body:
Andr? M?ller wrote:

> I'm in the same opinion as Ralesk and Daniel. The font is a little small
> and I actually quite liked the old link colors too. Although I like the
> new design, I'd be happy to have back the old font size and link colors.
> In fact I also used to like that the default font was "Times New Roman",
> a font of which I'm kind of a fan of, hehe... but that might be merely
> subjective and too much to ask for.
> Just wanted to let you know that there are more than 2 who liked the old
> colors and sizes.
>
You can override some of the things yourself, visit
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_styles

However, there are some issues which are more usability than than vanity
-- which these are, I guess I have to let the admins decide.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can of worms: my new diet

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>I'm sorry I opened this can of worms.
>
Now, now, Ed, even with the personal attacks thick upon the air here,
you really should know better than to start comparing respectable
contributors to worms.

--Michael Snow (practicing the selective quotation and interpretation
that seems to be so popular on this list)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Placement of categories (was: a humble request...)

body:
I notice that the categories have now been moved to the bottom.

Why was this done in preference to my suggestion, which as far as I can
see didn't receive opposition?

The way it's now it seems impossible to move it back up with just CSS.
If someone can suggest a way, please do, especially if you can get it to
display to the right of the article title.

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Parser testing page

references:
<9A6tIhDSpVB@erik_moeller> <c9kehm$kmr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20040602120443.GA7840@localhost.localdomain>

body:
Peter Danenberg wrote:

>      I  had been playing with a flex/bison combo, but Wiki's
> not suited to LALR

In addition to what Nicolas Weeger already requested, might I also ask
exactly what syntax element you found unsuitable? I can't think of
anything that isn't context-free.

Timwi


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A parallel World Wide Web?

body:
> create an encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge.
> Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated

There is a difference between knowledge and information. Wikipedia contains
too much information and too little knowledge. This results in attracting
more and more people who think wikipedia is another good place to share
information instead of knowledge, people who believe that their information
is knowledge. In most cases it isn't.

To say it bluntly, the information contained in a "List of porn actors who
died wearing a hobbit costume" isn't knowledge for 99.999999999% of the
Wikipedia users. I agree that it might be knowledge for 0.000000001% if they
are looking for that particular kind of information. However, if Wikipedia
does contain that information to fulfill the needs of that little amount of
users, that specific information is noise for the vast majority. Since there
are no retrieval methods to sort out relevant from irrelevant information,
the noise is there. (No, google does not work.)

Knowledge is information that rests if everything unneeded *is sorted out*.
Forgetting information is a very important thing in creating knowledge.
That's the point Wikipedia is missing today. That's why some people see a
need to talk about "Wikipedia 1.0" and "peer review" and that sort of things
every now and then.

If we were aware during the regular article editing process that - given that
our mission is to collect knowledge - our strategy should be to *sort out
information*, not to *collect information*, that 1.0 stuff wouldn't have to
be discussed.

Uli


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] 172/VV

body:
I feel strongly that nothing be done that will result in the loss of either of these valuable contributers. I do think what they did was wrong, and that there should be enforcement of guidelines against it, particularly regarding the general unfriendliness/lack of civility. Perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the number of reverts (almost all reversion is bad, IMO) and not enough on the unfriendly, anti-intellectual nature of the discourse. I sided with VV in the particular partially because he has consistantly been polite to me, and 172 distinctly negative and nasty, and partially because I had not seen any convincing evidence of the claim against the U.S. govt. It has been said by reliable persons (I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues, altho he does produce reliable content generally) here on the mailing list that there is good evidence showing that there was indeed US backing. If so there should be a citation in the article, and the matter done with. In short, citations should trump majority, and incivility is a bigger crime than reversion, but both need clear guidelines and inforcement. Cheers, Jack

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: A parallel World Wide Web?

body:
Ulrich Fuchs wrote:

>>create an encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge.
>>Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated
>
> There is a difference between knowledge and information. Wikipedia contains
> too much information and too little knowledge. [...]
>
> To say it bluntly, the information contained in a "List of porn actors who
> died wearing a hobbit costume" isn't knowledge for 99.999999999% of the
> Wikipedia users.

I'm a bit stumped. Where do you draw the line between what you call
"knowledge" and what you call "information"? Who can reliably classify
whether a particular topic constitutes "knowledge" or "information" (or
what you referred to as "relevant" and "noise")? Your "List of porn
actors" example is specifically chosen to be an extreme case; I would be
interested to see what you would consider an extreme example on the
other side.

Personally, I don't understand the distinction you are making.
"Knowledge" is when your brain contains the "information". "Information"
is what your brain can take in to acquire "knowledge". That's how I see
it. Under this definition, we are collecting information, because
Wikipedia itself is not a sentient entity that can have "knowledge".

> Knowledge is information that rests if everything unneeded *is sorted out*.

I'm sure you'll understand that this isn't really a definition, as you
have left open the question of what is "unneeded". Again, I would be
interested to hear an example of what you call "needed".

Timwi


references:
<BCE361A2.3EEF%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<200406022134.20454.mail@ulrich-fuchs.de>
	<20040602201829.GA20074@werewolf.schneelocke.net>

body:
> Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not
> ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?

I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract
issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain
the concepts of every knowledge area.

The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of
these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not
explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]]
is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.

Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us
would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an
encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli
Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the
second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in
May 2004]] does not (I hope so).

What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures?
Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the
world. Ulis private pictures are not.

We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]]
does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs
didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).

You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write
down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a
place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take
it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those
instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp:
American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on
Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" -
keep it. Simple as that.

Uli


from_name: Ralph Ballier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Monobook

body:
Hello,

I have install mediawiki.

Where I can get skin monobook? How I have to install a skin? I am very new for mediawiki.

Greetings

	Ralph


from_name: wikipedia-l at gl00on.net

body:
> > Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not
> > ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
>
> I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract
> issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain
> the concepts of every knowledge area.
>
> The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of
> these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not
> explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]]
> is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.
>
> Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us
> would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an
> encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli
> Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the
> second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in
> May 2004]] does not (I hope so).
>
> What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures?
> Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the
> world. Ulis private pictures are not.
>
> We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]]
> does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs
> didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).
>
> You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write
> down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a
> place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take
> it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those
> instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp:
> American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on
> Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" -
> keep it. Simple as that.

Well, you know what they say... watt dem een sien Uhl, is dem annern sien
Nachtigall. Just because you don't see the point in an article does not mean
it's not worth having.

For what it's worth, I don't think stuff like "[[the first picture that Uli
Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]]" is a good
example, either - I think everyone (including those who envision Wikipedia
and its sister projects to become a collection of all human knowledge) will
agree that this is not encyclopedic, but then, last time I checked, that
article (as well as the other examples you give) don't exist, anyway.

FWIW, there already is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not,
which lists some things that are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and (maybe
of even more interest)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Quantity_and_quality

Lastly, if you think an article does not deserve an entry on Wikipedia, you
can always list it on VfD, and if others agree with you, it will get
deleted. And if they don't... well, such is life; nobody's perfect. Maybe
you should reconsider the article in question then.

--
12:05AM  up 120 days,  9:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.42, 0.23, 0.18

Every non-empty totally disconnected perfect compact metric space is
homeomorphic to the Cantor set.


body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:

>>>>>>"AM" == Andr? M?ller <Andr> writes:
>
>     AM> The aim of the Wikipedia - in Esperanto I'd call it the "fina
>     AM> venko" - is to create an encyclopedia or database containing
>     AM> all the human knowledge.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>
> Encyclopedia != "database containing all human knowledge". An
> encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.

Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at Wiktionary to
find out what an encyclopedia is:

	A reference work (often in several volumes) containing in-depth
	articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical
	order) dealing with a wide range of subjects or with some
	particular specialty.

This doesn't seem to exclude any human knowledge, neither explicitly nor
implicitly. What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be
covered in an encyclopedia, and why?

Timwi


from_name: yuanml

subject: [Wikipedia-l] the default font size on Chinese Wikipedia

body:
Menchi had mentioned this point on Wikitech-l:

"Chinese characters have many many more strokes than Roman letters. So
the current MonoBook font size at Chinese WP is very hard on the eye."

"Almost every single Chinese user who experienced the skin have pointed
out that the font size's difficult to read."

So it is not a problem for one user's preference, but a problem for the site.

Please change the default size to 11pt which is adopted by most portals.


from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia--A parallel World Wide Web?

body:
I'd like to know what you define as "noise".  Is it
Rambot? Stubs on celebrities? How can you tell noise
from articles that you just aren't interested in?

Meelar

> > Basically, what is happening here is the building
> of a parallel World Wide
> > Web inside the wikipedia.org domain
>
> And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our
> biggest problem. Not the
> copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not
> the enthusiasts he
> mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem
> is noise, in en: even
> more as in de:.  The noise repells qualified authors
> and editors. This is the
> reason why the article quality does not increase the
> way that should be
> expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the
> popularity and it already
> has.
>
> As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead
> we are creating noise by
> accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing
> that
> noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years
> now - that outsiders
> statement is very interesting.
>
> Uli

=====
"The difference between extra-marital sex and extra marital sex is not to be sneezed at."

--George Will, on hyphen use

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
It is mostly a matter of emphasis, of consistently editing articles to give
a positive spin to totalitarian leftist political organizations. Admitting
atrocities, but downplaying them is a tactic, the strategy is to present
leftist totalitarianism in the most favorable light possible.

Thus a naive reader is mislead by what appears to be an objective "academic"
stance but is in fact just clever presentation of a distinct point of view.
That the majority of the historians in the academic community support this
view adds a figleaf. But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
including those who are "politically incorrect".

Fred

> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
>
> Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to
	Fred Bauder)

body:
I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are
definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism &
Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724
to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports
the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> Bauder)
>
> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
>>
>> It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
>> -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand
>> that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have
>> gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
>> root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
>> countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
>> terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
>> think this is constructive.
>
> It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> Pipes and his crowd.
>
> The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> less authoritative than 172?
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: contributions to HU wiki

body:
If this description of the situation is correct, I see no reason to
interfere. In fact, I just wished problems would work this way more
times. Grin has problems with an article. He says what his problems
are. B?g?ly answers to the objections. That's the way such things
should be solved - discussion. Demanding that Grin just lets his
objections be would be just as wrong as it would for him to censor
the article. Instead, the objections should be discussed in a way
aimed at getting agreement. I don't think that what happened here
is further from that ideal than most other discussions on Wikipedia.

Andre Engels

"Ralesk Ne'vennoyx" <ralesk at livejournal.com> schrieb:
> Situation.  User:B?g?ly has been writing an article under their User
> area.  The article was going to be about dictionary.  According to the
> content -- which is quite freeworded at parts, not written in
> "officialspeek" if you get me -- this is a quite good definition for
> what is a dictionary.  At this point I do not see why Grin so adamantly
> (later in the discussion) stood up for the point that Wikipedia is not a
> dictionary.  How else should one write an encyclopaedia entry on a
> 'dictionary' if not by defining what all kinds of dictionaries exist?
>
> Anyway, from the discussion, I see a misunderstanding, or as we would
> say "egym?s mellett elbesz?lni".  Grin was wondering about the
> following: why not write the article in the article space, where it
> belongs; who would be interested in this article and why would it belong
> here (as wikipedia is not a dictionary); and third, he didn't really
> look but wonders whether B?g?ly wrote this or not (and hopes they did,
> else he would have to go and erase after them).  But anyway, if it makes
> B?g?ly feel good, they can continue their secret whatever, Grin just
> doesn't understand why it is being done here.
>
> B?g?ly replies:  This is a stub for an article, and it has been said
> that such may be developed in the Sandbox or the userspace, thus B?g?ly
> decided their stubs would be developed in userspace [and when the
> content is agreed upon, it would be moved to articlespace -- translator
> guessing from questions placed directly after the two article stubs,
> directed towards the readership].  Why does Grin regard this some
> "secret project"?  B?g?ly is aware of the difference between WP and
> Wiktionary, and points out there exists a WP article on 'dictionary' in
> the English Wikipedia.
>
>
> My humble conclusion is that Grin is a bit overprotective about the
> content put on WP and assumes that people are completely unaware of the
> rules regarding copying.  I do see why he is being regarded as paranoid
> in the other post.  B?g?ly, meanwhile, misunderstood Grin's intention
> and took it tougher than they should have.


from_name: apogr

body:
Thank you!
Being blocked from making modest experimental contibutions is not a big
issue after all.But if it may happen to other people in the Huwiki as well,
you will not have the discussions going on any term, a
proposition that can be easily asserted by looking at the number of
contributors for each item/term.
And in that case the number of potential wikipedians will not grow in HUW,
and neither will the number of entries properly produced. On the other hand,
if HUWP is a one man show only, it must be no fun for any
other volunteers either.
apogr

P.S. Paranoia means misunderstanding: para - ?at or to one side of, beside,
side by side? (parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis), ?beyond, past, by?
(paradox; paragogue);. noia combining form from Greek, where it meant
?thought?:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralesk Ne'vennoyx" <ralesk at livejournal.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: contributions to HU wiki

> Situation.  User:B?g?ly has been writing an article under their User
> area.  The article was going to be about dictionary.  According to the
> content -- which is quite freeworded at parts, not written in
> "officialspeek" if you get me -- this is a quite good definition for
> what is a dictionary.  At this point I do not see why Grin so adamantly
> (later in the discussion) stood up for the point that Wikipedia is not a
> dictionary.  How else should one write an encyclopaedia entry on a
> 'dictionary' if not by defining what all kinds of dictionaries exist?
>
> Anyway, from the discussion, I see a misunderstanding, or as we would
> say "egym?s mellett elbesz?lni".  Grin was wondering about the
> following: why not write the article in the article space, where it
> belongs; who would be interested in this article and why would it belong
> here (as wikipedia is not a dictionary); and third, he didn't really
> look but wonders whether B?g?ly wrote this or not (and hopes they did,
> else he would have to go and erase after them).  But anyway, if it makes
> B?g?ly feel good, they can continue their secret whatever, Grin just
> doesn't understand why it is being done here.
>
> B?g?ly replies:  This is a stub for an article, and it has been said
> that such may be developed in the Sandbox or the userspace, thus B?g?ly
> decided their stubs would be developed in userspace [and when the
> content is agreed upon, it would be moved to articlespace -- translator
> guessing from questions placed directly after the two article stubs,
> directed towards the readership].  Why does Grin regard this some
> "secret project"?  B?g?ly is aware of the difference between WP and
> Wiktionary, and points out there exists a WP article on 'dictionary' in
> the English Wikipedia.
>
>
> My humble conclusion is that Grin is a bit overprotective about the
> content put on WP and assumes that people are completely unaware of the
> rules regarding copying.  I do see why he is being regarded as paranoid
> in the other post.  B?g?ly, meanwhile, misunderstood Grin's intention
> and took it tougher than they should have.
>
> I know not more.
>
> >>sz?t?r (dictionary)
> >>Egy nyelv szavainak rendszerint ?b?c?be rendezett jegyz?ke f?leg k?nyv
alakban. Az els? sz?t?rak eredetileg "neh?z" szavak gy?jtem?nyei voltak,
illetve eredetileg nem ?b?c? rendben szerepeltek benn?k a szavak. Ezek a
sz?t?rak t?meges, k?zc?lra k?sz?ltek, ma is nagy p?ld?nysz?mban nyomtatj?k
ki ?ket.
> >>Sz?t?rat sz?kebb, saj?t haszn?latra is k?sz?tenek az emberek pl. egy
idegennyelv? sz?veg tanul?sakor. Ezek a szavak sz?vegbeli el?fordul?s
szerint szoktak ?sszegy?lni, a nev?k sz?szedet (glossary). Ugyanezek
kinyomtatott k?nyvek v?g?n index n?ven szerepelnek ?s m?r rendszerint
?b?c?be vannak rendezve.
> >>A szavak ?gy ker?lnek a sz?t?rakba, hogy megfosztjuk ?ket k?rnyezet?kt?l
(pl. ragok, v?gz?d?sek ?s m?s szavak) (lemmatisation ?s
decontextualisation). A k?zvetlen k?rnyezet term?szetesen f?leg szavakat
jelent az indo-europai nyelvekben, amelyek mint tudjuk, kifejez?seket,
mondatokat, bekezd?seket, stb. alkotnak. Mindezek nyelvi, nyelvtani
tulajdons?gait a nyelvtan ?s a le?r? nyelv?szet fogalmai adj?k megy, melyek
k?z?l egyre nagyobb sz?m? elem, egyre t?bb inform?ci? kezd beker?lni a
sz?t?rban szerepl? szavak (sz?cikkek) (headwords, entries) mell?, k?zel?be.
Van olyan (angol) sz?t?r is, amely azt is felt?nteti, hogy az adott sz?
haszn?lati gyakoris?g szempontj?b?l "mennyire fontos" az adott nyelvben, pl.
mert benne van a leggyakrabban haszn?lt els? ezerben.
> >>A magyar nyelv eset?ben azonban m?g el?z?leg a szavakat sz?t?ri alakra
is kell hozni, vagyis alaposan meg kell fosztanunk szinte minden
nyelvi-nyelvtani kontextusb?li inform?ci?j?t?l.
> >>A szavak nem nyelvi, hanem logikai, ismeretelm?leti vagy egy?b kognit?v
rel?ci?s ism?rvei is fontos ism?rvek lehetnek, ez?rt ezek jel?l?se, megad?sa
is ma m?r ig?ny a sz?t?rak k?sz?t?s?n?l, k?l?n?sen, ha azok elektronikus
form?ban (pl. online el?rhet?s?ggel) k?sz?lnek. A szavak ilyen ?sszef?gg?sei
szerint m?r nem ?b?c?ben csoportos?tott gy?jtem?nyeket vagy sz?t?rakat
tezaurusznak (thesaurus) nevezz?k.
> >>Az eddig k?sz?lt sz?t?rak, ak?r ?b?c?ben, ak?r tezauruszk?nt azonban
sajna, statikus szeml?let?ek. (Egy?bk?nt a kontextus, ha nincs explicit
m?don jel?lve a sz?t?rban, az aktu?lis olvas? fej?ben kell, hogy meglegyen -
ebb?l k?vetkezik, hogy minden r?gz?tett ismeret csak egyik fele a
val?s?gnak, a m?sik fele az ?rtelmez?n?l kell, hogy rendelkez?sre ?lljon.)
Ebb?l l?tszik, hogy a statikus szeml?let? sz?t?rk?sz?t?s nem sz?mol a sz?t?r
haszn?l?k k?l?nb?z? ig?nyeivel.
> >>Egy viszonylag friss p?lda egy statikus szeml?let? egynyelv?
elektronikus sz?t?rra megtal?lhat? a k?vetkez? c?men:
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/index.jsp
> >>tralla-la, ?s ?gy mehetne tov?bb, ha tetszik.
> >>b?g?ly
> >>Sz?t?r (folyt.) (Sz?t?raz?s)
> >>Olyan nyelvekn?l, amelyeknek nem fonetikus a helyes?r?sa, a
leggyakrabban a sz?t?rak a helyes?r?s mellett a kiejt?st adj?k meg
nemzetk?zi fonetikai jelekkel. Nem ?gy persze ma, az online sz?t?rak
kor?ban, ahol m?sra is lehet?s?g van. Ha valaki ?ppen az eredeti az angol
kiejt?st akarja gyakorolni ? de nemcsak, hanem britt, amerikai, kanadai,
ausztr?l vagy ?ppen sk?t v?ltozatban, ugorjon el a http://www.fonetiks.org/
c?mre.
> >>A leggyakoribb probl?ma, ami miatt az embeek a sz?t?rakhoz ny?lnak, az
az, hogy megakadnak egy sz?veg olvas?sa/?r?sa k?zben egy sz?n?l. Att?l
f?gg?en, hogy ez az anyanyelv?k?n vagy a tanult nyelven fordul el?, t?bb
lehet?s?g?nk is van. Vagy egy egynyelv? (angol) ?rtelmez? sz?t?rban n?zz?k
meg, ahol minden bizonnyal ott lesz a sz? jelent?s?nek meghat?roz?sa, vagy
egy olyan sz?t?rban, amelyikben a rokon jelent?s? szavak hierarchikus
rendben t?rt?n? csoportos?t?s?val a sz? jelent?s?nek m?sfajta
megk?zel?t?s?vel tal?lkozhatunk. Az el?bbi sz?t?rat
http://dictionary.reference.com/ aj?nljuk a keresend? f?nevek eset?ben, m?g
a m?sodikat http://thesaurus.reference.com/ ink?bb ig?k keres?s?ben fogjuk
hasznosnak tal?lni.
> >>Ha sem egyik, sem m?sik megold?s nem volt el?g az adott sz? jelent?s?nek
tiszt?z?s?hoz, akkor n?zz?nk meg egy k?tnyelv?, angol-magyar sz?t?rt, pl. a
http://dict.sztaki.hu/english-hungarian -t. Az?rt aj?nlottuk ezt, mert ez
egyben magyar-angol sz?t?r is, ha a megfelel? be?ll?t?st elv?gezt?k, de ne
nagyon b?zzunk benne. Ha itt sem j?runk eredm?nnyel, keress?nk tov?bb a m?g
mindig ingyenes, hasonl? k?tnyelv? sz?t?rak k?z?tt. Ilyen a
http://www.cab.u-szeged.hu/cgi-bin/szotar, vagy a
http://dictionaries.travlang.com/EnglishHungarian/ , illetve annak magyar
angol p?rja a http://dictionaries.travlang.com/HungarianEnglish/.
> >>Most m?r ismerve a sz? jelent?s?t, elmehet?nk egy m?g gazdagabb
ismeretforr?shoz, ami m?r nem is sz?t?r, hanem enciklop?dia: olyan
ismerett?rh?z, ahol a keresett sz?t sz?vegk?rnyezetben tal?ljuk meg m?g
akkor is, ha maga a sz? a c?mszavak k?z?tt nem szerepel
http://www.encyclopedia.com/ vagy maga a wikipedia, amelyben vagyunk.
> >>Persze egy id? ut?n m?r nem egy sz?t?rban keres az ember, hanem sz?les
fronton, sz?les s?von t?mad, egyszerre, egy l?p?ssel t?bb sz?t?rban is ut?na
n?z?nk egy-egy sz? jelent?s?nek. Erre val? a http://www.onelook.com/
weboldal, ahol tucatnyi sz?t?rb?l keresi el? b?ng?sz? programunk a
lehets?ges jelent?sv?ltozatokat. Ne legy?nk restek, n?zz?k ?ket v?gig
egyenk?nt, mert k?zt?k mindj?rt ott lesz egy olyan is,
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Dictionary/DictionaryHome.aspx amely
hajland? sz?munkra az adott sz? kiejt?s?t is megsz?laltatni. Vigy?zat, mert
ha nem vagyunk el?g ?vatosak, akkor abba se akarja hagyni az adott sz?
ism?tl?s?t? (Mindenesetre ?ll?tsuk le a Real Player-t h?tha az seg?t.)
> >>Nem sorolom fel, hogy a ?onelook? seg?ts?g?vel h?ny sz?t?rt lehet
fel?tni. Ez?rt miel?tt nagyon belemelegedn?nk a keres?sbe ?s a
gy?jt?get?sbe, m?ris kider?lt, hogy alkalmas, rendszerez? eszk?zre is
sz?ks?g?nk van, amit jobb h?j?n sz?t?rf?zetnek vagy glossz?riumnak nevez?nk,
van aki szakmai szer?nys?ggel adatb?zisnak. Az egyik ilyen weboldal vagy c?m
http://glossword.info/dev/glossword1/en/doc/23.xhtml. ahonnan let?lt?ssel
beszrezhet? egy ilyen eszk?z, a m?sik eszk?znek ez a
http://www.vocatude.com/ lel?helye. A harmadik m?g enn?l is ig?nyes
feladatokra alkalmas, de m?r nem ingyenes, csak egy kipr?b?l?si id?re, itt
tal?lhat?: http://www.wordfisher.com/wf4.htm.
> >>Annak, akinek a fenti v?laszt?k sem lenne el?g, aj?nljuk, hogy n?zzen
k?r?l ezen a helyen is http://www.freelang.net/, mert itt tov?bbi
sz?t?rakr?l tal?lhat inform?ci?kat.
> >>A sz?t?r elvileg arra is szolg?l, hogy helyet kapjanak benne egy-egy
nyelv fontos szavai, sz?kincse, mintegy megtestes?ts?k a nyelvtud?st. Vajon
h?ny sz?t tudunk, ha j?l ismer?nk egy nyelvet, ?s mit tudunk, amikor
egyetlen sz?t ismer?nk?
> >>Kezdj?k a v?g?vel. Arra vagyunk k?pesek, hogy els? hall?sra
megjegyezz?k, ut?na felid?zz?k, helyesen le?rjuk, helyesen kiejts?k,
megfelel? helyzetben, nyelvtani szab?lyok szerinti j?l haszn?ljuk, egy m?sik
hasonl? ?rtelm? sz?val helyettes?ts?k, ragozzuk, vagy m?s v?gz?d?sekkel,
toldal?kokkal abb?l m?s jelent?s?, sz?faj?, stb. szavakat k?pezz?nk,
ismerj?k r?vid?tett, ?s m?s v?ltozat? alakjait, milyen szavakkal j?r egy?tt,
mi a sz?faja, meghat?roz?sa, jelent?se, milyen szavak ?llnak alatta ?s
felette a szavakkal jelzett dolgok hierachi?j?ban, stb. Ennek megfelel?en a
sz?t?rak is tartalmazz?k egy?tt, vagy k?l?n a szavak fenti ism?rveit. A
sz?kincs b?v?t?s?t k?v?natos dolgonak tartjuk, szeg?nys?g?t el?t?lj?k. Van,
aki a sz?t?rakat tanul?si c?llal forgatja, nem csak probl?ma megold?shoz.
> >>Akit nem a speci?lis szaksz?kincs ?rdekel, hanem valami ?nagyon
mindennapi?, az l?togasson el a: http://a4esl.org/a/v.html c?mre, ahol sok
sz?kincsre vonakoz? feladatot tal?l, neh?zs?gi fok szerint csoportos?tva. ?s
ha megtetszik neki a hely, akkor menjen el az elej?re http://a4esl.org/
c?mre, ahol m?g t?bb, m?s jelleg? nyelvi feladat v?r r?.
> >>Visszat?rve a sz?tanul?s k?l?nb?z? aspektusaira, nagyon j?nak fogj?k
tal?lni a http://www.vocabulary.com/ c?met. M?g enn?l is komfortosabb egy
igazi cyber nyelvlaborat?rium a http://www.esl-lab.com/ illetve a
http://www.esl-lab.com/index.htm c?men, amelynek f?leg a nem kezd? angolosok
?r?lhetnek. Az amerikai nyelvhaszn?lat szerelmesei a
http://www.ohiou.edu/esl/english/vocabulary.html helyet fogj?k ?rt?kelni,
m?g az egyszerre t?bb nyelvet tanul?k a http://www.vokabel.com/ c?men
kereskedjenek.
> >>Aki a k?l?nlegeset szereti, ?s idiom?kat akar meg?rteni, megtanulni, az
menjen el a http://www.eslcafe.com/idioms/ c?mre, aki j?tszani ?s rejtv?nyt
fejteni az ide: http://www.manythings.org/ . A mindent egy helyen keres?nek
a legjobban http://www.better-english.com/vocabulary.htm c?men tal?lhat?
anyag fog tetszeni, amivel nem is fog v?gezni a h?nap v?g?ig. A
sz?tanul?sban ?gyorstalpal?? megold?sra v?gy?knak a
http://vocabulary.englishclub.com/ c?met aj?nlom, m?g a feleletv?lasztos,
k?ppel seg?tett sz?tanul?st kedvel?knek a http://iteslj.org/v/ei/ c?met.
Csak t?relmesen v?rj?k meg, m?g a k?p is el?ker?l, ?gy kell a feladatokat
megcsin?lni.
> >>J?het m?g?
> >>B?g?ly
> >>Tov?bb pergettem a sz?lat - v?rom a v?lem?nyt a tartalomr?l. b?g?ly
> >>Kedves B?g?ly,
> >>Ha itt helyben l?sz le ?rte sem tudom, hogy mit csin?lsz, mi?rt ?rod azt
a userlapodra, amit. Egyr?szt nem tudom, mi?rt ?rsz oda cikket, amikor ott
ink?bb magadr?l szok?s ?rni; m?sr?sz nem tudom, mi?rt vagy kinek ?rdekes a
cikk, vagy hogy j?n ide (hiszen a Wikip?dia lexikon, ?s nem sz?t?r);
harmadr?szt azt sem n?ztem, hogy te ?rtad, vagy valaki m?s - rem?lem, az
el?bbi, mert k?l?nben lehet ut?nad t?r?lgetni. Sz?val... szerintem, ha j?l
esik, vagy valami titkos c?llal teszed, folytasd csak, senki nem fog
megakad?lyozni, de ?n legal?bbis nem ?rtem, hogy mire j? az, amit
teszel. --grin ? 2004 m?jus 7, 15:56 (CEST)
> >>--- Kedves Grin! Ez egy sz?cikk pr?b?lkoz?s, azt olvastam, hogy ide vagy
a homokoz?ba ?rhatok kezdem?nyt. Nem tudom, hogyan lesz-e, lesz-e bel?le
sz?cikk. Mi?rt titkos c?l, ha valaki ?r valamit a wikip?di?ba? Tudom, hogy
mi a k?l?nbs?g az enciklop?dia ?s a vikip?dia k?z?tt - az angol wikip?di?ban
van dictionary sz?cikk - mi?rt ne lehetne itt is? b?g?ly ---
> >>
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Ralesk Ne'vennoyx

body:
apogr wrote:
> Thank you!
> Being blocked from making modest experimental contibutions is not a big
> issue after all.But if it may happen to other people in the Huwiki as well,
> you will not have the discussions going on any term, a
> proposition that can be easily asserted by looking at the number of
> contributors for each item/term.
> And in that case the number of potential wikipedians will not grow in HUW,
> and neither will the number of entries properly produced. On the other hand,
> if HUWP is a one man show only, it must be no fun for any
> other volunteers either.
> apogr
>
If in the end he is indeed found to be a burden to the Hungarian
Wikip?dia project (as opposed to being a burden to only a few volunteers
who might or might not raise their voice about it), I am inclined to
ask: whom else could we give sysop powers that is often around, is
responsible, and knows what and when to do?

> P.S. Paranoia means misunderstanding: para - ?at or to one side of, beside,
> side by side? (parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis), ?beyond, past, by?
> (paradox; paragogue);. noia combining form from Greek, where it meant
> ?thought?:
>
A brilliant example of how different a meaning can become when a word is
being used by those not in the know of the original meaning of the word.


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] DifferenceEngine and ISO nbsp

body:
define('NBSP', "\xA0");			// iso-8859-x non-breaking space.

I've never witnessed that this is causing any trouble, but shouldn't it cause
trouble on non-ISO Wikipedias? Shouldn't it be best that it is changed to
" " which would work everywhere?


body:
Thanks again, although I am only interested in theoretical issues of the WP,
and would hate to be involved in personnel policies, or used in any "power
struggle".
But it is a fact, that I originally wrote "practising paranoia", which is
not the same as calling someone paranoid- as it has been rightly pointed out
by Ralesk Ne'vennoyx
apogr

> apogr wrote:
> > Thank you!
> > Being blocked from making modest experimental contibutions is not a big
> > issue after all.But if it may happen to other people in the Huwiki as
well,
> > you will not have the discussions going on any term, a
> > proposition that can be easily asserted by looking at the number of
> > contributors for each item/term.
> > And in that case the number of potential wikipedians will not grow in
HUW,
> > and neither will the number of entries properly produced. On the other
hand,
> > if HUWP is a one man show only, it must be no fun for any
> > other volunteers either.
> > apogr
> >
> If in the end he is indeed found to be a burden to the Hungarian
> Wikip?dia project (as opposed to being a burden to only a few volunteers
> who might or might not raise their voice about it), I am inclined to
> ask: whom else could we give sysop powers that is often around, is
> responsible, and knows what and when to do?
>
> > P.S. Paranoia means misunderstanding: para - ?at or to one side of,
beside,
> > side by side? (parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis), ?beyond, past,
by?
> > (paradox; paragogue);. noia combining form from Greek, where it meant
> > ?thought?:
> >
> A brilliant example of how different a meaning can become when a word is
> being used by those not in the know of the original meaning of the word.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Jack Wilhite

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9

body:
Too many cooks ruined the soup.
I just barely checked in and after a peruse--PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME!
How about 173?
Jack

wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
>         wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
>       Bauder) (Stan Shebs)
>    2. Re: Can of worms: my new diet (Michael Snow)
>    3. Response to Jack Lynch  (Abe Sokolov)
>    4. Re: Response to Jack Lynch  (Fred Bauder)
>    5. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to       Fred
>       Bauder) (Fred Bauder)
>    6. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
>    7. RE: Response to Jack Lynch  (Jack Lynch)
>    8. Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (Sheldon Rampton)
>    9. Response to Jack Lynch (Abe Sokolov)
>   10. WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents (Thomas R. Koll)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
>         to Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <40BEB514.8020303 at apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
> >
> > It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> > -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand
> > that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have
> > gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> > root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> > countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> > terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> > think this is constructive.
>
> It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> Pipes and his crowd.
>
> The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> less authoritative than 172?
>
> Stan
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:25:02 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can of worms: my new diet
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <40BEB62E.3000109 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry I opened this can of worms.
> >
> Now, now, Ed, even with the personal attacks thick upon the air here,
> you really should know better than to start comparing respectable
> contributors to worms.
>
> --Michael Snow (practicing the selective quotation and interpretation
> that seems to be so popular on this list)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F46g9S83w4bnN30002c80d at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
>
> Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
> the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
> this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
> among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
> These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
> they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
> among Wikipedia users.
>
> When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
> dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's
> credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:01:12 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE46F28.3F66%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> It is mostly a matter of emphasis, of consistently editing articles to give
> a positive spin to totalitarian leftist political organizations. Admitting
> atrocities, but downplaying them is a tactic, the strategy is to present
> leftist totalitarianism in the most favorable light possible.
>
> Thus a naive reader is mislead by what appears to be an objective "academic"
> stance but is in fact just clever presentation of a distinct point of view.
> That the majority of the historians in the academic community support this
> view adds a figleaf. But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
> including those who are "politically incorrect".
>
> Fred
>
> > From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> > To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> >
> > Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"
> >
> > Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
> > insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
> > appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
> > the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:26:26 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response
>         to      Fred Bauder)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BCE47512.3F6B%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are
> definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism &
> Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724
> to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports
> the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
> > Bauder)
> >
> > steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others
> >> -- characterize this as a right/left argument.  Even they understand
> >> that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument.  I have
> >> gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the
> >> root issue.  Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other
> >> countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in
> >> terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not
> >> think this is constructive.
> >
> > It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century
> > history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be
> > too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through
> > Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until
> > researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online
> > and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history
> > is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by
> > their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you
> > have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments,
> > etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there
> > are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one
> > way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in
> > difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with
> > locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state
> > legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is
> > a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel
> > Pipes and his crowd.
> >
> > The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
> > hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
> > less authoritative than 172?
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:30:30 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F84KuFXFMnLW0l00054bf9 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities of
> leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I do not
> do this, intentionally or unintentionally. Unless you're deliberately
> modeling yourself after Joe McCarthy, try to find a way to spew your
> political rants on the mailing list without hurting people and tearing them
> down in the process.
>
> BTW, please read Slrubenstein's posting (and try to comprehend). At the
> moment, I?m to pissed to be capable of expressing what?s he getting across
> clearly and politely.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
> a trip to NY
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu,  3 Jun 2004 10:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jack Lynch" <jacklynch at excite.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040603145756.5BA45109EE5 at xprdmailfe1.nwk.excite.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>  --- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov at hotmail.com > wrote:
> From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov at hotmail.com]
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
>
> Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"

Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.

That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
among Wikipedia users.

When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that tru
>  ly impugn a user's
credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.

>
> I have found you unreliable in some areas of politics or history because of your demeanor, not because of some specific factual inaccuracy.
 Yours is a matter of POV, rudeness, and haughtiness, not one of fraud, falsification, or incompetance.
  I understand that you feel that your expertise invalidates concerns of POV, or asigns you a superior intellectual status, but I assure you that you are mistaken.
  That being said I have slowly noticed the general quality of your edits, and that gives me some reason to strive to see past your partisan persona.
  The spiteful and uncompromising condescension which I encountered the first time we disagreed was not my first impression of you actually.
 You made a fine impression, complimentary and pleasant when first we spoke, as I was seconding a self-nomination you placed as a brilliant prose candidate.
 Jack

>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:52:00 -0500
> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <p06020443bce4f682198f@[10.255.72.22]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> >Because there's no possible excuse for personal attacks. It doesn't
> >matter how strongly you feel about the issue, your personal history,
> >nothing.
>
> The people who think that Abe *initiated* personal attacks should
> take another look at the title of this thread. This entire discussion
> is taking place in the context of an attack on Abe in which a
> proposal is on the table to ban him. Moreover, the discussion here
> has been mean-spirited and unfair. Abe posted the text of an article
> he wrote about the failings of the Soviet economy. I read the
> article, and I could see that it contained several clear, strong
> criticisms of Stalinist policies that hurt the economy. Nevertheless,
> Fred and others responded to the article by waxing nasty and
> sarcastic. They cherry-picked phrases out of the article that made it
> sound like Abe was blaming workers for poor productivity, and then
> threw in gratuitous accusations of being an apologist for dictators
> because in their opinion Fred's article didn't say enough about the
> Soviet gulags. As far as I can see, Fred is the one who initiated
> this attack, and he did it dishonestly. He has a different POV than
> Abe, and he's trying to resolve it by having him banned and by
> warring about the content of his article on this listserv.
>
> Sure, Abe shouldn't have called Fred "senile," but in the overall
> context of nasty discourse that has characterized this thread, I
> don't think Abe's comment stands out as being more egregious than the
> insults that have been thrown his way.
>
> --Sheldon Rampton
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:03:17 +0000
> From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY7-F67v1jNovUKF7n0000c402 at hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Oh, now I remember that critical theory nomination. I'm sorry if I was being
> a bit harsh at the time (I was trying to react to your comments and not you
> personally). But still, that was really a good article, written for the most
> part by a well known philosopher and English language translator of J?rgen
> Habermas while he was contributing to Wikipedia I think that if you reread
> my comments, you'll find that they aren't as harsh as you're making them out
> to be.
>
> I might be wrong, but if I could remember correctly you said something to
> the effect of the prose sounding like "intellectual masturbation." I repied
> that that could be your ignorance. But at the same time, I admitted that I
> was ignorant of just about every other article nominated for featured status
> and pointing to the fact that I wasn't making likely-to-be uninformed
> criticisms of them. If anything, I was trying suggest that you might want to
> withhold your oppostion, that's all. BTW, at the time I think that I was
> also confusing you with another user with a similar user name.
>
> I hope that this clarification and apology will put the tensions between the
> two of us at bay
>
> -172
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:19:51 +0200
> From: "Thomas R. Koll" <tomk32 at gmx.de>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiReader Free Software and Free Contents
> To: WikiEN-l <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040603161951.GC13324 at tomk32.homelinux.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As you might have read on wikipedia-l or de:Wikipedia we have started
> to make PDFs out of our contents at de:
> Today I want announce to those who haven't heard about it yet, that
> I'm planning to do a WikiReader on Free Software and Free Contents.
> The plan is to get it done by June 9th as a kind of gift for
> the WOS3 conference in Berlin. Jimbo and Eloqunce will held speeches and
> there's the "Wikipedia Community Day".
>
> Generating the PDF and such is easy, but the time consumpting thing
> is finding a final TOC and extending some of the articles.
>
> I hope that some of you are interested in the topic and take a look at
> the current TOC.
>
> ciao, tom
>
> == External Links ==
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Free_Software_and_Free_Contents
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader
>
> --
> == Weblinks ==
> * http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32 - Free Knowledge
> * http://tinyurl.com/27c88 - WikiReader Internet: bald im Druck
> * http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com - Free Books
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9
> ***************************************


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Because there's no possible excuse for personal attacks. It doesn't
>matter how strongly you feel about the issue, your personal history,
>nothing.

The people who think that Abe *initiated* personal attacks should
take another look at the title of this thread. This entire discussion
is taking place in the context of an attack on Abe in which a
proposal is on the table to ban him. Moreover, the discussion here
has been mean-spirited and unfair. Abe posted the text of an article
he wrote about the failings of the Soviet economy. I read the
article, and I could see that it contained several clear, strong
criticisms of Stalinist policies that hurt the economy. Nevertheless,
Fred and others responded to the article by waxing nasty and
sarcastic. They cherry-picked phrases out of the article that made it
sound like Abe was blaming workers for poor productivity, and then
threw in gratuitous accusations of being an apologist for dictators
because in their opinion Fred's article didn't say enough about the
Soviet gulags. As far as I can see, Fred is the one who initiated
this attack, and he did it dishonestly. He has a different POV than
Abe, and he's trying to resolve it by having him banned and by
warring about the content of his article on this listserv.

Sure, Abe shouldn't have called Fred "senile," but in the overall
context of nasty discourse that has characterized this thread, I
don't think Abe's comment stands out as being more egregious than the
insults that have been thrown his way.

--Sheldon Rampton


body:
I think we have beat on Abe, 172, enough, after all I think he is in the
right in the Augusto Pinochet article, which is the one before the
arbitration committee. I've never looked closely at VV but he seems quite
reluctant to search for and evaluate the evidence in that matter.

Under existing Wikipedia rules, editing from a point of view is subject to
correction by the editing process, not grounds for banning.

172 doesn't think he's consistently editing from a point of view. Perhaps
innocently he accepts current academic notions of political correctness as
having objective validity. I don't agree, but I seldom try to fight it out
with him with respect to particular articles. My plate is bit too full.

Fred

> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:52:00 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>> Because there's no possible excuse for personal attacks. It doesn't
>> matter how strongly you feel about the issue, your personal history,
>> nothing.
>
> The people who think that Abe *initiated* personal attacks should
> take another look at the title of this thread. This entire discussion
> is taking place in the context of an attack on Abe in which a
> proposal is on the table to ban him. Moreover, the discussion here
> has been mean-spirited and unfair. Abe posted the text of an article
> he wrote about the failings of the Soviet economy. I read the
> article, and I could see that it contained several clear, strong
> criticisms of Stalinist policies that hurt the economy. Nevertheless,
> Fred and others responded to the article by waxing nasty and
> sarcastic. They cherry-picked phrases out of the article that made it
> sound like Abe was blaming workers for poor productivity, and then
> threw in gratuitous accusations of being an apologist for dictators
> because in their opinion Fred's article didn't say enough about the
> Soviet gulags. As far as I can see, Fred is the one who initiated
> this attack, and he did it dishonestly. He has a different POV than
> Abe, and he's trying to resolve it by having him banned and by
> warring about the content of his article on this listserv.
>
> Sure, Abe shouldn't have called Fred "senile," but in the overall
> context of nasty discourse that has characterized this thread, I
> don't think Abe's comment stands out as being more egregious than the
> insults that have been thrown his way.
>
> --Sheldon Rampton
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
--- On Thu 06/03, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov at hotmail.com > wrote:
From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov at hotmail.com]
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:26:38 +0000
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"

Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.

That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
among Wikipedia users.

When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's
credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.

I have found you unreliable in some areas of politics or history because of your demeanor, not because of some specific factual inaccuracy.
 Yours is a matter of POV, rudeness, and haughtiness, not one of fraud, falsification, or incompetance.
  I understand that you feel that your expertise invalidates concerns of POV, or asigns you a superior intellectual status, but I assure you that you are mistaken.
  That being said I have slowly noticed the general quality of your edits, and that gives me some reason to strive to see past your partisan persona.
  The spiteful and uncompromising condescension which I encountered the first time we disagreed was not my first impression of you actually.
 You made a fine impression, complimentary and pleasant when first we spoke, as I was seconding a self-nomination you placed as a brilliant prose candidate.
 Jack

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred
	Bauder)

body:
''Res ipse loquitur.''  :-)
Ec

Rick wrote:

>And you, as usual, have the use of the ad hominem attack honed to a sharp point.  Especially when it comes to aiming it at me.  Do you really enjoy attacking me so much?  Is it your only joy in life?
>
>RickK
>
>Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>
>
>>I totally agree with Stan on this. 172 is always using ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. Usually in the style of, "I am the only one with the Received Wisdom (TM) on this subject, and you are an ignorant loser who has no worthy input to this subject." But he gets away with it time and time again. RickK
>>
>>
>It's clear that with the words "always", "Received Wisdom", and
>"ignorant loser" you show that you are well versed in the art of "ad
>hominem" attacks. :-P
>
>Ec
>
>


from_name: Rick

body:
And you, as usual, have the use of the ad hominem attack honed to a sharp point.  Especially when it comes to aiming it at me.  Do you really enjoy attacking me so much?  Is it your only joy in life?

RickK

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
Rick wrote:

>I totally agree with Stan on this. 172 is always using ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. Usually in the style of, "I am the only one with the Received Wisdom (TM) on this subject, and you are an ignorant loser who has no worthy input to this subject." But he gets away with it time and time again. RickK
>
>
It's clear that with the words "always", "Received Wisdom", and
"ignorant loser" you show that you are well versed in the art of "ad
hominem" attacks. :-P

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040603/77d78520/attachment.htm


from_name: Evan Prodromou

body:
>>>>> "FF" == Fennec Foxen <fennec at gmail.com> writes:

    FF> Perhaps you don't care for articles on the [[chicken sexer]],
    FF> and you may not care about an article on [[Badger Badger
    FF> Badger]], or [[AYBABTU]], but who are you to decide what is a
    FF> valid topic? (Who am I?)

Who are we to decide? We're Wikipedians. We're collaborators on this
big job. We all work together to make a good encyclopedia, and we
apply judgement to do that. Every one of us is the person who decides
what's a valid topic.

If we had all thought, "Well, it's _not my place_ to decide," then we
wouldn't have such a great encyclopedia to begin with. But we haven't,
and now we do.

If our choice, as collaborators, is to include everything under the
sun, well, that's what we do. If our choice is to leave some things
out, that's what we do.

It's everybody's place to design this reference, at both the sentence
and word level and at the overarching encyclopedic work level.

~ESP

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
Would that were true.  But should you step on the toes of certain editors, you would be auto-reverted over and over again if you even tried to so much as change a comma, and the person doing all the reverting would be allowed to get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist because "they're a valuable contributor."

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
 But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
including those who are "politically incorrect".

Fred

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040603/a56f6d88/attachment.htm


in_reply_to:
<c9lnae$flv$1@sea.gmane.org> (timwi@gmx.net's message of "Thu,
	03 Jun 2004 00:18:56 +0100")

body:
>>>>> "T" == Timwi  <timwi at gmx.net> writes:

    T> Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at
    T> Wiktionary to find out what an encyclopedia is:
       ^^^^^^^^^^

    T> [...]

    T> What parts of human knowledge should in your view not be
    T> covered in an encyclopedia, and why?

Aren't you answering your own question, there? I mean, we have
Wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ipso fatso, some
knowledge doesn't go in an encyclopedia.

There are a lot of things that don't go into Wikipedia, established by
precedent over these several years of its existence.

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

If you're interested in my _personal_ ideas on what those restrictions
should be, I'm willing to discuss that. But if you want to challenge
the idea that there could possibly be any limit to what belongs in
Wikipedia, I believe that horse has already left the barn.

~ESP

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


body:
Please!  Is it necessary to work so hard to find the worst in people?
Frezing a revert war and punishing the combatants will only mean that
there is a 50-50 chance that the article will be frozen in the "right"
place.  I see Fred's posting as an attempt to solve the problem in at
least one article.  It may leave many other articles unresolved, but it
IS progress.

You seem to be more concerned with fanning the flames, and taking
positions based on who is writing rather than what is written.

Ec

Rick wrote:

>The issue is not editing from a POV, it's massive reverting over and over again.
>
>RickK
>
>Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>I think we have beat on Abe, 172, enough, after all I think he is in the
>right in the Augusto Pinochet article, which is the one before the
>arbitration committee. I've never looked closely at VV but he seems quite
>reluctant to search for and evaluate the evidence in that matter.
>
>Under existing Wikipedia rules, editing from a point of view is subject to
>correction by the editing process, not grounds for banning.
>
>


from_name: Abe Sokolov

subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
Re: "I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues"

Why? Are you able to offer any evidence from my user history that I have
insisted on the contribution of material that is inaccurate? If so, I'd
appreciate it if you brought it to my attention, as I emphatically oppose
the addition of dubious content on Wikipedia.

That's what I do. How would you like it if I made that claim about you on
the mailing list? To take this on the mailing list with no basis for making
this claim, in a context that knowingly will diminish a user's credibility
among a wide readership to me is the most debasing form of attack there is.
These kinds of statements might be superficially "civil" in tone, but
they're the remarks that truly do the most to spread mistrust and animosity
among Wikipedia users.

When I make off the cuff remarks on talk pages, they're brushed off and
dismissed, as they should be. But the remarks that truly impugn a user's
credibility and integrity aren't. But perhaps that was your point.

_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/


body:
The issue is not editing from a POV, it's massive reverting over and over again.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
I think we have beat on Abe, 172, enough, after all I think he is in the
right in the Augusto Pinochet article, which is the one before the
arbitration committee. I've never looked closely at VV but he seems quite
reluctant to search for and evaluate the evidence in that matter.

Under existing Wikipedia rules, editing from a point of view is subject to
correction by the editing process, not grounds for banning.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040603/0a00d6f9/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to	Fred
	Bauder)

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are
>definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism &
>Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724
>to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports
>the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
>
Not all of us are on a campus, and from that outside perspective the
terms traditionalist and revisionist seem terribly jargonistic.  Mao
considered Khrushchev to be a revisionist.  Enver Hoxha considered them
all to be revisionists, but that didn't help the Albanian people very
much.  Today's revisionists may be considered to be incorrigible
traditionalists by the next generation.  Those of us outside the
academic loop, both left and right, tend to take independent positions
without regard to the internecine squabbling of the academics.

>>From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
>>The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very
>>hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or
>>less authoritative than 172?
>>
>>
Exactly.  What are the criteria for objectivity in history?  We know
that we can't rely on experts alone.  What is generally fed to the
public is strongly propagandistic.  At the same time the public can be
blissfully unaware of the difference between primary and secondary
sources.

Our one big advantage that we have is that we don't need to worry about
being fired, or having our research budgets cut.

Ec


from_name: ruimu uestc

body:
"Andr? M?ller" : In fact I also used to like that the default font was
"Times New Roman", a font of which I'm kind of a fan of, hehe... but that
might be merely subjective and too much to ask for.

No, it's not subjective. Have a look in a newspaper : sans serif fonts like
Arial are commonly used for titles. Serif fonts like Times New Roman are
used for smaller texts, as serif (the little toes at the end of legs and
arms of letters) are helping a lot the eyes in recognising small letter in
sentences, and were designed for that purpose. I really like the new design,
even if I ave to get used to it a bit, but I think changing the font to a
sans-serif one is not an improvement, especially for those having strong eye
glasses like me.

(gbog)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
Not true. Wik, who is quite popular and generally considered a valuable
contributor, is in a world of hurt, to the point we will be lucky to get him
back after the latest slap on the wrist. The point is, consistent
aggressiveness will eventually break so many "rules" that even the most
conservative arbitrators will feel moved to support some remedy. Wik is also
a good example of why is not a good practice to decide on your own that
certain other editors are not worth paying attention to. It was the dummies
and outcasts that dragged him down, folks he didn't think it worthwhile to
discuss controversies with. His free pass didn't.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

Would that were true.  But should you step on the toes of certain editors,
you would be auto-reverted over and over again if you even tried to so much
as change a comma, and the person doing all the reverting would be allowed
to get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist because "they're
a valuable contributor."

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
 But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article,
including those who are "politically incorrect".

Fred

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
<http://messenger.yahoo.com/>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040603/d1018e8f/attachment.htm


list: foundation-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Foundation-l] Editable wiki-wide stylesheets

body:
Thanks to Gabriel Wicke, sysops can now add a stylesheet for their wiki
using [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]]. The content of these stylesheets
should be similar to the user stylesheets. I have used this feature to
increase the font size on the CJK wikis, as requested on wikitech-l.
Stylesheets for the other skins and configurable javascript will be
implemented soon.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikimedia-l


body:
Perhaps so, but I think there may also be a failure to really engage in
dialogue. But I notice that lately 172 is willing to talk, at least a little
bit.

Fred

From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

The issue is not editing from a POV, it's massive reverting over and over
again.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
I think we have beat on Abe, 172, enough, after all I think he is in the
right in the Augusto Pinochet article, which is the one before the
arbitration committee. I've never looked closely at VV but he seems quite
reluctant to search for and evaluate the evidence in that matter.

Under existing Wikipedia rules, editing from a point of view is subject to
correction by the editing process, not grounds for banning.

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
<http://messenger.yahoo.com/>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040603/8ee922b0/attachment.htm


from_name: Fennec Foxen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] request "sysop" status on zh-cfr/minnan

body:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:54:30 +0800 (CST), Pochung(Pektiong) Chen(Tan)
<pcchen at formosa.org> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>   Can I obtain the "sysop" privilege on zh-cfr/minnan.wikipedia.org so
> that I can continue to coordinate the interface L10N?

Have you seen this page yet?
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions

That should tell you what you need to know.


body:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:39:29 -0600, Jack Wilhite <jwilhite at aros.net> wrote:
>
> Too many cooks ruined the soup.
> I just barely checked in and after a peruse--PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME!
> How about 173?

1) it's not normally this loud... you've caught us at a bad time.
Hopefully these... let's call them "loud"? posters... will clam down
soon.
2) considering setting up an email filter if you haven't already...
3) you generally unsubscribe yourself from these sorts of things. (see
the very bottom of
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities of
leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I do not
do this, intentionally or unintentionally. Unless you're deliberately
modeling yourself after Joe McCarthy, try to find a way to spew your
political rants on the mailing list without hurting people and tearing them
down in the process.

BTW, please read Slrubenstein's posting (and try to comprehend). At the
moment, I?m to pissed to be capable of expressing what?s he getting across
clearly and politely.

_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/


body:
and while I'm at it...
4) Don't include the entire text of a digest when you reply! Edit that
stuff out to what you're responding to! It's loud enough without you
quoting nine messages in a three-line reply! :)

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:30:16 -0400, Fennec Foxen <fennec at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) it's not normally this loud... you've caught us at a bad time.
> Hopefully these... let's call them "loud"? posters... will clam down
> soon.
> 2) considering setting up an email filter if you haven't already...
> 3) you generally unsubscribe yourself from these sorts of things. (see
> the very bottom of
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l)


body:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:42:15 +0200, Arne Klempert <wikipedia at klempert.de> wrote:
> I don't think that we are able to draw an exact line (somewhere between
> the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] and the
> [[Mona Lisa]]). But at least an idea where this line could be would help
> us a lot in beeing an encyclopedia and not just a parallel World Wide
> Web.

It is a vague line, drawn in shifting sands as it were. Generally, the
people drawing it and redrawing it and playing a game of tug-of-war
with it are doing so at Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. Perhaps we could
showcase some deletion debates somewhere, and give people a better
idea of what's good and what's not, and what people have to say about
various topics.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] It's getting out of hand

body:
Abe had to ask:

> Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities
of
> leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I
do
> not do this, intentionally or unintentionally.

I would hope that we could handle misunderstandings and ambiguities
better than this. Better, perhaps, would have been:

"Fred, I hope you're not accusing me of blah, blah, blah. Because I'm I
do not do this, even unintentionally."

Ah, but who am I to criticize? I'm the one who opened this can of worms,
er, fine kettle of fish -- oh, well, can't make a leopard change his
spots...

----

(Seriously, folks, I think we're starting to get somewhere, and I
predict if we can focus more on the issues than on the personalities the
place we're heading for will be a happy one -- full of what Jimbo likes
to call WikiLove :-)

Uncle Ed


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Parser testing page

references:
<9A6tIhDSpVB@erik_moeller> <c9kehm$kmr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20040602120443.GA7840@localhost.localdomain>
	<c9lha6$123$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> In addition to what Nicolas Weeger already requested, might I also ask
> exactly what syntax element you found unsuitable? I can't think of
> anything that isn't context-free.

     What  I mean is, Timwi, while WikiML might be reducible
to a context-free grammar; it's not  necessarily  suited  to
one-token lookahead parsing, where Bison excels.

     Like  SGML  and HTML, however, WikiML is describable in
terms of a DTD; and DTD is written in  Extended  Backus-Naur
Form.  In spite of EBNF, WikiML's features which distinguish
it from XML might make constructing  a  legitimate  context-
free  grammar tedious; on the other hand, many of the points
brought against SGML's context freedom may or may not  apply
to Wiki [1]:

             SGML                            WikiML
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Declared content         ->     Initial spaces
     Inclusion exclusions     ->     Nested definitions
     AND groups               ->     Link morphology
     OMITTAG                  ->     Section and subsections
     --------------------------------------------------------

     Constucting  a  rigorous  WikiML DTD would enable us to
erect an LL(1) grammar at will, and should be our first job;
in  addition,  HTML Tidy's lexer/parser provides a fantastic
example of recursive-descent application.

     Best, Peter
-----------
  1 See Joe English' classic discussion of  SGML's
context freedom, which he still considered an open
question:
    "It is however possible to create  an  equiva-
  lent  context-free  (BNF)  grammar  from any XML
  DTD, where the terminals  are  start-tags,  end-
  tags, and #PCDATA and the productions correspond
  to element types and  content  model  positions.
  The  reverse  is not possible in general, so XML
  DTDs are (in a sense) a subset of BNF.
    "The same *might* be true of  SGML,  but  when
  you   consider  things  like  declared  content,
  exceptions, AND groups, and OMITTAG,  converting
  a  general SGML DTD to a CFG is a much more dif-
  ficult problem.  "Do SGML DTDs  define  context-
  free languages" is still an open question AFAIK.
  (I suspect the answer is "yes", but even  if  so
  it  would  not  be  a  very  useful  result; the
  derived CFG would be intractably large  in  many
  cases.)"
    (http://xml.coverpages.org//english-cfg.html)


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Performance problems due to message caching

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Why exactly are you trying to cache the entire namespace on a single Web
> request?  Shouldn't you cache only those that the Web request actually
> requested?  In other words, it should not have tried to cache all the
> templates in the MediaWiki namespace, but only those that were actually
> used by the Web requests.  I would have thought this is the purpose of a
> cache: to store that which is commonly or recently accessed.

Then you'd have to make dozens of separate cache requests on every page
view (increasing time and network overhead) or know ahead of time what
you'll need to fetch (we're not really structured that way). Since the
complete set of messages is relatively small (64-100k uncompressed) it's
easier to grab a single stored array than to pick and choose which ones
you think you'll be needing.

There isn't supposed to be anything in the MediaWiki namespace except
the user interface messages.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040603/82783fd9/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [Wikitech-l] Significant section editing bug?

body:
I just had a very disturbing experience on meta. I was
editing a section of "MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug
reports." While I was editing, someone else apparently
added a new section above the one that I was editing.
When I saved my edits, it overwrote the section
previous to mine, and left unchanged the section that
I intended to edit. The results were a lost section,
and two sections in a row of the same title, with the
newer revision followed by the older revision.

The edit I made originally:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports&oldid=39939

(saved: 15:32, 3 Jun 2004)

-Rich Holton (User:Rholton)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
Sorry, I should add that I'm using monobook, IE6,
Win2000. -Rich Holton

--- Rich Holton <rich_holton at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just had a very disturbing experience on meta. I
> was
> editing a section of "MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug
> reports." While I was editing, someone else
> apparently
> added a new section above the one that I was
> editing.
> When I saved my edits, it overwrote the section
> previous to mine, and left unchanged the section
> that
> I intended to edit. The results were a lost section,
> and two sections in a row of the same title, with
> the
> newer revision followed by the older revision.
>
> The edit I made originally:
>
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports&oldid=39939
>
> (saved: 15:32, 3 Jun 2004)
>
> -Rich Holton (User:Rholton)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Response to Jack Lynch

body:
Oh, now I remember that critical theory nomination. I'm sorry if I was being
a bit harsh at the time (I was trying to react to your comments and not you
personally). But still, that was really a good article, written for the most
part by a well known philosopher and English language translator of J?rgen
Habermas while he was contributing to Wikipedia I think that if you reread
my comments, you'll find that they aren't as harsh as you're making them out
to be.

I might be wrong, but if I could remember correctly you said something to
the effect of the prose sounding like "intellectual masturbation." I repied
that that could be your ignorance. But at the same time, I admitted that I
was ignorant of just about every other article nominated for featured status
and pointing to the fact that I wasn't making likely-to-be uninformed
criticisms of them. If anything, I was trying suggest that you might want to
withhold your oppostion, that's all. BTW, at the time I think that I was
also confusing you with another user with a similar user name.

I hope that this clarification and apology will put the tensions between the
two of us at bay

-172

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: the default font size on Chinese Wikipedia

body:
yuanml wrote:
> Menchi had mentioned this point on Wikitech-l:
>
> "Chinese characters have many many more strokes than Roman letters. So
> the current MonoBook font size at Chinese WP is very hard on the eye."
>
> "Almost every single Chinese user who experienced the skin have pointed
> out that the font size's difficult to read."
>
> So it is not a problem for one user's preference, but a problem for the site.
>
> Please change the default size to 11pt which is adopted by most portals.

I've changed it to "medium", which is apparently the browser default. If
you don't agree with this choice, you can fix it yourself using a new
feature:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki%3AMonobook.css

This stylesheet is editable by sysops.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: localization

body:
Arwel Parry wrote:
> In message <20040510035205.29035.qmail at web13426.mail.yahoo.com>, Volkan
> HATEM <volkanh-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>
>>I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask a localization related
>>question but I guess it is not totally irrelevant.
>>
>>On MediaWiki:All_Messages there are no strings related to date and
>>time.
>>How can we localize date/time?
>>
>>-volkan
>
>
> It's done in your LanguageXX.php file.

Hi,

Suppose I've already localized strings via the namespace method, would
the strings on this file overwrite those?

And what's the difference between Special:Allmessages and
MediaWiki:All_system_messages?  The latter was apparently created
yesterday by "MediaWiki default" on the new Minnan wiki.  (It is, btw,
quite useful to have the English strings juxtaposed.)

Thanks.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Major contributions bug

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
> Anthere schrieb:
>> As for my lost contributions, I found them. Contributions are not
>> sorted by date. So, I had to go back in time to find the recent ones.
>> Odd.
>
> Not only contributions, the same bug seems to influence the article
> history. Take a look here:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Vorlage:Hauptseite_Wikipedia_aktuell&action=history

Something is or was sometimes not updating inverse_timestamp, which is
used to do the date sorting in history and contribs (because MySQL 3.x
couldn't optimize a descending sort on an index). I've fixed that
particular page, but the bug needs to be fixed if it's still there.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040603/c4abcde8/attachment.pgp>