others could be set in Belgium, Canada, and I hope in Senegal....
>
> >A hosting server would be in France likely.
>
>It's juste an idea, because the french association could be work on it. Why
>an another  server in an another contry ?
>
> >The idea of local association is good. But here, it will just add a
> >layer of cultural weight.
>
>The goal of this association is not to take the power on the french
>wikipedia, this association could just help the wikipedia with funds,
>publicity, forums, etc...
>
> >France culture is already *so* heavy, that a Christmas logo, which in
> >itself *could be* npov if other celebrations were respected as
> >well, is
> >*smelling* culture dominency again.
>
>Yeah, it's true. But it could had a bit of fun :)
>
> >It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))
>
>Do you think we're really pov ? We're working to prevent that, I hope...
>
> >Of course, many editors are french, so that is not so surprising. But
> >that does not mean we should not try to compensate our bias.
>
>Agree
>
> >Not a long time ago, on ml, there was a discussion over how to reach
> >npov on international wikipedias, given that the variety of
> >participants
> >is more limited than on en. This is worrying me deeply as well. We are
> >not currently trying to work toward npov I fear, we are still
> >trying to
> >understand the concept. Of course, some will disagree with
> >that opinion
> >of mine :-)
>
>Juste your opinion Anthere, I think most of people try to work npov. See
>all the battles on religious articles.
>
> >18 months ago, I thought that if I could attract more french speaking
> >people on the french wikipedia, from the en: stock, they could help us
> >to fight France cultural dominancy.
> >
> >I also thought that if some french users could also work on
> >the english
> >wikipedia, that would help, if they could see how people were doing in
> >another place. That is what I did, even if I am not really part of the
> >english wikipedia.
> >
> >That is why I hoped so much for mixing all of us.
> >That, if it was hard for some of us to understand npov, international
> >mixing could help.
> >That, if it was hard for some of us, to accept the one different,
> >international mixing could help.
> >That, if it was hard for us to solve conflict resolution, because we
> >have no expert on this, international cooperation, mediation, where
> >international would be welcome in english commitee, even at observers,
> >to learn, it would help. Or if international commitee could be
> >set, that
> >would help.
> >
> >But yeah, right, no. There is here, and there. No confusion.
> >One belongs
> >here, or belongs there.
> >I do not know what to think of what is going on. Except that each time
> >there is a discussion on something on fr, it can't stay polite.
>
>Sometime it stay polite :) We have some latin blood ;-)
>
> >So when Tarquin says he wants to talk about it on the international
> >list, one answer is "that he should keep his ridiculous threats for
> >himself". This is how disagreement and willingness to talk with other
> >members of the same project is interpretated : a threat.
>
>Tarquin present this as a war declaration : I wont work on fr wikip?dia
>until some things changes ! And He said : I will say to international ml
>that fr is npov and prefer to work on style than on content. As if we were
>small children who didn't respect the rules! Personnaly I dislike this !
>
> >As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
> >internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I find
> >extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project
> >being so
> >different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)
>
>Do you think we're really different ? I'm sure there's some probleme as
>ours on en, de, nl, oc,   oups not oc, there's no yet enough people :)
>
> >I hope this issue be solved Tarquin, because fr needs you badly.
>
>As I said, leaving is not a solution. Tarquin choose to leave, it's his
>choice. Athymik does it some weeks ago.
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] fr ml admin

body:
Hello all,

Shaihulud is now the administrator of the french
mailing list.

Shai, if it is a problem to you, Yann va also
interested in taking care of it all.

Thanks Shai

Ant

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


list: wikien-l

from_name: Viajero

subject: [WikiEN-l] User Leumi

body:
On 12/11/03  at 09:47 AM, tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> said:

> Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia?
> What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect their
> social skills?

Good question. In my experience (two cases so far), it only becomes an
issue in the context of edit wars over highly contentious issues, such as
Mother Teresa, where discussion is critical and faulty communication
channels turn the interchanges into emotionally draining, deeply
frustrating experiences as one feels one isn't  "getting through" to the
other person.

I wish I had answers for you.

V.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the
	FrenchWi	kipedia !

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Constans, Camille (C.C.) a rit:
>
>>> And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write is the
>>> one suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic Code.
>>> Perhaps Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in
>>> Algeria about how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>>
>> Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between
>> American People and british people ?
>
> More or less ok, I think. That is, if an article was written in
> british english, american people are supposed not to entirely rewrite
> it in american english. Same reversely.

Exactly, and it seems like such a simple principle that it is hard to
understand why others could not accept it.  But neither the Americans
nor the British have an Academy tasked with insuring the purity of the
language.  Tradition, precedence and usage form a greater part of the
English speaking mind in language as in law.

Unfortunately, some French seem to give the decrees of the Acad?mie
fran?aise the weight of law, leading to the ridiculous conclusion that
not following these decrees would be contrary to French law.

>>> It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))
>>
>> Do you think we're really pov ? We're working to prevent that, I hope...
>
>
> CK is suggesting that it is perfectly ok to add to wikipedia that some
> words should preferably be used instead of others.
> We can laugh upon the aubette, but there are about a dozen other words.
>
> He says it is ok that wikipedia article contains that
> *"people should preferably use the word "batonnet ouat? rather than
> "cotton tige""

Saying that one usage is to be preferred is a POV that should be
considered.  "Prefer" is not "oblige".  A person should not be condemned
for using the other term, and its consistent usage in a single article
should not automatically be changed.  When I saw this I went to see what
was written on the "Q-Tip" box where they use "cotton swab" in English
and "coton-tige" in French.  (with one "t" and a hyphen)  Under the
circumstance I would feel rightfully offended if someone chose to change
my usage of "coton-tige".

> 4) Tarquin will add on top of that, that Wikipedia is not a
> dictionary, we are not discussing over words, but over concepts, hence
> it is not a good idea to have two articles, one for cotton tige, the
> other for batonnet ouat we all clean our ears just the same way, so
> one article is enough.

If it's a question of an article related to the generic Q-Tip the title
used by the person who first wrote the article should prevail.  The WP
is not a dictionary argument is a completely different and irrelevant
issue.  I am assuming that there is enough material about the history
and use of the little stick to warrant a WP article.

> So we do discuss again. Meanwhile, there are a couple of very
> interesting exchanges on typographic rules

One that I thought strange was the insistance that the "oe" digraph be
used.  That seemed terribly pedantic.

> Then what is CK answer, in an open letter to Tarquin and I
> 2) that he is a long-lasting professional (28 years old expertise on
> typography)

A logical fallacy when used to insist that a POV is correct.

> 3) that the word comes from Belgium anyway

Huh?

> 4) that the Acadie Franise does not respect NPOV itself

Probably true

> How reasonable is it to spent hours on such a trivial matter ? :-))))

Not at all, but it happens with great regularity on WP in all languages.
:-)

>>> As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
>>> internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I
>>> find extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project
>>> being so different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)
>>
If that's a psychological disorder, you should listen to the comments
from people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia. :-D

>> Do you think we're really different ? I'm sure there's some probleme
>> as ours on en, de, nl, oc,   oups not oc, there's no yet enough
>> people :)
>
Yes, but that's OK.  See your own comments to Ruimu.

> Of course, there are problems on every wikipedia. But, I was trying to
> think about it, and on every single rule or usage I could think of,
> fr: and en: are different.
> We don't use the same rules to delete, or to undelete
> We don't use the same rules to name people sysops
> We don't put the interlanguage links in the same order or the same
> place I think
> We don't use page protection in edit wars the same way
> We accept or do not accept the same way foreign languages in articles
> The etiquette is different

That's healthy.  Vive la diff?rence!

Ec


from_name: Ramanan Selvaratnam

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Locking key definitions

body:
Hello,

First, a  big thank you to all individuals who initiated the Tamil
Wikipedia.
A bigger thank you for adhering to UTF-8.

I heavily modified the front page <http://ta.wikipedia.org> where the
often repeated meaning of free as in 'freedom' instead of  'free of
cost' seemed to have been repeated. Basically the introduction of the
FDL was wrongly translated.

As it was already requested on the page my contact detail was registered
at the bottom of the page.
Now that I have recieved the third private mail it is time to remove my
mail address from there. (I am glad people care about definitions so
passionately though :)

What is the process for locking key definitions?

Anyone with experience of organising a newly started langugae module?

Best wishes,

Ramanan


from_name: tarquin

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the	FrenchWi
	kipedia !

body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:

>What is revolting with having some fun ? Why do you say we prefer work on
>style intead of working on content ? And as I remember I dont see you often
>on fr:. Google has logo for xmas, do you think they working only on style ?
>
>
Google is a commercial site. It's completely different.

>
>
>>I will no longer be working on fr: until this situation is resolved.
>>
>>
>
>Good bye then. I didn't see you talk about this on fr....
>
>When you say that fr prefer work on style, you say that all our work is
>crap.
>
>
Not what I meant.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on
	the	FrenchWikipedia !

references:
<8zeiPxNxpVB@erik_moeller>	<002f01c3bf89$d2e343c0$d100a8c0@arcsy.co.jp>	<3FD83AE7.904@planetunreal.com>
	<3FD8673E.704@yahoo.com>

body:
Anthere wrote:

> As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
> internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I find
> extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project being
> so different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)

I feel this too.
When I try to provide "crosstalk" from En: policies to Fr: and
vice-versa, I get no results.
fr: says "but we're not en:"
en: says "but we are en:!"


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the FrenchWi
	kipedia !

body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:

>>Date articles, current events, are focused on french events
>>
>>
>
>We're french :)
>
>
>
But part of NPOV is taking an international persepctive, and not writing
for a french audience.


from_name: Delirium

body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:

>>And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write
>>is the one
>>suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic
>>Code. Perhaps
>>Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in
>>Algeria about
>>how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>>
>>
>
>Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between American People and british people ?
>
>
The general principle on the en: Wikipedia is to use the form of English
the initial author of the article used.  The exception is that we try to
use appropriate language with articles about localities and concepts:
British English for [[London]] and [[Edinborough]] and [[Queen Elizabeth
II]], but US English for [[Los Angeles]] and [[President of the United
States]] and [[Mississippi]].

It's not a hard and fast rule, but we also generally try to limit
ourselves to fairly standard forms of either British or American English
(or very similar ones like Canadian English), those two being the two in
widespread use: we generally avoid words and phrases specific to more
regional dialects, such as Hiberno-English or the many regional dialects
in the US, UK, and other countries.

This might all be easier in English than other languages though: most
Americans accept British English as a valid and correct form of English
and many have at least some exposure to it, and most non-American
English-speakers are at least vaguely familiar with American English
(through Hollywood, if nothing else).  I'm not sure to what extent
French people are familiar with French-Canadian speech, or vice-versa.

-Mark


references:
<8zeiPxNxpVB@erik_moeller>	<002f01c3bf89$d2e343c0$d100a8c0@arcsy.co.jp>
	<3FD83AE7.904@planetunreal.com>

body:
tarquin a ?crit:
>
>
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>
>>> Green-
>>>
>>>
>>>> I like the logo too.  I saw it on FR and thought, "wow, too bad en isn't
>>>> this liberal."
>>>>
>>>
>>> We're liberal. We just don't like kitsch.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>
>>
>> We? I'm sure many English-speaker like kitsch ;o)
>> Put colors on the main page was also consider as kitsch in the past,
>> now it is a standard for almost all Wikipedias.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, and it's a great pity.
> The colours on the main page are more than kitsch, they are revolting.
> The community on fr: seem far more concerned with style over content. I
> understand that there is a natural desire to make our environment
> "pretty", but this xmas logo is a step too far.
>
> I will no longer be working on fr: until this situation is resolved.

I am switching to style over content because I am getting tired to see
content discussion going *no where*, or going directly in the arena.

I like very much the new year eve logo, and I think the idea of putting
a bit of fun on the logo (or on the project) from time to time is a GOOD
idea.
At the same time, I understand Tarquin position.

Just as Tarquin would put it (and put it on fr actually), the french
wikipedia is very much French, not french speaking. Some outside call it
Wikipedia Fran?aise :-( Because it is essentially poved by France culture.

Some articles on french cities, do not mention the city is in France,
because it is obvious :-)

Date articles, current events, are focused on french events

When two words are used, one canadian, one french, some think the
*correct* one is the french (see previous discussion about gay and gai,
and what is "correct" anyway)

And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write is the one
suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic Code. Perhaps
Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in Algeria about
how to use french would be given much consideration :-)

We seek to have images legal issues respect the "french" legislation.

The association will be set in France.

A hosting server would be in France likely.

The idea of local association is good. But here, it will just add a
layer of cultural weight.

France culture is already *so* heavy, that a Christmas logo, which in
itself *could be* npov if other celebrations were respected as well, is
*smelling* culture dominency again.

It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))

Of course, many editors are french, so that is not so surprising. But
that does not mean we should not try to compensate our bias.

Not a long time ago, on ml, there was a discussion over how to reach
npov on international wikipedias, given that the variety of participants
is more limited than on en. This is worrying me deeply as well. We are
not currently trying to work toward npov I fear, we are still trying to
understand the concept. Of course, some will disagree with that opinion
of mine :-)

18 months ago, I thought that if I could attract more french speaking
people on the french wikipedia, from the en: stock, they could help us
to fight France cultural dominancy.

I also thought that if some french users could also work on the english
wikipedia, that would help, if they could see how people were doing in
another place. That is what I did, even if I am not really part of the
english wikipedia.

That is why I hoped so much for mixing all of us.
That, if it was hard for some of us to understand npov, international
mixing could help.
That, if it was hard for some of us, to accept the one different,
international mixing could help.
That, if it was hard for us to solve conflict resolution, because we
have no expert on this, international cooperation, mediation, where
international would be welcome in english commitee, even at observers,
to learn, it would help. Or if international commitee could be set, that
would help.

But yeah, right, no. There is here, and there. No confusion. One belongs
here, or belongs there.
I do not know what to think of what is going on. Except that each time
there is a discussion on something on fr, it can't stay polite.

So when Tarquin says he wants to talk about it on the international
list, one answer is "that he should keep his ridiculous threats for
himself". This is how disagreement and willingness to talk with other
members of the same project is interpretated : a threat.

As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I find
extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project being so
different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)

I hope this issue be solved Tarquin, because fr needs you badly.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the French
	Wikipedia !

body:
Brian Corr a ?crit:
> I just created an account at fr: and I noticed the logo this afternoon
> and was a little surprised to see it. I personally think it's cute
> (although I'm not generally and advocate of *cute* I must admit that I
> like it when Google a logo of the day). I share the concerns about the
> Christian message, and I like Jimbo & Anthere's suggestion of "Joyeuses
> f?tes" as an alternative.
>
> Just my 2 centimes....

thanks :-)


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:
>
>
>>Each wikip?dia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but not
>>everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules. Respecting
>>some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
>>
>>
>
>I wanted to just say that although the parameters of this are
>naturally open to question, I support this in concept.  A lot of
>customs (I wouldn't use the word 'rules') are going to be
>culture-specific and there are many options where there is no
>universally "correct" answer.  NPOV is non-negotiable everywhere,
>but a lot of the details are going to work out differently in
>different languages.
>
>Americans and Japanese people, for example, are culturally very
>different.  So naturally what is considered rude behavior on the two
>wikis is going to be different.  Americans wear their shoes in the
>house, as filthy as that sounds.
>
>
Customs may be different. Things like how deletions are handled, or
bans, and so on: these will vary of course.

But the problems have not been "social", they have been to do with
technical things and principles.

* providing sufficient information on copyright status on image pages
* not using proprietary formats such as PDF
* not using animated images except where essential to *meaning* (eg
article on animation)
* not using colours in tables excessively
* not using fancy formatting (complicates wiki markup, adds no meaning
to articles: en: has this problem with someone who's made fancy borders
in maths theorems, but at least when I complained about it, people on
the en: mailing list AGREED with me.)
* not writing articles from the perspective of a particular country. (A
frequent problem is articles that don't state where a city is, because
it's in the country of the language of the particular WP. Another is the
article on trams on the Swedish WP, which speaks only on trams in Sweden.)
* treating WP as a neutral space: eg not putting up big banners for
holidays which not everyone in the world shares

If these apply to en:, they surely apply everywhere.
The problem is that when people from en: try to pass on these
principles, which en: has set out by sole virtue of it having had more
time to determine them, they are not always well-received.


body:
> What is revolting with having some fun ? Why do you say we prefer work on
> style intead of working on content ? And as I remember I dont see you often
> on fr:.

this might explain that :-)

>Google has logo for xmas, do you think they working only on style ?

Google is not npov...

>>I will no longer be working on fr: until this situation is resolved.
>
>
> Good bye then. I didn't see you talk about this on fr....

Oh yes he did Shai ! He did on le bistro. And on the french mailing
list. And here http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur%3ATarquin

> When you say that fr prefer work on style, you say that all our work is
> crap. I cant agree with you, maybe some pages are stubs, but some are very
> nice articles.

hopefully, the abribus...

> Shaihulud

thanks again for the pict Shai...


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch
	on	the	FrenchWikipedia !

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:

>>>>>>"RS" == Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>    RS> France lost control of Canada in 1763 when it was still a
>    RS> monarchy, so that a lot of ideas that were fundamental to the
>    RS> French Revolution did not automatically become a part of
>    RS> Canadian thinking.  That alone can make a single translation
>    RS> impossible.
>
>Oh, _come now_. The English-speaking countries of the world also have
>very different histories, and we don't have forks of en.w.o. for each
>such country.
>
>Diversity of opinion *within* national boundaries is going to be about
>the same as diversity of opinion *across* national boundaries. If
>Wikipedians can develop the skills to overcome the first, we can apply
>those same skills to overcome the second.
>
>I don't think there's any Wiki project out there that can afford to
>turn away editors who can make a contribution just because of their
>postal address. Any project like Wikipedia needs all the help it can
>get.
>
?????  So what's your argument?  I didn't suggest forks.  I supported
diversity.  I said nothing about turning away editors.  Your comments
are non-sequiturs.

Ec


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
>>>>> "Jakob" == Jakob  <jakob.voss at s1999.tu-chemnitz.de> writes:

    Jakob> Hi, I do not understand what's wrong with the first
    Jakob> [[Category:...]] approach.

There's nothing wrong with it. It's really damned good. I think the
idea is that we're going to change the syntax slightly
([[category=...]] instead of [[category:...]]) and do some different
stuff under the hood. See again:

      http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization_with_field-value_pairs

I think that the two syntaxes are pretty much interchangeable. I think
if there's any disadvantage, it's that a page like "Wikitravel:Help"
couldn't be a category page, if categories have their own namespace.

    Jakob> By the way categories are nothing but hierarchical links
    Jakob> between articles.  Semantically there is no big difference
    Jakob> between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
    Jakob> category with a couple of articles in it.

Not true. From a graphical level, part-whole implies a tree structure
-- each child article can be part of one and only one parent article.
Category-member semantics are more twisted -- articles can be members
of multiple categories.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>The statement " Semantically there is no big difference
>between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
>category with a couple of articles in it," is perfectly true.

The practices being discussed here are very different;
I'll let you decide whether the difference is semantic.
Neither [[Biology]] nor [[List of subfields of biology]]
can properly link to ever biology topic on a Wikipedia.
That's why [[List of biology topics]] exist now, of course.

Your idea of letting the software interpret [[List of ...]]
as in [[List of biology topics]] is interesting,
although Magnus' category code is much further along.
Also, [[List of actors]] is a rather different page;
it's encyclopedic, whereas [[List of biology topics]],
by listing pages in Wikipedia, is /about/ Wikipedia.
(By rights, it should be [[Wikipedia:List of biology topics]].)
So the [[Category:]] plan can replace [[List of biology topics]]
but should leave [[List of actors]] as it is.

-- Toby


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Broken # links

body:
Look at the "manual TOC" on
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_world

New bug?

Magnus


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

references:
<87r7zbi1xk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us>
	<014d01c3c040$60147820$74001c12@reflection>
	<20031211233658.GA25777@math-rs-n03.ucr.edu>

body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 15:36, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Also, [[List of actors]] is a rather different page;
> it's encyclopedic, whereas [[List of biology topics]],
> by listing pages in Wikipedia, is /about/ Wikipedia.

Hmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors :

See the following '''lists of actors''':

* [[List of male movie actors]]
* [[List of female movie actors]]

* [[List of male theater actors]]
* [[List of female theater actors]]

It's a LIST OF LISTS!!!!!! <brain explodes>

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031211/907e8434/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jakob

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Categories simplified (was: I never metadata I didn't
	like)

body:
Hi,

I do not understand what's wrong with the first [[Category:...]] approach.

Categories are kind of metadata - not all arguments against metadata apply on
them. Categories are not hidden as long as they result in a link on top of the
article or somewhere else - they are not more complicated than interlanguage
links (which are complicated in some way).

Seperating categorisation and articles in two projects does not make
categorisation more easy. In fact I'd also like to move articles and
categories around in a hierarchal view but the most common action is
to specify the category an article belongs to.

By the way categories are nothing but hierarchical links between articles.
Semantically there is no big difference between dividing an article in subtopics
and creating a category with a couple of articles in it.

Magnus wrote:

> Example: "[[Category:Stuff]]" somewhere in the article will show a link
> above (similar to language links), leading to the category page
> ("Category:Stuff"). That will automagically list all pages in that
> category (meaning, that link there via category link). A category page
> can be edited like a normal page (the article list is automatically
> shown below), and can include "super-categories" (e.g.,
> "[[Category:Biology]]" on "Category:Zoology"). Any page can, of course,
> have many categories.

Ah - that?s the fault! The link [[Category:Stuff]] should refer to the
article "Stuff" and not to some special-category-only article.
[[Category:Biology]] *is* [[Biology]]! Please have a look at the actual
article [[en:Biology]]: What does ==Fields of study in biology== contain
but a listing of subtopics? Why introduce a new artificial namespace when you
can better name the article for instance "Fields of study in biology"?

> The Cunctator wrote:
> I could imagine a group at the MIT Media Lab or the Cyc project figuring
> out some bad-ass way of navigating Wikipedia content, etc.

That's still possible with categories. There are a lot of automatic
posibilities
- most of them based on the links between articles. A special category-link
would give more input.

> What I'd like to see is an explicit wiki-statement of what is the
> desired functionality--that is, what is the utility missing--that a
> category scheme would provide.
>
> Then we can discuss particular implementations separately--for example,
> is it better to use a system which has a single ontology or a system
> which allows for dynamic ontologies?

Argl! A wikiontology is a nice scientific project but nothing any
normal human beeing will ever able to edit.

Evan wrote:

> What I propose it that MediaWiki expand this metadata format to cover
> other types of metadata, such as:
>
> * categorization -- saying that particle physics is in the
>   physics category, or that Lord of the Rings is in the fantasy
>   books category
> * relationships between articles -- break up a single page into
>   multiple chapters or sections, and note that they're all part
>   of the same article

categorization is just a kind of typed relationship. I could also imagine:

[[see:A]]
see-also-links that will automatically generate a backlink on article 'A'

[[next:A]]
ordering articles

But hierarchical link are the most important ones.

Greetings,
  Jakob


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia Thrift

body:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Thomas Gail Haws wrote:

> Is there a Wiki way to judge the viewing popularity of articles?  It seems
> it would be prudent to focus most editing effort on those pages that are
> viewed most heavily.  And it seems it would be nice to be able to access a
> edits to views ratio for each article.

Not really. There used to be [[Special:Popularpages]], and there still is,
but views are not counted any more nowadays. That way, viewing a page does
not influence the database, which gives an improvement in speed. Unlike
other changes for improving performance, AFAIK there are no plans to change
this because of the new database server.

Andre Engels


from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
Differences in the language versions,
	was RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch
	onthe	FrenchWikipedia !

body:
> From: Ray Saintonge on Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:45 PM
> Anthere wrote:
> > Ruimu a rit:
> >> "Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
> >>> Each wikipia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
> >>> not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules.
> >>> Respecting
> >>> some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
> >>
> >> Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I
guess.
> >> In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the
> >> same entry
> >> in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try
> >> to reach
> >> universalism.)
> >> Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be
> >> the same
> >> as French one or Rwandese one.
> >
> > I do not think in theory each wp entry should be a translation of
the
> > other languages. It is too ideal :-)
> > I think each should have its specificity, its special taste. Then we
> > can inspire from the other versions to set each local version.
> > you are true that chinese npov should be the same than french or
> > rwandese one of course. But that might be expressed differently.
>
> I agree with Anth?re.  There are very few rules that should apply in
the
> same way to all languages.  The idea of NPOV should apply to all
> languages, but the way it's implemented is going to change.  Something
> might be a problem  for one language, but not for another.

I have to say that on principle and as a matter of policy I strongly
disagree with Ray and Anthere. The overall goal *does* need to be that
each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the same entry in any
language.

Each language version should *not* have its own special taste.

As a matter of course the fact that languages are intertwined with
ethnicity, nationality, and modes of expression means that the same
content will be discussed differently in different languages.

As a matter of course the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project
means that contributions are shaped by the contributors' individual
priorities. As French-speakers have statistically different priorities
than English-speakers or Chinese-speakers, as a matter of course the
language versions will have differently weighted contributions.

But we should not have *as a goal* different priorities, different
discussions of the same content. The goal, as Ruimi said, is to try to
reach universalism.

It's a lot easier for Wikipedia contributors if we celebrate ethnic
differences--and no matter how you slice it, celebrating the forking of
the Wikipedia concept for each language is doing just that (and I'd be
happy to hear convincing arguments otherwise)--but it's not better for
Wikipedia.

That said, we're still growing and I think there are many significant
errors in judgment in terms of establishing policy for the
English-language version of Wikipedia, and I'm not advocating using
universalism as a club to make every language follow en.wiki's example.

I *am* advocating two things:
1. Making it clear that the ultimate goal is universalism and
consistency across all languages.
2. Improving the software to allow for better integration of the
different languages (e.g. one user account, the option to have multiple
languages in recent changes and watchlists, etc.)
3. Stop using mailing lists and use bulletin-board type systems
integrated with Wikipedia.

This is all we'd have to do, I suspect, to make sure that we do work
towards the ultimate goal of universalism and consistency.

--tc


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on	the
	FrenchWikipedia !

body:
>>>>> "RS" == Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> writes:

    RS> France lost control of Canada in 1763 when it was still a
    RS> monarchy, so that a lot of ideas that were fundamental to the
    RS> French Revolution did not automatically become a part of
    RS> Canadian thinking.  That alone can make a single translation
    RS> impossible.

Oh, _come now_. The English-speaking countries of the world also have
very different histories, and we don't have forks of en.w.o. for each
such country.

Diversity of opinion *within* national boundaries is going to be about
the same as diversity of opinion *across* national boundaries. If
Wikipedians can develop the skills to overcome the first, we can apply
those same skills to overcome the second.

I don't think there's any Wiki project out there that can afford to
turn away editors who can make a contribution just because of their
postal address. Any project like Wikipedia needs all the help it can
get.

Vive la diff?rence!

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>Hmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors :

>See the following '''lists of actors''':

>* [[List of male movie actors]]
>* [[List of female movie actors]]

>* [[List of male theater actors]]
>* [[List of female theater actors]]

>It's a LIST OF LISTS!!!!!! <brain explodes>

[[w:en:List of people]]

Boom!!! ^_^

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikitech-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:26 PM
> To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified
>
> Jakob-
> > Ah - that?s the fault! The link [[Category:Stuff]] should refer to
the
> > article "Stuff" and not to some special-category-only article.
> > [[Category:Biology]] *is* [[Biology]]! Please have a look at the
actual
> > article [[en:Biology]]: What does ==Fields of study in biology==
contain
> > but a listing of subtopics? Why introduce a new artificial namespace
> when
> > you can better name the article for instance "Fields of study in
> biology"?
>
> Because this will standardize these lists and automate them at the
same
> time. Currently we have "List of xy topics", with lots of Wikipedia-
> related meta information, floating around in the regular namespace.
These
> are not really articles and they should not be counted as such. Having
> [[Category:Mathematics]], [[Category:Biology]] etc. is much more
economic
> and only shows the information to those who care about it.
>
> Possible problem: Does "Related changes" still work on category pages?
We
> might need to modify that.
>
Why do we need [[Category:Mathematics]] and [[Category:Biology]] when we
already have [[List of xy topics]]?

Why can't we just add software to recognize that "List of" articles are
categorization articles, and use that to automatically categorize
things?

E.g. anyone listed on [[List of actors]] we know is an actor.
Anyone listed on [[List of American actors]] is an American actor.
Anything listed on [[List of mathematical topics]] is a mathematical
topic.

Somewhere on the page we could have
"This entry appears in the following lists:"

And we could also have a function

"Add this entry to a list" which would pull up the names of lists and
could slap the entry into the list.

I guess I'm on the side of Jakob here that instead of forcing people to
learn new behaviors and adding complexity to their tasks--something
that's acceptable if the only users of a system are to be experts, but
not acceptable if you're designing for general use--we should try to
make the software smarter and make only minor adjustments to people's
behavior.

--tc


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] webalizer stats

body:
Hi,
Can someone config DE: webalizer to group referers from
wikipedia.t-st.de (mirror)
lotharingia.de (mirror)
net-lexikon.de (mirror)
heise.de (IT news but we get mentioned often)
metager.de and *rrzn.uni-hannover.de (search engine, both URLs the same)

thanks, tom
--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
   -.-       http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
   /|>	           http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com
   / \                 http://tinyurl.com/u6de


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] User Leumi

body:
> On 12/11/03  at 09:47 AM, tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> said:
>
>> Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia?
>> What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect their
>> social skills?

I also have asperger's.  He may have it more severely than me, but if he has trouble understanding others' feelings, he has had plenty of opportunity to deal with that.

Frankly, anyone who *cannot* understand why he is being criticized is probably not high-functioning enough to type.

He may have the separate issue that he's a very patriotic person, just as some of the people involved with the Silesia articles are.

Nathan aka Pakaran


from_name: A

from_email: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for Arbitration

body:
I would like to request arbitration at [[New Imperialism]], where 172 is reverting several paragraphs I have added; on the grounds that "some" of the information belongs "elsewhere". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Imperialism&diff=0&oldid=1936336I think such reversions should be a bannable offence, it is inappropriate to make mass reverts, simply because you are aesthetically unhappy with a portion of a user's edits.I am trying to improve the Wiki, and my attempts are constantly opposed by a small group of hostile users; who make no attempt to collaborate, instead, they attack and revert for any minor mistake. I expect the arbitration committee to deal with this issue.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031211/b360c750/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
> From: Evan Prodromou on Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:34 PM
> >>>>> "Jakob" == Jakob  <jakob.voss at s1999.tu-chemnitz.de> writes:>
>     Jakob> By the way categories are nothing but hierarchical links
>     Jakob> between articles.  Semantically there is no big difference
>     Jakob> between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
>     Jakob> category with a couple of articles in it.
>
> Not true. From a graphical level, part-whole implies a tree structure
> -- each child article can be part of one and only one parent article.
> Category-member semantics are more twisted -- articles can be members
> of multiple categories.

It's true that part-whole implies one-parent relationships.

But Jakob didn't say "part-whole".

So you shouldn't say what he wrote is not true.

The statement " Semantically there is no big difference
between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
category with a couple of articles in it," is perfectly true.


body:
Adam Bishop a ?crit:
> I'm Canadian, and I try to work on the French wikipedia sometimes.
> Malhereusement, le fran?ais n'est pas ma langue maternelle.  However,
> I'm not sure it would help to have French-Canadians there, especially as
> the French-Canadians on the English wikipedia can barely work together
> (with themselves and with English-Canadians like me) on Quebec-related
> articles.
>
> Adam Bishop

that is not a terribly optimistic thought you have here :-(


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
>>>>> "TC" == The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:

    Jakob> Semantically there is no big difference
    Jakob> between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
    Jakob> category with a couple of articles in it.

    Me> Not true. From a graphical level, part-whole implies a tree
    Me> structure -- each child article can be part of one and only
    Me> one parent article.  Category-member semantics are more
    Me> twisted -- articles can be members of multiple categories.

    TC> It's true that part-whole implies one-parent relationships.

    TC> But Jakob didn't say "part-whole".

    TC> So you shouldn't say what he wrote is not true.

OK. I took "dividing an article into subtopics" as "dividing an
article into parts". I think there's ways that "subtopics" could be
parts, and ways that "subtopics" could be members of a category.

I'd say there's a part-whole relationship if:

     * There's an implied ordering of parts. For example, [[US
       history]] might have parts like [[US history before 1604]],
       [[US history 1604-1775]], [[US history 1776-1783]], etc.

       Contrast [[History of jazz in the US]], [[History of women in
       the US]], [[History of baseball in the US]]. These might all be
       members of a _category_ [[US history]], but there's not the
       same kind of implied ordering.

     * There's the one-parent tree structure as mentioned before.

I think we can do interesting things with part-whole
relationships. Automated Next, Prev, and Up links might be useful, and
an option to read or download or print the whole shebang (container
article plus parts) would be neat, too.

Anyways, I've been thinking about parts, as you can tell.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for Arbitration (or Mediation)

body:
I believe numerous requests have been made for
mediation, at New Imperialism, over the past year.
?
I would like to request arbitration at [[New
Imperialism]], where 172 is reverting several
paragraphs I have added; on the grounds that "some" of
the information belongs "elsewhere".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Imperialism&diff=0&oldid=1936336

I think such reversions should be a bannable offence,
it is inappropriate to make mass reverts, simply
because you are aesthetically unhappy with a portion
of a user's edits.

I am trying to improve the Wiki, and my attempts are
constantly opposed by a small group of hostile users;
who make no attempt to collaborate, instead, they
attack and revert for any minor mistake. I expect the
arbitration committee to deal with this issue.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Localized image logo

body:
>>>>> "AP" == Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> writes:

    AP> Maybe it's just a stupid question, but if one wanted to change
    AP> the logo in the top-left corner (we have some localized ones),
    AP> I don't know where to put it to make it appear in the right
    AP> spot. Does this it require just sysop access? or developer
    AP> access?

I think it needs to be in /upload/wiki.png, and yes, you need access
to the file system.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
> From: Erik Moeller on Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:52 PM
> To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified
>
> Cunc-
> > Why do we need [[Category:Mathematics]] and [[Category:Biology]]
when we
> > already have [[List of xy topics]]?
>
> 1) Adding metadata to the article it belongs to makes it easier to
find
> and update. Having it elsewhere would in fact add aditional workload
and
> require additional learning, because to verify whether a
categorization is
> correct, people would now also have to check all the [[List of xy
> articles]] page where it could be or has been entered. With a
Category:
> approach, they only need to keep an eye on a single page (the
article),
> and the categories themselves are structured through subcategories and
> therefore easy to pick.
>
> 2) Category pages are not articles. Like talk pages and meta pages,
they
> should be logically separated from articles, which has numerous
benefits
> (easier searching/filtering, counting etc.)

If we accept this principle, we should replace all of the [[list of ]]
entries with [[Category:]] entries.

I'm not quite entirely convinced that the healthiest thing to do is to
separate category/list pages from the main namespace, but it's not a
bizarre concept.

> 3) In terms of information organization, your approach leads to
bloated,
> big pages (the list of lists is going to be hundreds of pages long,
the
> lists themselves are going to be 30K and more), whereas the category
> approach generates all long pages automatically from the information
> stored inside the articles. It is much easier to handle.

That doesn't seem like a great argument--the list of categories is going
to be big and bloated.

Rather than looking for points of conflict, I think the more useful
approach is to try to figure out what our specifications are.

For example, the hackish "list of" approach (which could have been our
"category of" approach--the name is immaterial) has plenty of problems
which we would want an alternative implementation to eliminate, for
example the basic problem of not being in sync with the entries in that
category. If someone makes an entry about a random American actor, he
currently has to check if that actor is listed on the list/category
page.

However, one advantage of the "list of" approach is that it allows
people to make more interesting groupings within the list than simple
alphabetization.

So what I'd like to see (and maybe it's on some meta page I've failed to
check--again the problem with having this discussion not be directly
linkable to Wikipedia content) is what it would look like for some
example entries.

Right now, for example, the Kevin Bacon "What links here" looks like:

    * 2003 in film
    * A Few Good Men
    * Apollo 13 (movie)
    * Bacon number
    * Cigar Aficionado
    * JFK (movie)
    * July 8
    * List of famous Philadelphians
    * List of male movie actors
    * List of people by name: Ba-Bd
    * Mister Roberts
    * National Lampoon's Animal House
    * Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon
    * Small world phenomenon
    * Tony Banks
    * William Rufus Shafter

That's a pretty nice set. It's not perfect but ideally I'd like to see
us figure out ways to improve upon "What links here" rather than ignore
it...


body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) a ?crit:
>>And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write
>>is the one
>>suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic
>>Code. Perhaps
>>Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in
>>Algeria about
>>how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>
>
> Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between American People and british people ?

More or less ok, I think. That is, if an article was written in british
english, american people are supposed not to entirely rewrite it in
american english. Same reversely.

>>It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))
>
>
> Do you think we're really pov ? We're working to prevent that, I hope...

We are working hard. But please read CK page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur%3AC%E9r%E9ales_Killer

CK is suggesting that it is perfectly ok to add to wikipedia that some
words should preferably be used instead of others.
We can laugh upon the aubette, but there are about a dozen other words.

He says it is ok that wikipedia article contains that
*"people should preferably use the word "batonnet ouat?" rather than
"cotton tige""

Okay. So ...
1) very few people use batonnet ouat?, the vast majority say coton tige.
2) it is a pov to say one word is better (preferable) than another. It
is not wikipedia role to promote the usage of one word over the other
3) instead, we should attribute the opinion to someone, perhaps the
Acad?mie Fran?aise, perhaps a Quebecois Office, but not wikipedia.
Wikipedia should not say to people which words they should use,
Wikipedia should reports the fact that people use one word more than
another, and that French Decree xxx suggested that we should change our
habit
4) Tarquin will add on top of that, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary,
we are not discussing over words, but over concepts, hence it is not a
good idea to have two articles, one for cotton tige, the other for
batonnet ouat?, we all clean our ears just the same way, so one article
is enough.

That sounds simple ?

Well, to me yes (though I still have not understood very well who
supported the batonnet ouat? usage). Some people would undertand that.
And others would not. Ok, so let's talk about it. And find to who we can
attribute this opinion.

Now, look at that discussion  page. What is happening ? Quiet
conversation between Alvaro, FvdP and I. Ending by asking CK his opinion.

What is his opinion ?
1) cotton tige is incorrect, batonnet aouat? is correct. That is final.
2) I am a very very nastly woman and because of me, he will quit Wikipedia

Ok, what do happen then ?
1) People sooth him
2) I explain it is not a personal attack, but just a discussion over how
we could better respect npov, so what does he think of above
propositions, and who is the one saying "batonnet aoute" is better than
"cotton tige" ?

What is CK suggestion ?

that instead we write that "in written language, usage of batonet ouat?
is preferable to coton tige"

Which changes nothing

So we do discuss again. Meanwhile, there are a couple of very
interesting exchanges on typographic rules

Then what is CK answer, in an open letter to Tarquin and I

1) That I know only to be nice with PP
2) that he is a long-lasting professional (28 years old expertise on
typography)
3) that the word comes from Belgium anyway
4) that the Acad?mie Fran?aise does not respect NPOV itself
5) that he will quit wikipedia because of me

All arguments not being in the least a reason to go on writing that we
should use the word batonnet ouate? rather than cotton tige.

How reasonable is it to spent hours on such a trivial matter ? :-))))

>>As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those
>>internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I find
>>extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project
>>being so
>>different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-)
>
>
> Do you think we're really different ? I'm sure there's some probleme as ours on en, de, nl, oc,   oups not oc, there's no yet enough people :)

Yes it is different Shai. Of course, there are problems on every
wikipedia. But, I was trying to think about it, and on every single rule
or usage I could think of, fr: and en: are different.
We don't use the same rules to delete, or to undelete
We don't use the same rules to name people sysops
We don't put the interlanguage links in the same order or the same place
I think
We don't use page protection in edit wars the same way
We accept or do not accept the same way foreign languages in articles
The etiquette is different

>>I hope this issue be solved Tarquin, because fr needs you badly.
>
>
> As I said, leaving is not a solution. Tarquin choose to leave, it's his choice.
> Athymik does it some weeks ago.

And Elsios as well
And where is Alvaro ?
And how tired am I ?

Indeed our choice.
Leaving is not a solution for Wikipedia, but it might be a solution to us.


body:
Shai, you wrote,

>>>When you say that fr prefer work on style, you say that all
>>
>>our work is
>>
>>>crap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not what I meant.
>
>
> It's what I understood. Look into the french wikipedia, there is some very good article. I wont be surprised to see some of the same quality on the universalis encyclopedia (french encyclopedia as brittanica I think)
> You dont think the wikipedia project need this pain ? The wikipedia project is a very good project, maybe the more interesting I've seen. Look at Anthere, sometimes she really wants to leave, but at the end, her action had gone to the goal.

Thank you for saying this Shai :-)
Remember not to let drop the image description issue please ;-)


body:
Ruimu a ?crit:
> "Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
>
>>Each wikip?dia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
>>not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules. Respecting
>>some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.
>
>
> Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I guess.
>
> In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the same entry
> in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try to reach
> universalism.)
>
> Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be the same
> as French one or Rwandese one.
>
> (I new in wp so feel free to correct my likely mistakes)

Hello Ruimu,

I do not think in theory each wp entry should be a translation of the
other languages. It is too ideal :-)
I think each should have its specificity, its special taste. Then we can
inspire from the other versions to set each local version.

you are true that chinese npov should be the same than french or
rwandese one of course. But that might be expressed differently.

ant


body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) a ?crit:
> It's true, but it's fun :) Dont forget to take some pleasure to work on wikipedia :)

Aside from the logo issue, do you think I took some pleasure writing
that press release yesterday ? Yes, I did.
And It gave me happiness that a couple of users told me it was fun.


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database oddities on fr:

body:
Hello.

Some admins have noticed oddities on fr: database.

For instance:
A direct SQL query gives, for image #14318, the description 'Angraecum
photo perso GFDL'
Going to the page yields the description (even forcing the refresh with
ctrl-f5):
    Description : Angraecum photo perso
    Source : Jeffdelonge
    Licence : GFDL

Quite different, aren't there?

Also, in links, a page 'MERCOSUR' has >20 links outside, when it is a
REDIRECT!!!!

Is that the result of some cache? Is that the right behaviour?

Also, since the db server runs nicely (couldn't kill it with requests,
i'm soooo sad :), maybe maintenance pages could be reactivated (the
magic works, but still)

Nicolas 'Ryo'


body:
>>>>> "TC" == The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> writes:

    TC> If we accept this principle, we should replace all of the
    TC> [[list of ]] entries with [[Category:]] entries.

    TC> I'm not quite entirely convinced that the healthiest thing to
    TC> do is to separate category/list pages from the main namespace,
    TC> but it's not a bizarre concept.

I'm pretty much not terribly happy with the idea.

I think the category-member relationship is a whole nother kettle of
fish from the issue of namespaces.

I think that getting into pseudo-namespaces ("Category:" is not a
namespace -- it's just a prefix) is probably not in our best long-term
interest.

I think that "Wikipedia:Help" or "Wikipedia:About" could and should be
categories.

I think that we should use field-value pairs for categorization and
for tagging categories:

    http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization_with_field-value_pairs

I also think that we can use a bot to move [[list of X]] to [[X]],
where X doesn't already exist, mark that article as a category
([[type=category]]), and add ([[category=X]]) to any links in a list
on that page.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Narrowing focus

body:
> From: Murray Woodman
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Narrowing focus
>
> * Murray
> | I therefore beieve that a reaosnable case could be made for the
> | following basic roles:
> | [[category=x]]    type/instance
> | [[superType=x]]   type/subtype
> | [[related=x]]     related
> | [[whole=x]]       part/whole
>
> And of course i forgot one: contains. Thanks for reminding me Toby.
>
> * Toby
> | That's why [[List of biology topics]] exist now, of course.
>
> Biology
> [[contains=Aerobiology]]
>
My god, this is getting ugly. Please don't take that judgment
personally--I've had plenty of flights of baroque fancy when I've
engaged in a brainstorming process, and I've been helped when someone
reminded me that the goal was to make something that's usable by normal
people, not something that's perfect and insanely complex.

One reason this should be obvious is that the idea of needing a
"related" category when that is what is already done by having links in
a non-hierarchical structure is silly.

Simple is better. Natural is better. Don't try to reinvent language or
account for every possibility, because you'll fail.

Instead, look at what already works and identify what the gaps are, and
start from that point.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database oddities on fr:

body:
> Can you provide an image name and URL so I can check this?

Image link is: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Angraecum_sesquipedale_small.jpg
Request for its info is:
SELECT img_size, img_name, img_description, img_user, img_timestamp
FROM image
WHERE img_description NOT LIKE '%licence%'
ORDER BY img_timestamp DESC LIMIT 0,1
(first in table, hopefully)

> May be some problems with updating the tables.

I saved the page again (without any change), but links weren't updated...

> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Nicolas


from_name: John C. Penta

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: French wiki argument on language

body:
[snip abstruse French language argument]

No offense meant to Anthere, but it's a huge post.:-)

My personal opinion, as a distinctly monolingual English speaker:

Go with what people *use*, not with what's officially correct. Wikipedia, by its very nature as a mass-edited compendium, is *not* going to be the preserve of the higher-class.

We're blue-collar, and better for that, I suppose. Also, purely out of usability, we're the better for keeping up with the language.

John


subject: [Wikitech-l] Database oddities on fr:

body:
> Nothing looks amiss, the page was just edited after the initial upload:
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Image:
> Angraecum_sesquipedale_small.jpg&action=history

Oh the image description is saved in cur, my bad... :)
(the 'description' in img was confusing me)

> Well, I saved it *with* changes and they weren't updated. Will have to
> look into it later...

Ok.

> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thanks for the quick replies!

Nicolas


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Categorization

body:
So, uh, I thought I'd throw together a page on meta-wikipedia to talk
about categorization. It may make things easier and will probably last
longer than everyone's mail queue.

       http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization

I have a feeling that this conversation has happened before and may
happen again; it'd be nice to archive it.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categorization


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Narrowing focus

body:
> From: Murray Woodman on Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:42 PM
<snip>
> I can just see problems when "category" it is used in a way which it
> loses its meaning. If you guys want to build type hierarchies and
> subject containment then "category" might be too simple in these
cases.
> I just tried to show this. If it is a hold all for everything then a
> "lists" page as it currently stands already serves that purpose. You
> have gained only a little over what the lists pages offer. If you want
> to provide something which has wider applications then maybe a couple
of
> more relationship types (type/subtype, contains) would be very
helpful.

That's a valid criticism; at the same time I think it might actually be
reasonably considered a point in its favor that we start with something
that's only a little better than what we presently have.

In other words, if we start with trying to improve what we currently
have (the hackish list pages), rather than grafting on something
completely different and of a new order of complexity,
a) we're much less likely to do something we will later regret
b) wide-spread adoption will be much more likely
c) new contributors to Wikipedia are more likely to understand it

etc.

At the same time, I'd like us to work on making it easier for people to
experiment with Wikipedia content, so that people with interesting,
complicated (but possibly very good) ideas can try them without running
the risk of screwing up the core project.

The classic OS-application divide. Or for another analogy, Google does a
very good job of keeping its core utility simple but allowing for
experiments on the side or the outside to happen.

It's easier for a search engine than a hyperlinked omnipedia, but the
principle should remain the same.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] REPOST: Neutrality and the "majority" view

body:
(I'm snipping a lot of what Ray & I wrote just to focus on a few
points. This does not mean what is not quoted is not important, only
that I have thought of responses to what I have quoted.)

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> >First, let me define one point here. When talking about any issue, I
> >think it is fair to say that the viewpoints expressed will come from
> >one of three groups:
> >
> >*Professionals -- by this I mean scientists, scholars, medical doctors,
> >priests or pastors, accountants, &c. These are the people whose lives
> >revolve around researching, formulating & expressing opinions on issues.
> >
> So does their income.

You touch on a point as old as Plato, who reports how Socrates criticized
his fellow philosophers for teaching in return for money. Socrates, one of
Plato's contemporaries responded that he thought that philosophers had as
much right to eat as anybody.

Frankly, I feel that the argument that corporations or businesses buy
experts to support their POV all of the time has gotten worn to being
threadbare. No inteligent professional is going to sell her/his credibility
for a paycheck; what they are going to do is find an employer whose POV
most matches their own. Much in the fashion no one who has doubts about the
infallibility of the Pope will become a Jesuit. To ignore this is to
promote an _ad hominem_ attack in disguise.

Maybe I've become a little more cunning in the last few years, but when
people start stating slogans, buzzwords & irrelevant facts when they
should be explaining the facts & their logical relationships I begin to
suspect that even they know their arguments are weak at that point.
>
> >*Informed non-professionals, or amateurs -- these are the folks who
> >don't make their living from researching, formulating & expressing opinions,
> >but do so on their own dime. The professional groups sneer at their
> >opinions, & condescendingly call them "amateurs" -- forgetting that the
> >original meaning of the word comes from describing people whose work is
> >a labor of love. Much like all of us on Wikipedia.
> >
> >*Uninformed non-professionals. These are the people who aren't informed
> >about a given issue, & tend to repeat what they hear without any significant
> >understanding. This is the realm of Urban Legends, Superstition, Crackpot
> >Theories, & similar ilk -- but it is also fair to say all of us in one
> >topic or another fit into this group. Can we be sure that, at any given
> >moment, we could defend our views on every conceivable topic? About
> >Abortion? About the existence of God? Concerning Israel? Whether or not
> >Democracy is the best form of government? If Tolstoy is a better author
> >than Mickey Spillone?
> >
> There is no single process to distinguish original from crackpot
> thinking.  A fair review of an original thought requires a serious
> amount of thought for which few of us have the time.  If the particular
> thought threatens long held prejudices, we are also unwilling to spend
> that time when we already have an easy response.
>
For the purpose of Wikipedia, I think we have 3 useful rules to keep most
of what I believe all of us can agree on is crackpot thinking. Two of them
have been mentioned from time to time:

* Wikipedia does not accept original research.

>From what I've read of Wikipedia, it seems fair to say that what we are
trying to do is report & summarize in a useful fashion other people's
writings. And one test that I've seen repeated on this mailing list (well,
okay, I've repeated it once or twice) is the insistence on materials that
have been published -- preferably by a commercial publisher, but at least
some entity that insists that a third party has reviewed the manuscript
for things like accuracy, importance, grammar & spelling.

If someone can get her/his manuscript published about their theory
concerning Special Relativity, the Kennedy Assassination, or the Atlantian
origin of the Egyptians, then that argues it has enough public interest to
warrant at least a stub on Wikipedia.

* Wikipedia does not accepts vanity contributions.

I'm not quite sure why, but some people believe that a decent write-up on
Wikipedia will boost their careers. Or provide them with fame. IMNSHO, if
an article on Wikipedia will have that much effect on your standing, then
you really aren't all that important.

And I suspect that by excluding vanity contributions, we will also
discourage the kind of person who insists on submitting her/his own, er,
idiosyncratic viewpoints.

The third rule, I propose, is this one:

* All contributions to an article must be clearly relevant.

The reason for this point comes from a recent exchange I had with a
possible kook contributor over the article [[Sea Peoples]]. For reasons
I still don't understand, he insisted on inserting irrelevant material
about David M. Rohl's Revised Chronology into the article.

(Not to say there shouldn't be some mention of Rohl's theories on
Wikipedia; but his proposals concerning a Revised Chronology for Egypt,
ancient Palestine, & the rest of the Near East are better located under
specific articles such as Shoshenq I & Ramesses II. Rohl doesn't even
mention the Sea Peoples in his book, _Pharaohs and Kings, a Biblical
Quest_.)

I guess I offended him by constantly insisting that he provide proof of
his theories, because he stopped contributing to Wikipedia a week ago.
I still don't understand why he considered it not only a fact -- but an
essential fact -- that the Sea Peoples spoke an Indo-European language.

[snip]
>
> >Too often on Wikipedia, it appears that we are looking for some kind
> >of ex cathedra decision of what the professionals think about
> >an issue. We want the professionals to say, "This is truth." Except
> >for those who want to be able to say, "The professionals think A, but
> >they are wrong & it is clear that the truth is B." But as I reflect
> >on how knowledge is achieved, this kind of paradigm rarely occurs.
> >
[snip]
>
> >I remember a saying from the early 20th-century physicists: "The only
> >way to get a new theory accepted is to wait for all of the opponents
> >to die."
> >
> It was Max Planck:
>
> >     An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by
> >     gradually winning over and converting its opponents.... Its
> >     opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiar
> >     with the idea from the beginning.

Thanks. I was quoting from memory.

[snip]
> >
> >Response on or off the list is welcome.
> >
> If we're going to elevate the discussion it has to be on-line. :-)

Well, when I think I've been rambling more than discussing, I'd rather
have that fact confirmed offline, please. ;-)

Geoff


from_name: Green Mountain

body:
Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:

>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : tarquin [mailto:tarquin at planetunreal.com]
>>Envoy? : jeudi 11 d?cembre 2003 10:38
>>? : wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>Objet : Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the
>>FrenchWikipedia !
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Green-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I like the logo too.  I saw it on FR and thought, "wow, too
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>bad en isn't
>>
>>
>>>>>this liberal."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>We're liberal. We just don't like kitsch.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>We? I'm sure many English-speaker like kitsch ;o)
>>>Put colors on the main page was also consider as kitsch in the past,
>>>now it is a standard for almost all Wikipedias.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, and it's a great pity.
>>The colours on the main page are more than kitsch, they are revolting.
>>The community on fr: seem far more concerned with style over
>>content. I
>>understand that there is a natural desire to make our environment
>>"pretty", but this xmas logo is a step too far.
>>
>>
>
>What is revolting with having some fun ? Why do you say we prefer work on
>style intead of working on content ? And as I remember I dont see you often
>on fr:. Google has logo for xmas, do you think they working only on style ?
>
>
>
>>I will no longer be working on fr: until this situation is resolved.
>>
>>
>
>Good bye then. I didn't see you talk about this on fr....
>
>When you say that fr prefer work on style, you say that all our work is
>crap. I cant agree with you, maybe some pages are stubs, but some are very
>nice articles.
>
>Shaihulud
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>
I  think that the French wikipedia's color style looks beautiful, but  I
agree that English wikipedia's colors do look sort of hideous.


from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Localized image logo

body:
Hello,
we just converted it.wiki to the new software today, and everthing is
running great, apart from the thousands of pages undergoing renaming and
moving.

Maybe it's just a stupid question, but if one wanted to change the logo in
the top-left corner (we have some localized ones), I don't know where to
put it to make it appear in the right spot. Does this it require just
sysop access? or developer access?

Ciao,
Alfio


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Database server trouble

body:
Database server is down; it really, _really_ didn't like being asked
how many rows are in the old revisions table for the English Wikipedia.

We're working on getting it back online.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/b7a7303c/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for Arbitration

body:
From: A [name omitted for privacy reasons] Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:40 PM

> I would like to request arbitration at [[New Imperialism]], where 172
is reverting
> several paragraphs I have added; on the grounds that "some" of the
information
> belongs "elsewhere".

One: Try mediation first.
Two: The arbitration committee doesn't exist until January 1, 2004.


from_name: Ruimu

body:
"Constans, Camille (C.C.)" :
>Each wikip?dia has his own rules. Often the same than en:, but
>not everytime. I think each wikipedia must have his own rules. Respecting
>some choosed by the wikimedia fundation, npov for instance.

Each wp have its own customs, but should share the same rules, I guess.

In theory, each wp entry should be the perfect translation of the same entry
in any language, don't you think ? (IMO encyclopedic goal is to try to reach
universalism.)

Then, basic rules should be the same, and the Chinese NPOV is to be the same
as French one or Rwandese one.

(I new in wp so feel free to correct my likely mistakes)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Database server trouble

body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 22:18, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Database server is down; it really, _really_ didn't like being asked
>> how many rows are in the old revisions table for the English
>> Wikipedia.
>
> Who did that? And if it was a sysop query, why the hell are we
> still/again
> allowing those? That's like putting a big red "DoS me" sign on our
> server.

I ran it while testing, to confirm that it was, indeed, monstruously
slow on the larger tables.

Well, it is.

However it shouldn't _crash_ the server; that shows (along with the two
spontaneous MySQL crashes we've had earlier) that there's still a lot
of work to be done on this new machine before we can declare it to be
stable and happy.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/ebcf65bf/attachment.pgp


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
Jakob-
> Ah - that?s the fault! The link [[Category:Stuff]] should refer to the
> article "Stuff" and not to some special-category-only article.
> [[Category:Biology]] *is* [[Biology]]! Please have a look at the actual
> article [[en:Biology]]: What does ==Fields of study in biology== contain
> but a listing of subtopics? Why introduce a new artificial namespace when
> you can better name the article for instance "Fields of study in biology"?

Because this will standardize these lists and automate them at the same
time. Currently we have "List of xy topics", with lots of Wikipedia-
related meta information, floating around in the regular namespace. These
are not really articles and they should not be counted as such. Having
[[Category:Mathematics]], [[Category:Biology]] etc. is much more economic
and only shows the information to those who care about it.

Possible problem: Does "Related changes" still work on category pages? We
might need to modify that.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Virus Warning! (Was: HomePage)

body:
According to my school's mailing system,
there was a virus attached to this message.
So don't open the attachment!

-- Toby

Anthere wrote:
>
>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Anthere wrote:
>> >Notice that in bridge, there's a dead...
>> >
>> I know that "le mort" is the correct term in French,
>> but the literal
>> translation doesn't work here. In English we call it
>> "the dummy".
>>
>> Eclecticology
>
>quite amazing the number of things I am learning in
>Wikipedia...
>
>the dummy...thanks Ec !
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>>From - Thu Feb 20 13:04:21 2003
>X-UIDL: 3e54d27300000005
>X-Mozilla-Status: 0019
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

>VIRUS WARNING Message (from sentinel.ucr.edu)
>
>The virus W32/Bugbear-Dam was detected in email attachment [2.3.3.2] bartok.pk.scr.  The infected attachment has been deleted.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Database server trouble

body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 22:25, Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
>> However it shouldn't _crash_ the server; that shows (along with the
>> two
>> spontaneous MySQL crashes we've had earlier) that there's still a lot
>> of work to be done on this new machine before we can declare it to be
>> stable and happy.
>
> www.postgresql.org? :-)

Honestly, I'd love it if we made the wiki a little more
database-independent. But none of the postgres advocates have yet
submitted actual working code for it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/7c60a2f8/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Virus Warning! (Was: [Wikipedia-l] HomePage)

body:
According to my school's mailing system,
there was a virus attached to this message.
So don't open the attachment!

-- Toby

Anthere wrote:
>
>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Anthere wrote:
>> >Notice that in bridge, there's a dead...
>> >
>> I know that "le mort" is the correct term in French,
>> but the literal
>> translation doesn't work here. In English we call it
>> "the dummy".
>>
>> Eclecticology
>
>quite amazing the number of things I am learning in
>Wikipedia...
>
>the dummy...thanks Ec !
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>>From - Thu Feb 20 13:04:21 2003
>X-UIDL: 3e54d27300000005
>X-Mozilla-Status: 0019
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

>VIRUS WARNING Message (from sentinel.ucr.edu)
>
>The virus W32/Bugbear-Dam was detected in email attachment [2.3.9.2] bartok.pk.scr.  The infected attachment has been deleted.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories simplified

body:
Cunc-
> Why do we need [[Category:Mathematics]] and [[Category:Biology]] when we
> already have [[List of xy topics]]?

1) Adding metadata to the article it belongs to makes it easier to find
and update. Having it elsewhere would in fact add aditional workload and
require additional learning, because to verify whether a categorization is
correct, people would now also have to check all the [[List of xy
articles]] page where it could be or has been entered. With a Category:
approach, they only need to keep an eye on a single page (the article),
and the categories themselves are structured through subcategories and
therefore easy to pick.

2) Category pages are not articles. Like talk pages and meta pages, they
should be logically separated from articles, which has numerous benefits
(easier searching/filtering, counting etc.)

3) In terms of information organization, your approach leads to bloated,
big pages (the list of lists is going to be hundreds of pages long, the
lists themselves are going to be 30K and more), whereas the category
approach generates all long pages automatically from the information
stored inside the articles. It is much easier to handle.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Database server trouble

body:
Back up. Thanks to Jason for getting someone to reboot the machine...

(Note that we don't currently have a way to reboot the machine
remotely, which is A Bad Thing.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/320e29ca/attachment.pgp


from_name: Matt M.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] French usage

body:
> This might all be easier in English than other languages though: most
> Americans accept British English as a valid and correct form of English
> and many have at least some exposure to it,...

except that none of them can figure out that we spell it "spelt," and they
keep reverting it... ;)

> I'm not sure to what extent
> French people are familiar with French-Canadian speech, or vice-versa.

Ben l?, y'en savent pas grand'chose, pantoute, mais on fait de not' possib',
nous-aut'.

I may have partially shoved through a policy similar to the en:wiki (use the
dialect appropriate to the subject of the article) when I insisted that
discussion of gay people in [[fr:Montr?al]] use the spelling "gai," which is
official in Canada, instead of the European "gay."

And when I write an article on the French wiki, if I use a standard Quebec
French usage and someone alters it, I will revert it right back... just like
with "spelt" on the en:wiki.

Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Virus Warning! (Was: HomePage)

body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 22:31, Toby Bartels wrote:
> According to my school's mailing system,
> there was a virus attached to this message.
> So don't open the attachment!

Judging from the logs, the message was held for moderation (since it
does _not_ come from a subscribed address). Someone presumably let it
through thinking it was a genuine message from Anthere.

(Note that the real Anthere uses a Mac and is unlikely to be sending
Windows viruses around, particularly not with a different address and
through an ISP in the United Kingdom.)

I'll see about installing a virus scrubber. Sigh... I've removed the
attachment from the list archives, but what's mailed out is mailed out.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031211/c9694551/attachment.pgp


body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 22:31, Toby Bartels wrote:
> According to my school's mailing system,
> there was a virus attached to this message.
> So don't open the attachment!

Judging from the logs, the message was held for moderation (since it
does _not_ come from a subscribed address). Someone presumably let it
through thinking it was a genuine message from Anthere.

(Note that the real Anthere uses a Mac and is unlikely to be sending
Windows viruses around, particularly not with a different address and
through an ISP in the United Kingdom.)

I'll see about installing a virus scrubber. Sigh... I've removed the
attachment from the list archives, but what's mailed out is mailed out.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/c9694551/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Virus

body:
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:52:21 +0000
From: Anthere <anthere6 at sleep-dream-die.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] HomePage
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID:

<E1AUcTc-0002Z9-KH.2003-12-12-01-52-21 at cmailm5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >Notice that in bridge, there's a dead...
> >
> I know that "le mort" is the correct term in French,
> but the literal
> translation doesn't work here. In English we call it
> "the dummy".
> > Eclecticology

quite amazing the number of things I am learning in
Wikipedia...

the dummy...thanks Ec !

--------

Guys, naturally, you all understood that
anthere6 at sleep-dream-die.com is not me. This is copy
of an old public email, perhaps a year ago.

I received a personal copy of that stuff myself on
anthere6. It looks like there was a dirty thing
attached to it (I am not sure, PC virus on macintosh
are luckily not very efficient :-)).

I hope no one had problem.
Might be wise to add this adress to the list of
forbidden adress. I suppose someone liberated the mail
by mistake. It should have been stop by the spam virus
killer, no ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Virus


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
tarquin wrote:
> Constans, Camille (C.C.) wrote:
> >What is revolting with having some fun ?
> >
> Google is a commercial site. It's completely different.

Humor section? There is no humor section. We're a feminist bookstore!

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Brilliant prose rename brainstorm

body:
I believe the name "Brilliant prose" is problematic for several reasons:

- It emphasizes writing, while a good article needs to be written well,
factually accurate, neutral, reasonably complete, nicely illustrated and
well organized. It has to cite its sources, link to related pages and
present all data in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion. I believe
these criteria are not properly encompassed by the word "prose".

- The word "brilliant" is very vague and difficult to define. Accordingly,
many Wikipedians have different ideas as to what is "brilliant prose".
Some interpret the term pragmatically, feeling that every article that
satisfies certain criteria should end up on BP eventually, even if it's
short and to the point. Others understand BP to be always just a
selection, that is, if the average Wikipedia article was on par with most
traditional encyclopedias, BP should only list the very best.

- Last but not least, it conveys a sense of arrogance, and makes us look
foolish if we list an article that is only slightly "non-brilliant". The
likelihood that this happens seems very high. That also makes the title
sound slightly unprofessional (reminiscent of the fun and games days of
the early Wikipedia)

I would therefore like to ask you to brainstorm for a better title. My own
understanding of BP is the pragmatic one, that is, I see BP as our
certification mechanism, and every article should eventually pass through
it. As a matter of fact, I would like to see discussions on every talk
page at a certain point to the effect of "When can we get this listed on
BP, what needs to be done, let's do it".

As with all brainstorming, we should begin by just collecting possible
titles without criticizing them. If one of them clearly stands out, we'll
pick it. Otherwise we can vote on it.

Here are my ideas:

Certified articles
Certified content
Trusted pages
Trusted area
Safe zone
Approved articles
Golden..
Verfied..

My favorite so far is "Trusted pages".

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Database server trouble

references:
<D17D7ABC-2C66-11D8-A09A-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<8ziiz6VSpVB@erik_moeller> <3FD973AB.4050700@hotmail.com>

body:
On Dec 11, 2003, at 23:52, Tim Starling wrote:
> Brion: Hey, that query really is slow
>
> Reports of Wikipedia being down, not responding by SSH etc. then
> followed.

Like I said -- slow is okay. Slow is expected. Crashing the server
during what is otherwise the slowest traffic period? That's either a
serious bug or a hardware problem, and we want these things sorted out
now while it's still new and under warranty. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031211/cb148a3e/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Mysql tweaks

body:
As a precaution I've lowered the memory usage on MySQL. Below is the
my.cnf currently used (minus comments). I reduced the key buffer and
InnoDB buffer pool each from 1G to 768M, and the max connections from
650 (which allowed for generous attempts at double connections if every
apache process were running the wiki and had a broken persistent
connection, a new connection on top, and maybe some extra) to 300.
(Apache is now set to allow a max of 120 connections on larousse and
150 on pliny; this leaves only a little bit extra if all those
connections get used).

The maximum possible memory usage should be roughly 4MB*300 connections
plus 768M plus another 768M? Under 3 gigs, in theory, of the 4G
geoffrin has. Under the previous configuration a complete stall-out
which used the full memory maxima would have gone into swap which it
may not handle well; this may be responsible for a signal 11 mysqld
crash a few hours ago and the more recent hang.

Unfortunately neither time I had a vmstat sitting around.

[client]
port            = 3306
socket          = /tmp/mysql.sock

[mysqld]
port            = 3306
socket          = /tmp/mysql.sock
skip-locking
key_buffer = 768M
max_allowed_packet = 1M
table_cache = 1000
sort_buffer_size = 2M
read_buffer_size = 2M
myisam_sort_buffer_size = 64M
thread_cache = 8
query_cache_size = 32M
thread_concurrency = 8

set-variable = max_connections=300
log-bin
set-variable    = ft_min_word_len=2
server-id       = 1
tmpdir          = /var/tmp/

innodb_buffer_pool_size = 768M
innodb_log_file_size = 128M
innodb_log_buffer_size = 8M
innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 2

[mysqldump]
quick
max_allowed_packet = 16M

[mysql]
no-auto-rehash

[isamchk]
key_buffer = 256M
sort_buffer_size = 256M
read_buffer = 2M
write_buffer = 2M

[myisamchk]
key_buffer = 256M
sort_buffer_size = 256M
read_buffer = 2M
write_buffer = 2M

[mysqlhotcopy]
interactive-timeout

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031212/6d4e0568/attachment.pgp>