from_name: Frank v Waveren

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RFC has worked for me in content disputes

body:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 07:50:03PM -0500, Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
> I've taken article conflicts to RFC two or three times. Each time I've
> gotten two or three helpful responses, that were quite useful in
> resolving the conflict. Your mileage apparently varies....

Ditto, though I think most of mine involved "getting my way", not so
much "a consensus version being created". Still, I suppose that's
what's necessary with POV-pushers and other types of problem-editors.

--
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050119/5e4a9eef/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tels

subject:
[<SPAM>] - Re: [Wikitech-l] Problem in conversion of Formula on
	Wiki - Email found in subject

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 10:51, Verma Atul (extern) wrote:
> Yes I have installed ocaml. Can you suggest me how to test the
> expression from say a command line.

You can run texcnv from the command line. It is called like this from the
source of the math plugin:

	./math/texcv tmpdir mathdir mathexpression encoding

Like:

	math/texcv /tmp /tmp "sqrt(x)" utf-8

You might need to adjust the quoting for your shell if you are not using
bash.

If you do not have math/texcv yet, you need to make it like:

	cd math
	make

(On my system I get an error, indicating that ocaml is not yet installed)

HTH,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Wed Jan 19 17:26:29 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "MY CAUSE IS JUST... MY WILL IS STRONG... AND MY GUN IS VERY VERY
 LARGE!" - The Doom Guy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQe6LbHcLPEOTuEwVAQE5yAf9GTVYEMbltui4iLfwgk4mb2f/vkJtbpko
MXU9p/vWx/XPn20By15Pq+wgo475gZfnoxUsX38cI6yl2zPfp0yzC4bBtyWyuZjc
qQKORqr4yw1mWKjIvP690Z0QybUWC6FlmFti57On8r5KKZ26iVOqzDjdRCElBjLa
aZ0Cwb1+iPtE9if8uKO2PbktMPoXhfpkmfW9FRrWWGl0M8FmwotM0wqOJIGkjOrC
Mmq0Ty65GWHZA35k16DP9id8t7Cla/LlNwS3Yy4cExV9mDnf7rKRHP/RfwY3qUh2
IzQF/sI5T6Kx6AWOjdqU8uBLmJ9AB1gzon4fy9+dU0g8QlHDaIqH3g==
=/Mnk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Dealing quickly with rogue editors (was The 3RR policy
	should not always be blindly followed)

body:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:40:37 +1100, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> JAY JG (jayjg at hotmail.com) [050120 03:17]:
> Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or
> 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
> objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.

Yes personal abuse is seriously subective and (like all these
policies) has no effect on anons from AOL


list: commons-l

from_name: Fruggo

subject: [Commons-l] Photo Information

body:
Seems like a good idea to me. I'm not sure the shutter speed / camera
model are really relevant, but location/country/date absolutely are
(imho).

Fruggo

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:48:51 +1100, Richard Palmer
<richard.palmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I posted a message about this to the Village Pump but got no replies,
> so either I'm making no sense or everybody agrees with me (perhaps
> not!).
>
> My proposal was to prompt for specific information on the file upload
> form for photos, such as Location, Country, Date and some technical
> information. All of this information could then be embedded into the
> file page, and displayed with the photo. I think this would help in
> categorising the photos, gives some information to users in all
> languages, and at some future point could allow for searching by
> country/date/photographer etc. Given the amount of meta-data digital
> cameras now save automatically with each photograph it seems daft not
> to use it.
>
> I did a quick mock-up of what I mean at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wombat/Upload
> although the forms are not interpreted.
>
> please respond!,
>
> Richard.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Add $wgNoFollowLinks option to add rel="nofollow"
	on	external links (on by default)

body:
NSK a ?crit :

> such a major change should be discussed thouroughly before
> implementation in
> MW1.4. I don/t think this is a good idea. Read my blog where I explain
> why
> this technique could lead to fuirther commercialisation of the Internet:
> http://nsk.wikinerds.org/blog/index.php?p=118

I don't agree your statement. If people can make money choosing to apply
or not "nofollow" attribute on links, they can also make money choosing
to display or not the links (display => include it into the page
source). I don't see any disadvantage to use this attribute, but I don't
think this will impact a lot spamming on Wikipedia.

Aoineko


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: pinco

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Eid 'l-kabir

body:
Hi,
tomorrow muslims celebrate the 'id-l-kabir.

Is in wikipedia a page similar to
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Buon_Natale_e_felice_Anno_Nuovo

where I can find wishes in the languages of wikipedia?

Thanks a lot... and Happy Eid ul Kabir to muslims.

Nino

--
http://www.vessella.it (italiano, esperanto, kiswahili, english)
http://www.changamano.org (Iniziative di solidariet? per la Tanzania)
http://www.lernado.it (Articoli di quotidiani della Tanzania, Corso di lingua swahili, Corso di lingua esperanto, Vocabolario esperanto-italiano, Jifunze lugha ya Kiesperanto, Kamusi ya Kiesperanto)


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] kates tools?

body:
Dear Kate and friends,

I really loved such much your Namechecker tool - you already mentioned
in a personal note to me, that this smart tool has gone, but I would be
very pleased to have that up and running again on the internet. at least
for some power users like me.

Please - please - please could you relaunch your Namechecker tool ? It
is needed to support all who are working towards the often requested
"single user login", see i.a. http://meta.wikimedia.org/SUL for
Single-User Login.

Kindest regards
Tom
- for http://meta.wikipedia.org/Enotif , Eauthent and some other
enhancements


from_name: Jesse the man

subject:
Fwd: Original Research versus Point of View,
	was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

body:
Well, calling it a "cult" is not NPOV.

An NPOV to describe this would be to say "the members live
collectively and are told to raise money for Lyndon LaRouche", and to
say "Some exmembers accuse the organization of doing this".

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:47:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Original Research versus Point of View, was Re:
[WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho
To: BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com>, "English Wikipedia ."
<wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

Bjorn, here are another two pages as examples: [[Schiller Institute}
and [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], both part of the LaRouche movement.
The first is regarded by researchers who know it as a dangerous,
far-right organization, with ties to far-right movements in Germany
where the Schiller Institute is based. Its founder, LaRouche's wife,
has made explicit Holocaust denial statements. But there is nothing
about this in the article.

After a protracted edit war, I was allowed to say that its "critics"
regard it as a cult, and insert a paragraph on [[Jeremiah Duggan]], a
young man who died after attending one of their "cadre schools." The
institute has nothing to do with Friedrich Schiller, the founder is
not the world's leading expert on Schiller, as the article says (or
any kind of expert). They are a dodgy political organization, not a
musical one, yet look how much play the music gets.

The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of
jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet.
It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live
collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and
receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given
interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as
part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in
the article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of
Jeremiah Duggan.

Finally, look at [[Template:LaRouche Talk]]. These are the Talk
archives the LaRouche editors have caused in just a few months, as
various editors try to get something close to the truth into these
articles, but instead get worn down by the endless talk, the calls for
mediation, the calls for arbitration, and the insults. So they give
up, as I am about to do.

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


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Google preventing comment spam

body:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:52:28 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > You may of course turn it off on your own wikis (as you may configure
> > or recode them in any way). Unless we decide not to support the
> > campaign, the option will ship on by default.
>
> I strongly agree with Brion on this.  It should ship on by default.
>
> Whether or not *we* should use it is a tougher question.  It is
> primarily of value to small blogs with small communities which are
> ripe targets for wikispam.  For us, there is direct and indirect value
> in the fact that our links are human-chosen and _mean something_.
>
> We help the world by reducing the cost of wikispam.  We help the world
> by helping google and other search engines find websites that don't
> suck.  It's a tradeoff.

I think the latter should be chosen, an overwhelming majority of our
links are not spam that contributes to the overall search quality of
search engines like google. In any case i think that it should be
turned off until consensus on the matter is reached, it's currently
turned on on the wikimedia sites.

> There's an additional irony if you think about it.  One "cost" of this
> campaign to google is if the ignore links of value, thus reducing the
> quality of their search results.  If we add the nofollow attribute, we
> remove our collective wisdom from the google dataset.  This might
> cause google to rethink the wisdom of paying attention to this tag.
>
> The general ethical principle seems to be something like this:
>
> A good webmaster will identify links that appear on his or her website
> which may be of low quality (because not validated by trusted parties)
> and hint to search engines accordingly.  This means that by default,
> MediaWiki should ship with this feature turned on, because small wikis
> do have a problem in this area.  But it also means that wikipedia
> itself probably should turn the feature off.
>
> (This is not a decree or anything, just one voice in the discussion.)
>
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] "See also" section heading

body:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:49:16 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure where I should make this suggestion to grab the most
> attention, so I shall make it here.
>
> I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the
> end of articles, we use the title "Related articles". The latter
> sounds much more encyclopaedic, clearly indicates the purpose of the
> section, and should encourage only relevant links at the end of
> articles.
>
> "See also" is quite blunt, rather ineloquent and instructional in my
> opinion. Do people have thoughts on this? I'm aware of how
> wide-ranging this would be, but I would see the (somewhat) temporary
> dual-usage of both section titles as a small enough disruption.
>
> Zoney

Personally i prefer "Related topics" which is more common than what
you're proposing.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#.22See_also.22_and_.22Related_topics.22_sections

>
> --
> ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Eid 'l-kabir

body:
A?d al kabir ... yes

I just checked if we had a logo for it
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ALogo) but no :-(

The Buon-Natale project is very recent.

It would be lovely that you do the same for the A?d.

Anthere

Happy day for you all.

pinco a ?crit:
> Hi,
> tomorrow muslims celebrate the 'id-l-kabir.
>
> Is in wikipedia a page similar to
> http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Buon_Natale_e_felice_Anno_Nuovo
>
> where I can find wishes in the languages of wikipedia?
>
> Thanks a lot... and Happy Eid ul Kabir to muslims.
>
> Nino


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

references:
<41EEBBDF.6020300@yahoo.com> <csmeqk$gr9$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<41EEC2F3.70304@yahoo.com> <csmhcm$p9b$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<41EECB81.2000901@yahoo.com> <41EED17C.4040403@yahoo.it>
	<41EF142E.5040508@arcsy.co.jp>

body:
If an encyclopedia were really a compendium of all human knowledge, we
wouldn't need Wiktionary.

Mark

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:15:10 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard
<gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> wrote:
> I fully agree.
> Recipes alone are just stubs that need to be enhance (history,
> diffusion, etc.) like other stubs.
>
> I really fear that interest the majority of wikipedian have on a subject
> become the main factor to determine what is encyclopedic or not.
> <irony>Sure, the recipes have really no interest while [[geek code]] is
> really more important for the humanity!</irony>.
>
> The definition of "encyclopedia" we can found in all French dictionary
> is "compendium of all human knowledges". [[en:Encyclopedia]] don't speak
> about that, so perhaps we are mistaken about Wikipedia goal? I'd really
> appreciate if Jimbo could define what kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia.
>
> Aoineko
>
>
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
> > I am cutting all the first part - and really this is my consideration
> > after having read most of the messages.
> >
> >> But, as long as there is NO rule, it is just a question of balance.
> >> Regular edit wars you would say. Another very bold editor can come
> >> and become the new gardian later. And possibly be an inclusive
> >> gardian of dish articles, so many recipees will find their way back.
> >>
> >> If it is a rule, then those restoring may be blocked for not
> >> respecting a rule. Huge difference.
> >>
> >> In effect, looking at the past 3 months, I think there are not much
> >> new recipes, so I suppose any daring adding one is immediately
> >> stopped in its activity. So, the result is just that a branch of
> >> wikipedia was cut in its growth. We made a bonsai !
> >>
> > Imho wikipedia is much more than only an encyclopedia - it is THE
> > encyclopedia that not only gives definitions, but also helps to
> > understand other cultures. Food is part of a culture. Every
> > Nation/region has its food or cuisine par excellance and many habits
> > can be explained through this.
> >
> > What would Italy be without Pizza? What would the Pizza-culture (yes,
> > in some countries it became a real culture) be without the mother of
> > all pizzas, the Pizza Margherita, named after a Queen, created in
> > Naples made of the Italian national colours to honour the queen (at
> > least this is what is known)? So this recipe IS culture and should be
> > trasmitted to many people. So why not create just the recipe in the
> > hope that someone who knows the whole story will add the rest? An only
> > recipe would be nothing else than a stub - stubs are to be completed.
> >
> > Other Examples are:
> > Christmas pudding
> > Cheesecake
> > Stollen
> > Mustaccioli
> > Pannettone
> > Lebkuchen
> > Pasta al pomodoro (noodles with tomato sauce)
> > Spaghetti (originally from China as much as I remember)
> > Rice dishes
> > Sushi
> > Sauerkruaut
> > Wienerw?rstel (the "Viennese sausages" that are called "Frankfurter"
> > in Vienna)
> > etc. etc. etc.
> >
> > I don't feel that there's a need to discuss about this - it is clear
> > in itself as wikipedia is clear in itself. Stubs were made for first
> > steps on a certain theme - cuisine is a theme, recipes are subtitles
> > of  "French cuisine, Mediterranean cuisine, German cuisine, British
> > cuisine, American cuisine".
> >
> > This is the huge difference of Wikipedia to ordinary encyclopedias -
> > you/we have the possibility to give all this information - people who
> > are not interested in it simply don't read it, but people who are
> > interested will prefer Wikipedia 1000 and more times to a paperwork
> > where they then need to buy other books and kitchen encyclopedias (the
> > exist) in order to have complete overviews.
> >
> > Why destroy one of the huge powers of Wikipedia? The power of being
> > different, the power of digging deeper and deeper.
> >
> > My 2 cts ;-)
> >
> > Ciao, Sabine
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> Will it help? It only works when the spammers think/know we have this
> implemented. And it does also harm the 'valid' links that are created.
>

We hope it will help. It's one of those things that will only work well
if everyone participates, otherwise spammers will just continue to spam
every wiki because they couldn't be bothered checking which ones are
using this feature. That's why it's important that we enable this
feature by default.

This may reduce the usefulness of blogs and wikis as a means of ranking
sites, but they're not particularly useful as it is, because they are
easily spammed. Hopefully this initiative will improve the quality of
search rankings, allowing good sites to rise above the spam, rather than
harm that quality by ignoring useful information. The major search
engines obviously think it will.

Wikipedia has mirrors which will probably not implement this feature.
That reduces both the usefulness and side effects of this for us.
However most spam doesn't seem to be specifically targetted at us --
search google for a spam link you see on Wikipedia and you'll usually
get thousands of hits from wikis, blogs and guestbooks. Spam on
Wikipedia is usually cleaned up quickly, so the incentive for them to
target us is already questionable. The most important thing is that this
feature is implemented in MediaWiki by default, because that reduces the
incentive for them to spam everything with a <textarea>.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: images on commons and gfdl

references:
<20050118170309.27354.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
	<41EDCD65.4060508@arcsy.co.jp> <shvf9udjak.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
KE> And yes, displaying the most recent description from common on the local
KE> project page read-only would be a good idea.  Then local users can
KE> easily add a translation below.

Or just like with images - show only the Commons page if there's no
local one...

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


list: foundation-l

from_name: Sj

subject: [Foundation-l] New project proposal - Wikibuilder

body:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:48:59 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Robin Shannon <robin.shannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams...
> > sounds like a good idea.
>
> Not as a stand-alone Wikimedia project. Having this on Wikicities (or as a set
> of Wikibooks) seems to be much better fit.

Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential
wikimedia projects?  Not that there's anything wrong with using
wikibooks for this, but it is not precisely in line with the primary
reason for wikibooks' existence.  Wikilabs could also be a good
initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since
everything on it will explicitly be in beta.

--
+sj+


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Tony

body:
I can't see the point. Look at the losses and gains:

Gain: prevents a *tiny* amount of spamming (tiny, because the average lifespan of linkspam on the 'pedia is maybe 2 minutes -
our editors watch this stuff like hawks.

Loss:

(1) extra complication to the code. (Small and slim is *always* best.)
(2) even more crud to mess up the HTML output. If we keep on adding "features" in this manner, a page of MediaWiki output
HTML is going to be harder to read and consume more bandwidth than a page produced by Frontpage.

To me, that says that, on balance, the best option is fairly clearly to do nothing.

Small is beautiful. Simple is best.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.

Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and
for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor
dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.

When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no
agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.

Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was
immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted
them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".

On this page, it is written that recipes should not be kept in
Wikipedia. So, now, Gentgeen has a argument to revert me, and possibly
even the right to block me if I restore a recipe.

My question :

* why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on
the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they
be used to revert the others ?

I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a
couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french
wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia
decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).

I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added
it to show me where this was supported initially.

Ant


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
Sj wrote:

>
>Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a
>dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book,
>film, or famous wit.
>
Hear hear. I'm just waiting for someone to complain that articles
shouldn't mention specific examples of a general concept, because
picking an example makes it seem more important than the unmentioned
examples, and we can't have pictures, because it's "POV" to only
depict one object and not any of the others...

NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some
kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)

Stan


from_name: Manuel G R

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikibooks should have enabled subpages on main
	namespace

body:
I would like to attract your attention to:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353

I think it is a simple configuration change. I have gather 2710 votes
and none argument against it.

Please, consider it. Thank you.

--
Manuel.


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anthere wrote:
> I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
> wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
>
> Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and
> for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor
> dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.

Hello,

I guess things tend to change. Things that were acceptable some months
ago are no more accepted by the community.

> When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no
> agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
>
> Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was
> immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted
> them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".

Maybe you should add entries in a "Request to undelete" page instead of
abusing your sysop rights against the community choice (aka restauring a
page that got deleted with the approval of the community).

<snip>
> * why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
> not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on
> the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they
> be used to revert the others ?

For me, if the community decide that receipe should be deleted, it's no
more about "a couple of bold people", but the community as a whole.

> I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a
> couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french
> wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia
> decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
>
> I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added
> it to show me where this was supported initially.

I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks
and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history,
description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the
encyclopedia. The receipe does not.

cheers,

- --
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB7r6TpmyHQ2O4INERAvRCAKDYgRy3P3if64lmP6AQEN7iXDM26gCfXkFm
xtyUovbemRr7WpYVFpybgKg=
=G9/e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Ashar Voultoiz a ?crit:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
>>wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
>>
>>Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and
>>for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor
>>dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I guess things tend to change. Things that were acceptable some months
> ago are no more accepted by the community.

No, things do not change.
This was added in spring 2004.
The discussions occured for months and months and months and last ones
were from october 2004.

And show no clear support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_recipes/Delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal

>>When I tried to make a policy on the topic, clearly, there was no
>>agreement. Neither to keep, neither to delete. Mostly two factions.
>>
>>Today, I realised all had been deleted. I restored one and was
>>immediately reverted by Gentgeen (of course, he is the one who deleted
>>them) and he pointed to me a policy on "what Wikipedia is not".
>
>
> Maybe you should add entries in a "Request to undelete" page instead of
> abusing your sysop rights against the community choice (aka restauring a
> page that got deleted with the approval of the community).

Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.

The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice
of deletion. I merely did a revert.

I rarely use sysop powers :-)

> <snip>
>
>>* why is it so that rules are written in the big book (what wikipedia is
>>not) which makes reference, while these rules are not widely agreed on
>>the project ? If not agreed but by a couple of bold people, should they
>>be used to revert the others ?
>
>
> For me, if the community decide that receipe should be deleted, it's no
> more about "a couple of bold people", but the community as a whole.

IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page.
This is ONE person.

>>I realised the recipes were not welcome any more at all today, because a
>>couple of french people wish to delete them as well on the french
>>wikipedia. And one of their arguments is that the english wikipedia
>>decided to delete them (and so, they must be right !).
>>
>>I removed the rule as is now, and asked the editor who initially added
>>it to show me where this was supported initially.
>
>
> I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks
> and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history,
> description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the
> encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
>
> cheers,
>
> - --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++

You are entitled your opinion.
What is problematic here is that it is not the opinion of the community
to do so, but done nevertheless.

Anthere


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
>>wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
>
>
> I think this is wrong.  A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite
> misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes
> to be very compelling.  Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling,
> and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
>
> But, I don't always get my way.
>
> --Jimbo

If we were a tiny minority to support that Jimbo, I would say nothing.
I would just say "well, fine".
If you remember well, this is what I said for Wikinews :-)

The problem is that we are not a tiny minority at all.

A couple of mails
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010882.html
(optim)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010885.html
(Fred)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010881.html
(Mark)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html
(David)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010903.html
(Geoff)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010907.html (Ec)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010904.html (Ec)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010889.html
(Mark)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010891.html
(Theresa)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010895.html
(JIMBO)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010899.html
(Erik)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010902.html (dpb)
    *
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010913.html
(Elian)

More discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_recipes
Which mentions that there is a page with discussion

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal
A proposal I made which shows no clear support for plain removing the
recipe either

-------

What bugs me is that it is perfectly okay that Gentgeen is bold and
remove them.
What is not bold is that it is a rule when it is obviously far from
globally agreed and that someone restoring a recipe could be reverted on
sight or even blocked.

I do not thing this is how rules should be set.


body:
Tony wrote:
> I can't see the point. Look at the losses and gains:
>
> Gain: prevents a *tiny* amount of spamming (tiny, because the average lifespan of linkspam on the 'pedia is maybe 2 minutes -
> our editors watch this stuff like hawks.

People complain to me all the time that they spend too long reverting
spam. I've written 3 anti-spam features in the last 6 months or so, in
response to popular demand. Someone in #mediawiki two days ago asked me
to help him set up a spam blacklist on his own MediaWiki installation,
because his wiki had been spammed to the point where he was left with no
choice but to take it offline.

> Loss:
>
> (1) extra complication to the code. (Small and slim is *always* best.)

It's just a few extra characters.

> (2) even more crud to mess up the HTML output. If we keep on adding "features" in this manner, a page of MediaWiki output
> HTML is going to be harder to read and consume more bandwidth than a page produced by Frontpage.

XHTML isn't meant to be readable, readability has never been a design
goal for the parser. We can afford the extra bandwidth.

> To me, that says that, on balance, the best option is fairly clearly to do nothing.
>
> Small is beautiful. Simple is best.

I think it would be better if we joined with the major blog software
developers and the three biggest search engines in this effort to
improve index quality and reduce spam. It's not as big an issue for
Wikipedia as it is for the hundreds of smaller wikis which use our
software, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential
> wikimedia projects?

Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea and
Wikicities already exists to fill that role. Concentrating development energy
into our existing projects and staying on mission are more important than
budding-off new projects to the degree suggested,

As Jimmy said, if any Wikicities project is viable, willing, and would help
advance Wikimedia's goals, then we, as a community, could decide to bring them
into our fold.

> Wikilabs could also be a good
> initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since
> everything on it will explicitly be in beta.

That is what test.wikipedia.org and any number of other MediaWiki-based sites
that the developers already use.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
>>wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
>
>
> I think this is wrong.  A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite
> misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes
> to be very compelling.  Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling,
> and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.
>
> But, I don't always get my way.
>
> --Jimbo

Incidently, the most recent discussion on the topic is this proposal I
made : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal
It was advertised on the pump as well.

Several supported it, and among the ones opposing it, there were both
some willing to have it all removed, and some willing to have it all
kept, neither of the two willing to find a middle agreement;

So, people are getting tired to discuss at all, and just finally let
Gentgeen remove all recipees entirely. So, instead of one middle
position, one of the those having the most extremist view got their way.

But, there is no evidence there is community support, just tired people
who just give up.

So, it is grossly unfair to make a rule from automatic removal.

It is certainly a habit, but making it a rule, which allow punishement
for those who do not respect it, is not correct. It is management by the
bolder.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
>
>>I personally believe that receipes as they are should go in wikibooks
>>and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Having an history,
>>description, use of a dish is another matter and can fit well in the
>>encyclopedia. The receipe does not.
>
> There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major
> variants noted.  This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong.  It is
> true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry
> which explains the history, description, use, cultural context,
> geographical extent, etc.  But such descriptions can be very well
> enhanced by having a recipe as well.
>
> --Jimbo

Exactly my point, thanks. In my previous message I tried to explain that
a recipe alone is not enough :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

references:
<41EEBBDF.6020300@yahoo.com>
	<csmeqk$gr9$1@sea.gmane.org>	<20050119202019.GF18713@wikia.com>
	<csmh1n$njk$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Ashar Voultoiz a ?crit:

> Exactly my point, thanks. In my previous message I tried to explain that
> a recipe alone is not enough :)

I tend to agree with you Hashar. But it is not even the problem.
If the page contains only a recipe, it is deleted
If the page contains a recipe and encyclopedic content, the encyclopedic
reference is kept and the recipe removed.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

references:
<41EEBBDF.6020300@yahoo.com> <csmeqk$gr9$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<41EEC2F3.70304@yahoo.com>

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.
>
> The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice
> of deletion. I merely did a revert.
>
> I rarely use sysop powers :-)

Fine. It did not understand that when reading your message :o) At first
it was a bit disturbing to read you had restored a deleted article, but
if that is just an edit war ... it is fine 8-)

<snip>
> IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page.
> This is ONE person.

Have a talk with him, maybe he is not aware of previous talk related to
receipes deletion / removal ?

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

references:
<41EEBBDF.6020300@yahoo.com>
	<csmeqk$gr9$1@sea.gmane.org>	<41EEC2F3.70304@yahoo.com>
	<csmhcm$p9b$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Ashar Voultoiz a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>Excuse me. The page is not deleted, the recipee is deleted.
>>
>>The page was not deleted, I did not restore it against community choice
>>of deletion. I merely did a revert.
>>
>>I rarely use sysop powers :-)
>
>
> Fine. It did not understand that when reading your message :o) At first
> it was a bit disturbing to read you had restored a deleted article, but
> if that is just an edit war ... it is fine 8-)

Yeah, it was I who was unclear Hashar. Not using the right term.

>>IT WAS NOT A DELETION. It was Gentgeen removing a recipee from a page.
>>This is ONE person.
>
>
> Have a talk with him, maybe he is not aware of previous talk related to
> receipes deletion / removal ?
>
> cheers,
>

Oh yes ! He is aware of it. He is the main supporter of moving them. And
the one who transwikied the majority of them. And the one who revert
each time some restore them. He is the gardian of recipes :-)

It is hopeless :-)

Just hopeless.

I tried to find a middle way, to make a suggestion, but there could be
no agreement because Gentgeen and a few decided the recipes should not
be there, while others decided all recipes belong to the encyclopedia.

But, as long as there is NO rule, it is just a question of balance.
Regular edit wars you would say. Another very bold editor can come and
become the new gardian later. And possibly be an inclusive gardian of
dish articles, so many recipees will find their way back.

If it is a rule, then those restoring may be blocked for not respecting
a rule. Huge difference.

------

In effect, looking at the past 3 months, I think there are not much new
recipes, so I suppose any daring adding one is immediately stopped in
its activity. So, the result is just that a branch of wikipedia was cut
in its growth. We made a bonsai !


subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
I don't know, I personally think it's POV in most cases to quote
something as a representation of an entire work - you might take it
out of context, or it might not be the "good part" (or you may think
it is but others disagree), some might say it misrepresents the work,
etc.

Mark

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:59:14 -0800, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> Sj wrote:
>
> >
> >Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a
> >dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book,
> >film, or famous wit.
> >
> Hear hear. I'm just waiting for someone to complain that articles
> shouldn't mention specific examples of a general concept, because
> picking an example makes it seem more important than the unmentioned
> examples, and we can't have pictures, because it's "POV" to only
> depict one object and not any of the others...
>
> NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some
> kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Please use the LiveJournal!

body:
Can I ask that developers use LiveJournal -
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ - to keep people informed about
problems on the Wikimedia servers and what's being tried to fix it. People are
much happier about something being broken when they know why and what's being
done about. We also need one central low-noise source for information, and I
feel the LJ is probably the best bet for that.

Ta,

Dan100


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fun with files

body:
On Jan 19, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Kate Turner wrote:
> Please don't use the dsh apache group for apache-graceful-all then.  It
> makes apache get restarted on machines it shouldn't be running on.

IMO not using an apache publically should be a matter for the load
balancer's configuration; relying on a sometimes-apache machine to not
have port 80 open at any given moment is a dangerous strategy.

> Maybe we need 'apaches' and 'mediawiki-installation'.  Then a-g-a can
> use
> the former and scap the latter.

That might be wise, too.

> Would you like a new caps lock with that, sir?

NO THANKS MY CURRENT ONE WORKS FINE ITS PRETTY AWESOME YOU SHOULD TRY IT
ALL I NEED NOW IS WHITE TEXT ON A BLUE BACKGROUND AND I AM ALL ATARI
RETRO

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050119/ef9eb232/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
I haven't commented on recipes before,  so I'll just say briefly:
Good recipes are great, dense sources of information.  They are
important parts of any good description of a given dish.  So any dish
which is deserving of an encyclopedia entry should include at least
one recipe, if not one for each culturally significant variant.

  Example:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertrand_sereno/550528/

Choosing one recipe to represent the collection of possibilities for a
dish is no more POV than choosing one quote to represent a poem, book,
film, or famous wit.  The thought of recipes being banned from WP [by
people who clearly know nothing about them, nor have any idea of the
number of significant literary works inspired by or devoted to
recipes] gives me indigestion.

+sj+

[ As with any new type of content, there is a need for good models of
encyclopedic usage for others to follow.  Suggestions from recipe
lovers? ]


from_name: Dan Grey

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Developers - could you use a central point to report
	tech info?

body:
Can I ask that developers use LiveJournal -
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ - to
keep people informed about problems on the Wikimedia
servers and what's being tried to fix it? People are
much happier about something being broken when they
know why and what's being done about. We also need one
central low-noise source for information, and I feel
the LJ is probably the best bet for that.

Ta,

Dan100

___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
> NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some
> kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)

No, NPOV applies whether or not something is disputed. People have
argued about what NPOV is meant to accomplish, but it most definitely
applies to _every single thing_ in the article namespaces.

So while you may be hard-pressed to find somebody who says that the
death of 300 innocent people from a bridge crashing is not
unfortunate, we don't say "Unfortunately" or "Tragic event" or
"unfortunate event" or "tragedy" because that is passing judgement
and, more importantly, it is not NPOV.

Ultimately there is always somebody who argues "Well, since nobody
actually disagrees with it, it isn't POV". The response to that is: "I
disagree with it strongly". Then the other party will most likely take
one of two actions, saying "OK, you're right, it's POV" or they will
go on to throw insults and profanity at you for having a viewpoint
(for example, if I say "I strongly disagree with the assertion that
murder is wrong", the other party involved might say "What kind of
crazy idiot are you?").

However NPOV policy doesn't apply to the whole world (although if
you're a Wikipediholic, you may have had the experience of hearing
somebody say something POV in real life and wanting to click the
"edit" button). It may or may not apply outside of the article
namespace. Some people say it doesn't apply to the mainpage, some
people say it doesn't apply to Wikipedia: pages, some people say it
*does* apply to User: pages, although nobody argues it applies to
talkpages (after all, that's what talkpages are for, aren't they?
expression of an individual's POV?). There are differing viewpoints -
I for one believe it applies to everything on every Wikipedia,
including the interface, with the exception of talkpages, userpages,
and other pages specifically intended to be safe harbors for POV on
Wikipedia (for example, on WP:RfA, I can say "____ isn't a good
editor" even though it isn't a talkpage or a userpage, nobody would
disagree with that most likely), but it seems to me the majority
opinion is that it only really applies to articles and article titles,
and thus it's OK to put on our logo "I don't care what your mama says,
Christmas is number o-one, I don't care what your papa says, Christmas
is really fu-un" or write in a UI message "If you don't click 'ok',
you are an idiot and must not be my religion". But those are extreme
cases not likely to happen, so really they don't work well.

Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: My account

body:
Hi

It seems there is a big problem with the
wikimediafoundation login system

Could it be related to the last update of the software
?

Anthere

--- Arno Lagrange <arno.raymond.lagrange at wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> Hi !
> In a few seconds my login was succesful but when I
> wanted to edit my user
> page, my account has desappeared and I am no more in
> the Listuser. Perhaps
> the site went back a step backward in a time when I
> wasn't yet existing.
> So I'm waiting till I'll be existing again.
> Chears/
> Arno Lagrange
> Ecole, Le Village FR 11240 Bellegarde du Raz?s 33
> (0) 468 698 389
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De : "Arno Lagrange"
> <arno.raymond.lagrange at wanadoo.fr>
> ? : "Wikimedia Foundation" <board at wikimedia.org>
> Cc : "Wikimedia Foundation" <board at wikimedia.org>;
> <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Envoy? : mercredi 19 janvier 2005 17:41
> Objet : Re: *** SPAM *** [Ticket#: 110159] Password
> reminder from Wikimedia
> Foundation
>
>
> > Hi !
> > I am now in the user list but I've the same error
> message when trying to
> > login :
> >
> > There is no user by the name "ArnoLagrange". Check
> your spelling, or use
> the
> > form below to create a new user account.
> > Arno Lagrange
> > Ecole, Le Village FR 11240 Bellegarde du Raz?s 33
> (0) 468 698 389
> > ----- Message d'origine -----
> > De : "Wikimedia Foundation" <board at wikimedia.org>
> > ? : "Arno Lagrange"
> <arno.raymond.lagrange at wanadoo.fr>
> > Cc : "Wikimedia Foundation" <board at wikimedia.org>;
> <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> > Envoy? : mercredi 19 janvier 2005 15:37
> > Objet : *** SPAM *** [Ticket#: 110159] Password
> reminder from Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> >
> >
> > > Dear Arno
> > >
> > > > Does my account exist on wikimediafoundation
> or not ? I don't see it
> on
> > > >
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Listusers
> > >
> > > Hi Arno. Could you check it again today please
> since the account
> > definitely
> > > exists, and you are listed at
> > >
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Listusers
> > >
> > > Angela.
> > >
> > >
> > > Angela Beesley
> > > --
> > > Board of Trustees
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 -
> Release Date: 26/12/2004
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release
> Date: 17/01/2005
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] recipes

body:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I think this is wrong.  A rule which says "no recipes" is really quite
> misguided, and I have never found the arguments against _all_ recipes
> to be very compelling.  Some recipes, to be sure, are not compelling,
> and Wikipedia is not a cookbook.

Encyclopedia articles about particular dishes are not the same as recipes. The
former is aimed at being a comprehensive summary (with a good deal of history
and discussion of variations) while the later is supposed to be list of
instructions on making a particular dish. So saying 'no recipes' is correct,
IMO, but deleting encyclopedia articles about food dishes is not.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

references:
<41EEBBDF.6020300@yahoo.com>	<csmeqk$gr9$1@sea.gmane.org>	<41EEC2F3.70304@yahoo.com>	<csmhcm$p9b$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<41EECB81.2000901@yahoo.com>

body:
I am cutting all the first part - and really this is my consideration
after having read most of the messages.

> But, as long as there is NO rule, it is just a question of balance.
> Regular edit wars you would say. Another very bold editor can come and
> become the new gardian later. And possibly be an inclusive gardian of
> dish articles, so many recipees will find their way back.
>
> If it is a rule, then those restoring may be blocked for not
> respecting a rule. Huge difference.
>
> In effect, looking at the past 3 months, I think there are not much
> new recipes, so I suppose any daring adding one is immediately stopped
> in its activity. So, the result is just that a branch of wikipedia was
> cut in its growth. We made a bonsai !
>
Imho wikipedia is much more than only an encyclopedia - it is THE
encyclopedia that not only gives definitions, but also helps to
understand other cultures. Food is part of a culture. Every
Nation/region has its food or cuisine par excellance and many habits can
be explained through this.

What would Italy be without Pizza? What would the Pizza-culture (yes, in
some countries it became a real culture) be without the mother of all
pizzas, the Pizza Margherita, named after a Queen, created in Naples
made of the Italian national colours to honour the queen (at least this
is what is known)? So this recipe IS culture and should be trasmitted to
many people. So why not create just the recipe in the hope that someone
who knows the whole story will add the rest? An only recipe would be
nothing else than a stub - stubs are to be completed.

Other Examples are:
Christmas pudding
Cheesecake
Stollen
Mustaccioli
Pannettone
Lebkuchen
Pasta al pomodoro (noodles with tomato sauce)
Spaghetti (originally from China as much as I remember)
Rice dishes
Sushi
Sauerkruaut
Wienerw?rstel (the "Viennese sausages" that are called "Frankfurter" in
Vienna)
etc. etc. etc.

I don't feel that there's a need to discuss about this - it is clear in
itself as wikipedia is clear in itself. Stubs were made for first steps
on a certain theme - cuisine is a theme, recipes are subtitles of
"French cuisine, Mediterranean cuisine, German cuisine, British cuisine,
American cuisine".

This is the huge difference of Wikipedia to ordinary encyclopedias -
you/we have the possibility to give all this information - people who
are not interested in it simply don't read it, but people who are
interested will prefer Wikipedia 1000 and more times to a paperwork
where they then need to buy other books and kitchen encyclopedias (the
exist) in order to have complete overviews.

Why destroy one of the huge powers of Wikipedia? The power of being
different, the power of digging deeper and deeper.

My 2 cts ;-)

Ciao, Sabine


from_name: Robin Shannon

body:
I see no problem with it, im just wondering if maybe a comprimise
would be to have it the default for annon edits (or would that be less
elegent coding?) since im guessing that most spam is from annons (as
users would be banned for it).

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:25:15 +0200, NSK <nsk2 at wikinerds.org> wrote:
<snip>
> Note that as long search engines don't support this extension, it just uses
> extra bandwidth for no reason.

Google is supporting it. Thats 90% of the search market already. MSN
and Yahoo! are also supporting it; thats 99.999999% of the search
market. What other engines are you talking about?

paz y amor
[[User:The bellman]]

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


from_name: Andrew Miller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google preventing comment spam

body:
shi zhao wrote:

>see http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html
>
>Are we can join in the exterior links (rel="nofollow") , preventing wikispam?
>
>
I think that it should be in a new XML namespace, not in the XHTML one,
if we are talking about XHTML documents. Something like
<html xmlns:gsp="http://www.google.com/ns/googlespam-1/">
  ...
  <a gsp:nofollow="1">...</a>
</html>
The reason is that someone else might want to use(or already be using)
nofollow for some other purpose(especially since it is not very
intuitive as to what it does, perhaps norank would be better).

In terms of using it with Wiki, perhaps this should interact with
validation(when it is implemented) or patrolling in some way. An ad hoc
approach would be to drop the nofollow in links first added in a change
which has already patrolled pages. This would, however, require that
this state be stored , maintained, and read in some way on a per-link
basis, which may be to costly to justify(unless it also offered some
other benefit to the Wiki users).

>[[zh:user:shizhao]]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:20:19 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major
> variants noted.  This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong.  It is
> true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry
> which explains the history, description, use, cultural context,
> geographical extent, etc.  But such descriptions can be very well
> enhanced by having a recipe as well.

But exactly because it's so fine, it is not usable. There are all
kinds of recipes for the same dish, and they all are different. Either
you go POV and say that one recipe is good, and the other is bad, or
you keep yourself to such generalities that what remains is a
"description" rather than a "recipe". I prefer the second.

Andre Engels


body:
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams...
sounds like a good idea.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:56:58 +0000, Christiaan Briggs
<christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to this view but the corollary is that a special
> Wikimedia project (i.e. not buried in Wikibooks) would encourage
> interest in an area where, comparatively speaking, you don't have a
> natural base of editors. Compare say the amount of builders, architects
> and musicians to the number of mathematicians and programmers. It's a
> systemic bias issue.
>
> I would rather see such new projects *that have recognised potential
> and a good plan* given a prominent domain space such as:
> beta.wikimedia.org/Wikibuilder
> or beta.wikibuilder.org
> ..and advertised along side Wikisource, Wikispecies and other Wikimedia
> projects under a Wikibetas heading or something.
>
> I think this is especially pertinent to projects that may need special
> code to reach their true potential, such as presenting music notation
> in Wikiscores or previews of 2D and 3D CAD files in Wikibuilder.
>
> Christiaan
>
> On 19 Jan 2005, at 4:25 am, Sj wrote:
>
> > I would like to see the process for creating new factual/specialist
> > Wikimedia projects include a stage at whic hthe new project is a
> > Wikibook, which serves as a demonstration of what project content will
> > include (and a rough topic mesh for the project), proof of interest in
> > the project, and a source of inspiration to new project contributors.
> >
> > After this initial overview book could come full-fledged project
> > development.
> >
> > +sj+
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:41 +0000, Christiaan Briggs
> > <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> >> Pawe? 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
> >>
> >> It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure
> >> it
> >> would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the
> >> design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in
> >> all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia
> >> project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even
> >> need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with
> >> presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
> >>
> >> Christiaan_______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > +sj+
> >  _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:00:59PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:20:19 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
> <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no finer description of a dish than a recipe, with major
> > variants noted.  This is why I say that a simple rule is wrong.  It is
> > true that a recipe should make up a part of a larger overall entry
> > which explains the history, description, use, cultural context,
> > geographical extent, etc.  But such descriptions can be very well
> > enhanced by having a recipe as well.
>
> But exactly because it's so fine, it is not usable. There are all
> kinds of recipes for the same dish, and they all are different. Either
> you go POV and say that one recipe is good, and the other is bad, or
> you keep yourself to such generalities that what remains is a
> "description" rather than a "recipe". I prefer the second.

Could you state your opinion on recipes/descriptions like this one:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutia

I think it's perfectly fine for an encyclopedia.


body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> I see no problem with it, im just wondering if maybe a comprimise
> would be to have it the default for annon edits (or would that be less
> elegent coding?) since im guessing that most spam is from annons (as
> users would be banned for it).
>

Most spam on Wikipedia seems to be from anonymous users. But spam on
blogs and wikis that require logins before editing generally comes from
throwaway accounts. Believe me, they can create them faster than you can
block them. See for example this revision, contributed by the user DinMo
to a wiki which requires logins:

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/ScddBox?version=1

Judging by the URLs, that spammer was blocked from Wikipedia on December
29. As soon as they realise what we're doing (and I have no doubt they
will), they'll log in to our wikis just like they log in to everything else.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I discovered today that recipes are now legally deleted from the english
> wikipedia where they are not welcome any more.
>
> Still, I had the memory there was no clear agreement on doing so, and
> for months, there was a sort of balance with removing all those of minor
> dishes, while keeping those from typical ones.

Has anyone maintained a list of articles that were deleted at the second
or later trial on VfD by any chance? I know there is a "precedents" page
that proves the community has become more deletionist over time.

There is a problem with our processes if double jeopardy is acceptable
in getting things deleted, but we do not allow articles to be recreated.


from_name: Jonah Bossewitch

subject: [Wikitech-l] mediawiki extensions collective?

body:
Hi,

With the possibility of mediawiki third party extensions, and the upcoming
new and improved hook infrastructure, how does the mediawiki developer
community feel about starting a mediawiki "collective", modeled on the plone
community's hugely successful product collective
(www.sf.net/projects/collective)

This is a separate project in sourceforge which would intentionally allow a
very large number of developers each working on their own sub-projects.
There are issues with quality control, much like there are with the
wikipedia, but having a central clearing house for extensions (as well as
all sorts of tools) might encourage more development along these lines.

We have recently developed a javascript based category browser.  It won't
work on the wikipedia itself, since that site has far more categories, but
on smaller sized intranet installs, such a tool is invaluable.

I would be happy to request the project from sourceforge, but was wondering
what other people thought about this idea.

best,
/Jonah


body:
--- Christiaan Briggs <christiaan at last-straw.net> wrote:
> That's why I said, *that have recognised potential and a good plan*

But would it fit well into our mission of providing a free reference source? If
so, could this be done within an existing Wikimedia project?

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recipes

body:
I agree with Sabine, Giuseppe Guillaume, Sj, & al.: Recipes do belong in
Wikipedia -- they are excellent sources of cultural information. The
appropriate level of detail for the recipe may of course vary between
articles: A recipe for "pinnekj?t(t)" (typical of (mostly) one region of
Norway) is relatively easy to write down, and the variants are similar
enough to each other that one can keep it short and clear. A recipe for
"haroset" (typical of almost all Jewish cultures) is obviously going to be
a much harder task with all its variety...  If someone just enters a
recipe, the challenge is to expand the article to contain something more
than that -- not to take away the important cultural information that has
been offered in the form of that recipe. In my not-so-humble opinion, that
is... :)

-Olve

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Christiaan Briggs (christiaan at last-straw.net) [050120 00:44]:

> Yeah "Wikilabs", that's sounds better.

Sounds like a more generalised version of Wikicities
(http://www.wikicities.com/) - presumably with viewers for types of data
other than MediaWiki-text.

Presumably implementing this is just a Simple Matter Of Programming ;-)

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed

body:
Rich Holton (rich_holton at yahoo.com) [050120 01:15]:

> What makes a reference a terrible one? Is the source biased by funding
> or other interests? Then that is a fact that should be included in an
> article on the source, at least.
> Not that you're suggesting this, but obviously a source should not be
> considered "terrible" simply because you don't agree with it.
> I do not see it as WiWikipedia'sole to judge "truth", but rather to
> describe "facts". I have only a vague concept of LaLaRouchend his
> ideas, and from what I know he sounds like a crackpot. But WiWikipedias
> not the place to analyze his ideas and attempt to stomp out his
> movement. Our job is to document him and his ideas, and to document
> significant reactions to him and his ideas. We leave it up to other
> groups, and up to individuals, to discern the truth. For me, that is a
> core element of NPNPOV

For a comparison, see the articles in [[Category:Scientology]] or the
article on [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. NPOV is tricky, but we try our best, with
references by the ton.

(Even then it sometimes isn't enough - see the expressions of incredulity
on [[Talk:Xenu]] or [[Talk:Mission Earth (novel)]]. What does one do when
this shit really is unbelievable?)

- d.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
> From: slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com>

>
> The [[LaRouche Youth Movement]], started after LaRouche got out of
> jail, now has young members all over the world thanks to the Internet.
> It is unquestionably a cult, with members encouraged to live
> collectively, spend all their time raising money for the movement, and
> receiving almost none of it for their upkeep. Ex-members have given
> interviews about how they were forced to undergo "ego-stripping" as
> part of their indoctrination. Again, there is nothing about this in the
> article. I was only allowed my one paragraph about the death of
> Jeremiah Duggan.

Well you would be able to say when it was formed if there is agreement on
that, and presumably there is no serious disagreement that it has members
all over the world.  If some significant people have credibly called it a
cult or cult-like organisation you can also cite this. For instance, has
Steve Hassan ever investigated LaRouche? He has a fair track record and
has been called as an expert witness during a Congressional hearing.  You
can also cite the statements of former members.  Nobody can stop you
writing these things into the article and if someone persists in wholly
removing supported reportage from an article (rather than editing it) you
should eventually have enough recorded instances, provided you can keep
your cool, to kick of a RfC.  This does take a lot of patience, but
there's no hurry.  You'll get there eventually.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: User:Everyking

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au said:
> Surely a rollback should be classed as a revert?
>
It's a gray area.  If an admin knowingly abused rollback power while
blocked this should probably be a summary de-admin offence, in my opinion,
but here Everyking was apparently using his rollback power to deal with
simple vandalism, which strikes me as a very admirable way to use his
suddenly acquired spare time.


from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Recipes

body:
I'm backing Sabine on this one.  Recipes are culture (unless we're talking about anglo countries - where it is perhaps a little bit murkier - where tasteless hegemony is the norm - where the confluence of globalisation, commercial imperatives, mass marketing and isolationism has enabled people to believe they are eating food when they purchase something shrivelled up sitting in a baie marie in a well known chain store - and maybe that's the real source of this debate).

People want to put up whole articles on individual pokemon cards, but I can' t tell the world about that great Sicilian dish: arancini - that this is their idea of take away food - imagine - arancini vs a Big Mac - and you don't want to get a sense of that?  You don't want to know that you need to add some saffron to get that unique colour and subtle, mysterious flavour.  That you really need to deep fry them, a microwave just won't cut it.  The fillings are as myriad and complex as the people themselves.  For optimum results, make your own bread crumbs - you don't know how to? hopefully an article will tell you about this lost skill/art.  Should we add parmesan or pecorino?  Don't worry, there should be another article explaining the difference.

If you don't know what arancini are - have a look here:

http://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arancina

Alas, it's lacking some key info - but it is an important an article as reading about Terry Wallace.  Don't know who he is?  There's an article on him in en:wiki.  I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but surely recipes are equally deserving of attention.  Bon appititu!

pippu d'angelo

---------------------------------
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto pi? divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica
 Scaricalo ora!


body:
JAY JG (jayjg at hotmail.com) [050120 03:17]:

> I think swift but light justice helps.  The way things work now, a rogue
> editor runs rampant over Wikipedia for a couple of months, till ArbCom can
> finally deal with it.  By that point their "rap sheet" is so long that the
> only reasonable remedy is a lengthy ban of many months.

Which is indeed not good at all.

>  If we were able to
> hand out one or two day "cooling off" bans very soon after the behaviour
> started, I believe it would make the rogue editors start taking Wikipedia
> policies seriously enough that they might actually move their disputes and
> concerns to the Talk: pages, rather than the articles.

Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or
24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.

>  I understand that
> temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but,
> ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down
> before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.

This is one thing we're trying to get better with!

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "See also" section heading

body:
Zoney (zoney.ie at gmail.com) [050120 03:32]:

> I hadn't known that the heading "related articles" had indeed
> previously been used. Is it still acceptable or was there a definitive
> decision to only use "see also"?

Not that I know of, but it deos appear to be the convention. I sometimes
change it, sometimes leave it.

- d.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recipe

body:
>Stan
>Hear hear. I'm just waiting for someone to complain that articles
>shouldn't mention specific examples of a general concept, because
>picking an example makes it seem more important than the unmentioned
>examples, and we can't have pictures, because it's "POV" to only
>depict one object and not any of the others...

>NPOV is a technique to cope with intractable disputes, not some
>kind of weirdo Wikipedian-only quasi-religion. :-)

>Stan

I really agree with Stan.

Two of the arguments given to remove recipes from Wikipedia are
* but these are only examples and are primary research type
* but these are not NPOV

Well, using example is a top mean to have someone understand what a dish is.
Saying that a tagela is made with wheat flour and water... does not explain where the difference is between a tagela and the bread I eat in France.

The ingredients alone do not make a dish, but also the amount of each ingredient, the way they are mixed together, and in which order they are mixed, and how they are cooked.
And this is what is a "recipe".

Explaining a dish without explaining how the dish is done is just cruely forgetting information.

All along our articles, we give "examples". Except we do not call them examples, we call them "citing a source to support an argument".
We say "There is a general sentiment against this country. In her speech of the dd/mm/yyy, Secretary X. mentionned that this country would be forgiven, this one would be ignored while that one would be punished". In most articles, this is a citation. Well, in a dish article, this is a recipe.
We do that all the time. This is citing sources, examples.
Why is it different for recipes ?

An argument could be "yes, but Secretary X is a famous person, while your recipe could just be your own creation. This would be personal research and Wikipedia does not welcome personal research".

But here, we must rely on the logic and education of Wikipedians. If the dish looks like "just a creation from any one", the recipe will be removed. If the dish is famous and recipe is approved by those reading the article, and is basically the recipe mentionned in most famous cookbook, could not that be enough to accept it ?

Would mentioning a cookbook in which the recipe is mentionned enough to satisfy those hungry for "credentials" ?

In all cases, any decent cook will know very well there are as many recipes as there are cooks and days. If one does the job well, he will do the small improvement that makes his recipe unique. And all readers of cookbooks know this and satisfy themselves with general directions for a dish and manage to do it as they feel is best.

Each time I bake a bread, I follow the recipe of a "bread" and it's different. But to start the first one, I needed information on how to do it. And this is also part of human knowledge.

The other point is NPOV. The argument given is that "recipes varies and accepting one would be being pov". YES, I agree. It is ONE recipe amont others.
Now, NPOV was created to prevent the project being filled up with personal rants. To avoid it to become just another forum of discussion. Not to become a wall against valid information reporting. We should take NPOV seriously, but not more than what it should be. A useful tool, but not a divine word.

In 3 years now, I have NEVER seen an edit war on a recipe. I have seen people adding that "though beef was usually used for the recipe, pork was also used as well". And I never saw anyone complain with this.

Anthere

http://fr.wikipedia.org
http://anthere.shaihome.net/

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


from_name: Kate Turner

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fun with files

body:
Brion Vibber wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:
> To everybody who thinks it's a great idea to take machines out of the
> dsh group "apaches":
> PLEASE DON'T DO IT.

Please don't use the dsh apache group for apache-graceful-all then.  It
makes apache get restarted on machines it shouldn't be running on.

Maybe we need 'apaches' and 'mediawiki-installation'.  Then a-g-a can use
the former and scap the latter.

> When the machines get put back into apache service by some other
> person, they have OUTDATED INVALID CODE including OUTDATED INVALID
> CONFIGURATION which leads to ARTICLES SAVED TO THE WRONG DATABASE
> SERVER. Of course this wouldn't be so bad if we had THE BROKEN OLD
> MASTER SET TO READ-ONLY.

Would you like a new caps lock with that, sir?

> Thanks.

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

Kate :)


body:
geni (geniice at gmail.com) [050120 04:50]:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:40:37 +1100, David Gerard
> <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or
> > 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
> > objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.

> Yes personal abuse is seriously subective and (like all these
> policies) has no effect on anons from AOL

Here's the policy:

How would you tighten it up to make it less seriously subjective?

I'm focusing on this area because (a) it really gets up my nose (b)
personal attacks drive away quite a lot of good contributors (c) almost
every case of an editor going rogue in other ways has had a heaping of
personal attacks in there as well.

"No personal attacks" is official Wikipedia policy (it's up there with NPOV
as one of the non-negotiable Wikipedia policies) and the ArbCom has
repeatedly affirmed it as a principle. But it could clearly do with teeth
*before* hitting arbitration. What needs to be clarified to make it less
subjective?

- d.


body:
David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [050120 05:00]:

> Here's the policy:

It would help if I included it, wouldnn't it.

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

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recipe : pertinence criteria

body:
Aoineko
>I can't imagine a consensus about an exhaustive list of references, so
>your definition moves the debate to "what a reference is?". Personally,
>I think the "reference" concept is not relevant outside of science
>domain. In science, the pertinence criteria are concrete: accuracy of
>formula and reproducibility of experience. What are the pertinence
>criteria for culture?

You are correct.

It could be

* whether the dish is famous or not
* whether the recipe if tried is good or not good

First the fame of the dish could be measured by
* First step : comments from people on the wikipedia itself
* Second step : check on google over the name of the dish
* Third step : comments from all wikipedians (a dish famous in zimbabwe will possibly not be recognised famous on the english wikipedia)

>>> this suggest the creation of a core list of famous dishes built between all encyclopedias

Any famous dish should present at least one typical recipe

Second, whether the dish recipe is rather representative
* First step : comments  by people who have already been doing the recipe of that dish
* Second step : checking and comparing the recipe with available sources (should be rather easy for a big network of wikipedians, since the dish is famous)

The famous dish recipe should be refered as representative but not unique.
Citing a famous cookbook OR a famous cook doing this recipe is possible.

Third, reproducibility and quality
* First step : I suggest a team of testers be created... take pictures to improve the dishes...  (I join !)
* Second step : In 10 years, we have 20 WikiRestaurant opened in New York, Beijing, London etc... preparing dishes with Wikipedia recipes from all over the world

>>>The famous dish recipe on Wikipedia should advertise the restaurants... and use them as a source :-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


body:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [050120 05:05]:
> --- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or
> > 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
> > objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.

> I would support that. As is, our no personal attacks policy has little by way
> of teeth to it.
> The only problem, and this is a big one, is what constitutes a personal attack?
> Use of profanity in a provocative way is an obvious criteria, but there are
> *many* ways a person can demean another person without resorting to base
> language.

I recall Mr-Natural-Health deleting any questioning of his edits or edit
summaries as a "personal attack".

> What do you do when you come across a complete piece of trash article or edit?
> Criticizing something like that, even when it is justified, may be seen as a
> personal attack by the author.

"On Wikipedia, you are in fact required to suffer fools a little bit, of
not gladly."

> So we must tread a fine line here due to the subjective nature of the offense.
> RfC may be a way for the community to quickly decide the less than clear cases.
> A short term poll could be held on someone's RfC page to see whether or not
> that person violated the 'no personal attacks' policy. If <75% agree, then that
> person gets blocked for a small period of time (24hrs to a week; anything
> longer would need an ArbCom ruling).

Sounds like quickpolls ...

> > >  I understand that
> > > temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but,
> > > ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down
> > > before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.

> > This is one thing we're trying to get better with!

> We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to
> use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.

That's a *very* good idea. What do we do to change ArbCom powers in this
manner?

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Fun with files

body:
Brion Vibber wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:
> On Jan 19, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Kate Turner wrote:
>> Please don't use the dsh apache group for apache-graceful-all then.  It
>> makes apache get restarted on machines it shouldn't be running on.

> IMO not using an apache publically should be a matter for the load
> balancer's configuration; relying on a sometimes-apache machine to not
> have port 80 open at any given moment is a dangerous strategy.

Quite.  But we can probably all agree that mistakes and misconfigurations do
happen.  Better safe than sorry, &c.

>> Maybe we need 'apaches' and 'mediawiki-installation'.  Then a-g-a can
>> use the former and scap the latter.

> That might be wise, too.

And so done.

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

Kate.


body:
Nicholas Knight (nknight at runawaynet.com) [050120 06:26]:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:

> >We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea
> >was to
> >use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes
> >needed.

> What's the typical time-delay on getting the four votes for a temporary
> injunction?

Not very long. The injunctions on Everyking got four votes in a matter of
hours.

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Please use the LiveJournal!

body:
Dan100 wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:

> Can I ask that developers use LiveJournal -
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ - to keep people informed
> about problems on the Wikimedia servers and what's being tried to fix it.

I was under the impression that we were all incompetent and had no idea how
the site works.  What possible information could we provide to other people
apart from meaningless rambling about our wild guesses and fumbling around
in the dark that somehow, by chance create a vague resemblance to an
almost-working website?

Or more to the point, why should I waste my time writing up status reports
and trying to let you know what's going on when you have nothing better to
do than throw it back in my face peppered with utterly uninformed and
unhelpful remarks about how worthless I am and how we should all be fired,
and without so much as lifting a finger to try to help?  You have no right
to ask us to do anything at all, or talk about what you "need".

I created the wikitech LJ to try to let people know what we are doing, and
maybe even  to let them offer some suggestions on how to help.  I
understand that a broken site is frustrating; we've all been there, WP is
hardly the first unreliable service ever created.  If I can offer some
insight into why it's like that, maybe it helps people to understand.  But
if all you're going to do is read it and offer snide remarks, why should I
bother?  I don't recall ever seeing you idle in #mediawiki, let alone try
to offer any ideas about what we're doing so wrongly.  Maybe we should just
let the site rot and see how much better it works.

I don't want sympathy or "oh well, they aren't getting paid for it."
Obviously not paying doesn't magically make something good.  But when you
have no clue at all about what's actually going on to keep the site
running, you have no room to lay blame about where the problem is.

Kate.


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

body:
Robin Shannon wrote:
> i remember you saying on several occasions that you wanted to keep
> your stuff (bormis, wikia, wikicites, <anything else i might not know
> about>) and wikimedia seperate.

Yes, this is legally and ethically necessary.

> I also remember you saying that you did not think that it would be
> appropriate for other wikis started elsewhere to merge with, or
> become part of the wikimedia family.

No, I did not say that.  It will depend on the circumstances, the
nature of the project, the judgment of the community, and the judgment
of myself and the other board members.

I have a strong ethical obligation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and
nothing I do will compromise that, this was my point.  I don't want
wikicities to compete with or fork anything that's more suitable for
the foundation.  And I would like to make wikicities available to help
resolve problems within the foundation (for example, providing a home
for communities like tokipona, which although perfectly fine in and of
themselves, have been judged to be inconsistent with our overall
language policy).

--Jimbo


subject:
Original Research versus Point of View,
	was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

body:
> The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way
> Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers.
> The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche
> movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A
> consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites
> claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly
> referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This is
> just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the
> LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which
> claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as
> the Star Wars one.

I'm sorry but your claim here simply isn't borne out by the text of the
article in question.  The only mention of Star Wars is in a paragraph that
that starts: "Separating fact from fiction in LaRouche's biography is made
difficult by the barrages of conflicting accounts generated by the
LaRouche movement and its critics" and goes on to say that LaRouche
"claims to have pioneered such ideas as the International Development
Bank, the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars," and the so-called
Eurasian Land-Bridge"
Nowhere does the article make the claim that LaRouche's claim is a fact.
>
> They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that
> LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as
> sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As
> a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles
> on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other
> articles into the "closely related" fold.

I've looked at those seventeen articles.  Which of them do you think are
not closely related to the LaRouche affair?


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 5:38 am, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> --- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential
>> wikimedia projects?
>
> Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki
> idea...

That's why I said, *that have recognised potential and a good plan*

Christiaan


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> If an encyclopedia were really a compendium of all human knowledge, we
>> wouldn't need Wiktionary.
>>
>> Mark
>
>
> Exactly! If Wikipedia was a compendium of human knowledge, we wouldn't
> need Wiktionary because Wiktionary excluded some linguistic knowledge
> from the main encyclopedia. Now, some wikipadians would like to
> exclude some cooking knowledge. What next? What is the argument to say
> what is encyclopedic or not? Actually, Wikipedians are not
> representative at all of human diversity (sex, age, culture, etc.) so,
> imho, majority's opinion is not relevant to answer this question.
> So I ask again to Jimbo, "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia?"
>
> Aoineko

When you look outside the "wikipedia" box, still being in the
"wikimedia" box,  you will find your dictionary information. When we
finally have our "interproject links" it will even be obvious that there
IS information within our projects about the lexicological information
for a word. Like with the pictures and recordings in Commons, there is a
technical reason why there is merit in having the lexicological
information seperate from the encyclopedic information. This will become
even more obvious when we get the hoped for "ultimate wiktionary".

So to answer Aoineko, we are inclusive, it is all in the projects. We
want to present the whole spectrum of human knowledge and make it
available to all who can absorb it.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
GB> I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't
GB> be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia

I do. Imagine having dictionary definitions, grammatical information,
equivalents in other languages for the article name and all names that
redirect to that name in the same article...

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


body:
Kate Turner wrote:

>Dan100 wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:
>
>
>
>>Can I ask that developers use LiveJournal -
>>http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/ - to keep people informed
>>about problems on the Wikimedia servers and what's being tried to fix it.
>>
>>
>
>I was under the impression that we were all incompetent and had no idea how
>the site works.  What possible information could we provide to other people
>apart from meaningless rambling about our wild guesses and fumbling around
>in the dark that somehow, by chance create a vague resemblance to an
>almost-working website?
>
>Or more to the point, why should I waste my time writing up status reports
>and trying to let you know what's going on when you have nothing better to
>do than throw it back in my face peppered with utterly uninformed and
>unhelpful remarks about how worthless I am and how we should all be fired,
>and without so much as lifting a finger to try to help?  You have no right
>to ask us to do anything at all, or talk about what you "need".
>
>I created the wikitech LJ to try to let people know what we are doing, and
>maybe even  to let them offer some suggestions on how to help.  I
>understand that a broken site is frustrating; we've all been there, WP is
>hardly the first unreliable service ever created.  If I can offer some
>insight into why it's like that, maybe it helps people to understand.  But
>if all you're going to do is read it and offer snide remarks, why should I
>bother?  I don't recall ever seeing you idle in #mediawiki, let alone try
>to offer any ideas about what we're doing so wrongly.  Maybe we should just
>let the site rot and see how much better it works.
>
>I don't want sympathy or "oh well, they aren't getting paid for it."
>Obviously not paying doesn't magically make something good.  But when you
>have no clue at all about what's actually going on to keep the site
>running, you have no room to lay blame about where the problem is.
>
>Kate.
>
Kate and all others,
Considering that everything is done on such a LOW budget it is sheer
magic. I am one of those people that "lurks in the background" offering
little or no advice. What people do not realise is that in a
"professional" setting solutions are often bought. You buy the latest
doda, you hire that magic expert who comes to do his trick again. With
the current budget you have a lot on your plate not only PHP but also
Apache, not only Apache but also Squid, not only Squid but also MySQL,
not only MySQL but also ..

As you all are not waiting for generalisations from me about how to run
a datacentre, I keep quiet. I am honestly amazed at how well it works
and how well lessons are learned. Live journal is a great initiative and
I thank you for it.

What I appreciate is that knowing the problem is 50% of the solution but
many people think that the symptoms IS the problem. The server running
slowly or not at all is a symptom and its cause is often not clear. With
hindsight, symptoms can be explained in terms of understanding a
problem. When symptoms are known to a greater (knowledgable) audience
there is a chance that someone has seen them and can make "choclate" out
of it (IT is a dark art). There will also be a trade-off between
spending time on reporting and working on a situation. There is also the
group of people that see it (again with hindsight) as being SOOO
obvious. They are trolls and they deserve a hot place in hell

When technology is done on a shoestring, you do push the enveloppe you
max out what is in machines, software and people. This is technology at
its best, it is not necessarily always the best performance and
availability, but it leads to the best solution given people, software
and hardware.

Finally blaming is a loose loose situation. You do not get better
service and you piss off the people that you want this service from. It
is much better to analyse the symptoms of a previous and see what can be
learned from it. Then again you only find time and have the inclination
to do that when the situation is tranquil and often at such a time you
need a breather. So I wish us all tranquil times and lots of fun.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: recipes

body:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:42:51 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard
<gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> wrote:

> I don't see good technical reasons (= technical solution that couldn't
> be done on WP) to move lexicological information outside of Wikipedia
> but it's not the point. Move cooking information (or a day sport, tv,
> celebrities, etc.) outside of the encyclopedia is not legitimate as far
> as you don't give reason why is not encyclopedic (witch is impossible if
> we don't all us the same definition of what a encyclopedia is). "Present
> the whole spectrum of human knowledge" is close to my own definition,
> but I'm not sure everybody where have the same definition and it's
> clearly not the way we are following removing recipes. I agree the fact
> we need some limit to the "whole spectrum", but I'd like to have a
> definition of this limit. "Things that didn't interfere life of wide
> human group" ?

In my opinion, an encyclopedia is in the first place a work of
reference, and from that I get my idea of what should be in Wikipedia:
All that normally would be found in some reference work (some
"encyclopedia of such-and-such"). That also makes me more deletionist
than people like you, probably.

Andre Engels


body:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:52:28 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
<snip>
>But it also means that wikipedia
> itself probably should turn the feature off.
>
> (This is not a decree or anything, just one voice in the discussion.)

maybe in the 5 or so really big wikipedias, but i know for example
that en.wikibooks has a problem with one particular chinese
wikispammer, who doesnt get reverted for at least a couple of hours,
if not half a day sometimes. I presume there is probably similar probs
with some of the other smaller projects.

~~~~

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikinews (Yes not quite relating to en.wikipedia,
	but please still relevent)

body:
I know that lots of people have there homepages set to news sites
(yahoo!, /., google news etc.) or bolgs or what not. i would humbily
request that as many wikipedia editors as possible set wikinews as
thier homepage. Firstly because the news you get there is so much more
diverse than what you get anywhere else, and also because most
articles could do with copyediting. Im not talking about anything too
complicated, just fixing up mistakes made by people who dont have
english as thier first language, or a bit of NPOVing. The number of
articles being written isnt great, but its reasonable and will
continue to grow, but what is really needed right know is a whole heap
of experienced wiki users to just touch up the articles to make them
that little bit better. A couple of minutes a day from just twenty or
thirty experienced wikipedians could significantly lift the quality of
the project.

Thankyou.

Paz y amor,
[[User:The bellman]]

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/