from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to get a list of authors for each article

body:
Hi there,

The coming CD version of the German wikipedia
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_auf_CD)
should include a list of authors for each article, as the GFDL requires.
I am not that good in SQL - can anybody help?

For each article a statement like this should be produced:

"This article has been edited X times by Y wikipedia users and Z times
by anonymous users: Foouser, Blauser, ...."

A table

All users should be listed - but not the IP-numbers of anonymous posts!

I thought of some SQL statements like (untested):

CREATE TABLE article_edit_count (
   article VARCHAR(255) BINARY
   edited_by_wikipedians INT UNSIGNED,
   edited_with_IP INT UNSIGNED
);

CREATE TABLE has_edited (
   user VARCHAR(255) BINARY,
   article VARCHAR(255) BINARY
);

INSERT INTO has_edited
   SELECT DISTINCT old_user_text AS user, old_title AS article
   FROM old WHERE old_namespace=0
   UNION
   SELECT cur_user_text AS user, cur_title AS article

Well... but how to distingish anonymous and logged in users?

How can the authors be determined and how many hours/days does it take
to run the SQL statements? By the way on my notebook a simple query for
counting the number of links to each article, that I called 4 hours ago,
is still running and running :-(

Thanks,
   Jakob


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Templates For Deletion is up and running

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion

Snowspinner created this, I thought "what a good idea" and nominated
a few IMO deserving contenders. Not a peep since ... so I thought I'd
call it to your attention, for wild cheers of agreement, curses of
its name, etc. Vote for/against, diss the whole concept on the talk
page, etc.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] list of authors for each article

body:
Hi there!

(my first mail seems to be gone into nirvana)

For the German Wikipedia CD
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_auf_CD)
we need a least of all authors for each article (as GFDL requires).
I am not that good in SQL so can anybody help?

I thoght of a statement like

"This ariticle has been edited X times by logged in users and Y times by
anonymous user. The authors are: Userxy, Foouser, Userbar..."

My untested SQL statements up to now

CREATE TABLE edit_count (
   article VARCHAR(255),
   edited_by_users INTEGER,
   edited_by_IP INTEGER
);

CREATE TABLE has_edited (
   user VARCHAR(255),
   article VARCHAR(255)
);

INSERT INTO has_edited
   SELECT DISTINCT old_user_text AS user, old_title AS article WHERE
old_namespace=0
   UNION
   SELECT DISTINCT cur_user_text AS user, cur_title AS article WHERE
old_namespace=0

How not to get all the IP numbers??

What is the best method to get such a list of authors and how long will
it take to determine it for every article? By the way my little SQL
statement to count the number of links to each article is still running
and running for hours.

Thanks,
   Jakob


subject: [Wikitech-l] list of autors for each article


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please welcome your new Mailing List admins

body:
WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.

At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.

Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org.

~Mark.
Administrator


from_name: Eckhart Wörner

body:
Hello Jakob,

Jakob Voss schrieb:
> (my first mail seems to be gone into nirvana)

Well, I actually got it thrice. ;-)

Eckhart


from_name: Jeff Warnica

subject: [Wikitech-l] "Today's Featured Article" by email

body:
On Sat, 2004-21-08 at 09:35 +0100, Kate wrote:

> The easiest way to do this would be via a mailing list which users
> subscribe to; however, mailman's interface isn't really very obvious
> for someone who's just looking to sign up for something.  So, it would
> be nice if something could be added which would handle the initial part
> of the subscription when the user enters their email address into a
> (simple) form, and they just have to reply to the mailman email to
> subscribe.
>
> Is there any chance of something like this being done, or does anyone
> have any other suggestions on how to handle it?
>

Why would you want to use a full blown MLM system? You wont need
archiving, you wont need moderation, you wont need, well damm near
anything beyond the most basic mail-to-a-lot-of-people abilities. It
could be done with a very long alias :) Users have exactly one option:
get the mail, or not. Make it a mediawiki preference.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Milestone : Third global press release

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Though that would definitly be easier on us all, I am not sure I
> entirely support this.

It was just a suggestion to start the process quickly. We could mention a goal
of creating shorter press release and I'm sure the whole thing will be
re-written either way. But 500 000 article press release wasn't too long since
half of it was background. It is standard practice to put the new stuff in the
first half of the press release and then have a couple to a few paragraphs for
background info on the company/organization the press release is about.

-- mav

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


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in the News

body:
>From the "Thanks, I think..." department. :)

------------
Google News Alert - wikipedia

DOOM 3, Futurama and the Transformers: How corporate stinginess ...
Maisonnueve - Montreal,Quebec,Canada

... If you need to know more, Wikipedia is a good resource for that sort
of nonsense. Would a soundtrack any less bizarre have been appropriate?
...
<http://maisonneuve.org/blog/index.php?itemid=407>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Speed and memory usage

body:
I've added a memory usage check to the profiling output (requires that
PHP be compiled with --enable-memory-limit). It's pretty approximate and
probably wrong for whole functions (are local variables freed at the end
of the function?) but certainly is useful for the overall view and for
measuring chunks of code.

The last column of output is the sum of the increase in memory usage
over each invocation of that profiling point. (If it's all 0s, your PHP
is either older than 4.3.2 or compiled without --enable-memory limit.)

The default limit is a mere 8 megabytes, and this includes both data and
loaded & parsed code. On some hosts you're not allowed to increase the
limit, so we really want to be able to run within that; right now we
sometimes fail, for instance in rebuildMessages and Special:Allmessages.

The largest use of memory on common page views, though, is just _loading
the code_. Setup.php-includes section pulls in about four and a half
megabytes currently, way over half the default limit... trimming
unnecessary includes is a great way to save space and allow more
headroom for big operations. It also saves time; on a system without an
opcode cache, about half the runtime for a short page view time ends up
being in loading include files.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040823/7f568f44/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jens Ropers

body:
On 22 Aug 2004, at 22:58, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:13:46 +0200
> From: Jakob Voss <gmane-user at nichtich.de>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] How to get a list of authors for each article
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4128FE7A.2050908 at nichtich.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> <snip />
>
> All users should be listed - but not the IP-numbers of anonymous posts!
>

But it might be a good idea to include a statement like:
"This article has also been edited X times by anonymous contributors."
(NB: I don't think we should say "X anonymous users", because what with
dialup and dynamically assigned IPs, the relation between unique IPs
and and unique users is more than flaky.)

-Jens


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Please welcome your new Mailing List admins

body:
Mark Ryan a ?crit:
> WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
> Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
> They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.
>
> At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
> adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
> well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.
>
> Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
> contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
> wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org.
>
> ~Mark.
> Administrator

I think that it would be beneficial that former and current
administrators explain what administrating a list entitles on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list, so that future admins know
what the job is (and what the job is not).

It could be the beginnning of a manual :-) Just a thought :-)

What does Panadol mean ?


body:
Michael Snow a ?crit:
> Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
>
>> When we passed 100,000 , 200,000 , 300,000 etc articles there was a
>> fair   bit of fanfare.
>>
>> I think it is only right therefore to announce that en passed the
>> 100,000,000 word mark earlier this month.
>>
>> This is about the same size as Columbia, Encarta Deluxe and EB put
>> together, and if printed would weigh about the same as George Bush.
>>
>> Across all languages we reached this milestone back in January, and
>> are now up to 220,000,000 words.
>>
>> Qualit?tsoffensive, anyone?
>>
>> Pete/Pcb21
>
>
> Speaking of milestones, aren't we getting pretty close to one million
> articles covering all languages? A nice handy round number probably
> worthy of some fanfare. Are we planning a press release or other special
> efforts to publicize it, either externally or internally? Sometime in
> September looks like the target date, given our statistical direction.
>
> --Michael Sno
> w

Well, I started mentionning it late july, but alas with no reaction :-(
Mav also mentionned it on another mailing list during this week and made
a call for a coordinator. I second this wish he has for someone
coordinating the press release.

Mav also suggested that we used the last one, update it accordingly and
use this one for the third press release.

Though that would definitly be easier on us all, I am not sure I
entirely support this.

After I sent to many many many places the first two press releases, and
french press releases as well, and this without being in the press
business at all (so I may be totally wrong here), I will however mention
a point : I think the second press release was perhaps too long. People
do not have time to read a lot. Either they want to just put 5 lines,
and such a page will discourage them, or they want something even more
fleshy.

The root of the current press releases :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_release

In french, I started a page to gather most facts in short and clear
paragraphes. Most informations already existed, but was dispersed in
dozen of articles. It still needs to be improved. I would like very much
that such a page exist in several languages, and be used as a reference
for any interested journalist.

While there is such a page, the press release really do not need to be
very long and detailed. We should focus on basics (free, many languages,
  easy to edit etc...), shortly remind evolution (with a graph and some
figures), mentions mediawiki and that is it AND link to a more fleshy
wiki page, highly structured so that the journalist quickly goes to his
question.

Examples of short (2 propositions - perhaps too short) for the 50000
french. :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ACommuniqu%C3%A9_de_presse_50000_articles

Press information :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ADossier_de_presse

---------

It was suggested at some point that the third press release focuses on
Slashdot and software/hardware issues. This is clearly outdated after
the Jimbo's interview on Slashdot 3 weeks ago. Besides, there seems to
be a consensus that focusing on technical issues is not a good idea as
it would not "talk" to most readers. Finally, Slashdot is a site in
english and this press release should be for all of us. It is especially
an important moment for small wikipedias which can potentially make
advertisement in big sites, relying on the whole project size.

However, I do think it might be good to mention mediawiki in a paragraph
and remind that the software is free to be used by other projects as
well. On a purely technical note, a graph showing the evolution of hits
(or similar numbers) and figures on the evolution of the number of
servers we need now may be a good sign of our progress.

--------

Michael, would you like to coordinate the 3rd ?

ant


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: personal threats again

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a ?crit:
> leercontainer-wikimedia at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>are there any other policies that you consider global?
>
>
> Neutrality (NPOV) as expressed in my original exposition of the
> concept.
>
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (there can be some cultural variation in
> what is considered appropriate for an encyclopedia versus a
> dictionary, but my point is just that Wikipedia is not a joke book or
> a personal chat site, etc.)
>
> There's probably some other things that I'm forgetting right now, but
> that's the essence of it.  Decisions about how to select sysops or
> exactly what to do about particular trolls are so case-specific and
> culture-specific that it would be silly of us to imagine that non-en
> wikipedias will follow the same path.
>
> Things like naming conventions or style conventions are going to be
> highly culture and language specific.
>
> Indeed, I would imagine that some of the younger/smaller wikis will
> learn from the mistakes of the older/larger wikis.
>
> Even the detailed implementation of a broad rule like "no personal
> attacks" is going to be culture specific to a degree.
>
> --Jimbo

I might add that another current global rule is one of openess and
freedom of participating. We welcome everyone to participate, whatever
the gender, age, social background, level of education, citizenship
etc... We do not request real name, we do not even request pseudonyme.

If one wikipedia was beginning to restrict participation, by for
example, requesting that the editor provides due diploma to prove his
educational background to be able to contribute, or a signature from a
husband or father to authorize a woman to edit, or for a user to pay to
be able to become a wikiholic, then, there would be a serious problem.

Note that this global rule of openess overlaps with the "no personal
attacks". When one feels threatened, be it by one editor or by the
community, then, there is no more openess really.

No ?


body:
Yeah, I remember Tylenol !!
Never heard of Panadol ...

 From the pictures of you though, you do not *look* like a pain relief
white and round pill ;-)

Andrew Lih a ?crit:
> Anthere, good idea about the manual. And [[Panadol]] you might know as
> Tylenol, or generically as the pain relief medication paracetamol or
> acetaminophen. :)
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:22:48 +0200, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mark Ryan a ?crit:
>>
>>>WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
>>>Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
>>>They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
>>>adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
>>>well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.
>>>
>>>Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
>>>contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
>>>wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org.
>>>
>>>~Mark.
>>>Administrator
>>
>>
>>I think that it would be beneficial that former and current
>>administrators explain what administrating a list entitles on
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list, so that future admins know
>>what the job is (and what the job is not).
>>
>>It could be the beginnning of a manual :-) Just a thought :-)
>>
>>What does Panadol mean ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>


from_name: babulGogoi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: help install WiKi

body:
the script.. just stops working! no result..

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:34:45 +0200, Ashar Voultoiz <thoane at altern.org> wrote:
>
>
> babulGogoi wrote:
> > resend message. pls anyone getback with an answer
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: babulGogoi <shillong at gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:07:34 +0530
> > Subject: help install WiKi
> > To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> >
> > Hi, here's the report. MediaWiki DOES NOT install in my server!!
> > whts' teh problem?
> >
> > ===================
> > MediaWiki 1.3.1 installation
> > Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.
> >
> > Checking environment...
> > PHP 4.3.8: ok
> > PHP server API is apache; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
> > Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
> > PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
> > Have zlib support; enabling output compression.
> > Found GD graphics library built-in, image thumbnailing will be enabled
> > if you enable uploads.
> > Installation directory: /home/shillong/public_html/babul/wiki
> > Script URI path: /babul/wiki
>
> What's happening after that ? Does the script just die ?
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
www.Shillong.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image upload and tagging

body:
It's probably been suggested a quadzillion times, but what with all the
image and tagging issues we're currently ruminating on:

Why don't we simply make tags mandatory ''when uploading''?
Add a ''mandatory'' list form to [[Special:Upload]] -- so that you can
''only'' upload if you pick a choice.
Then automatically insert the corresponding tag depending on what the
user picks (the tag should still remain editable later, of course, but
at least it's there for starters).

Let's be generous at first and include ''all'' the tags in that list,
even the ones we don't really like that much. -- At least we're going
to ''have'' tags (where we previously often had none.)
I'd even add a choice of "Other" to the list, whereby, if you pick
that, you gotta make a mandatory entry into a freeform field and, say,
an {{other}} tag will then be attached as well.

We can still become more restrictive later, but isn't it high time we
took this simple step?

I for one was just about to upload some image and I shamefully realized
that I've often simply forgotten a tag in the past -- simply because
it's not mandatory.

Thoughts?

- Jens


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be redirects from
the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then Wikispecies could
hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for other stuff
(don't know what, but it could).  Would it be like current wikis as in
en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org?

If you put up an Anglo-Saxon wikispecies, I'll give you a lot of info!

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:39 AM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

Hi,

in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
which is meant to become a wikimedia project.

I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I
really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can
get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be
basically the same as the one of wikipedia.

I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic
structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual
species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be
searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail).

If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much
appreciated! Thanks,

Benedikt

-------------------------------------------------------

MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE

Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional user,
therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search page that
provides a determination key as well.

Search terms

A general division in ?standard search? and ?advanced search? with details
would be good.

NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.)
CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a PDA
compatible one for field applications) GLOSSARY FAMILY (loads of detail
search functions, see at fishbase) DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail search
functions see at fishbase: ?country?) ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail search
functions, see at fishbase) TOPIC (special topics and articles) TOOLS (loads
of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a
reference/literature search) BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at fishbase)
MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available)

Subpage for species:

CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path) NAMES MORPHOLOGY (incl.
picture or illustration) BEHAVIOUR RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION HABITAT /
ENVIRONMENT MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.) CLIMATE ECONOMIC
IMPORTANCE DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms of countries)
CONSERVATION STATUS DANGERS REFERENCES

entered/checked/modified

--
Superg?nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR* Jetzt zu GMX wechseln
und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

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


body:
Anthere, good idea about the manual. And [[Panadol]] you might know as
Tylenol, or generically as the pain relief medication paracetamol or
acetaminophen. :)

-Andrew

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:22:48 +0200, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Ryan a ?crit:
> > WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
> > Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
> > They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.
> >
> > At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
> > adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
> > well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.
> >
> > Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
> > contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
> > wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org.
> >
> > ~Mark.
> > Administrator
>
>
> I think that it would be beneficial that former and current
> administrators explain what administrating a list entitles on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list, so that future admins know
> what the job is (and what the job is not).
>
> It could be the beginnning of a manual :-) Just a thought :-)
>
> What does Panadol mean ?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih at gmail.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- Benedikt Mandl <benedikt.mandl at gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
> establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
> which is meant to become a wikimedia project.
>
> I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I
> really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can
> get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be
> basically the same as the one of wikipedia.
>
> I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic
> structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual
> species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be
> searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail).
>
> If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much
> appreciated! Thanks,
>
> Benedikt

Information on species needs to be kept in the encyclopedia. Work with
WikiProject Tree of Life. All the info you want to index could easily be
contained in a table at the bottom of our current species articles and/or
though the use of categories.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be redirects from
> the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then Wikispecies could
> hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for other stuff
> (don't know what, but it could).  Would it be like current wikis as in
> en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org?

Absolutely not! Wikipedia is the place to have articles on species - not a
separate project.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] inquiry

body:
apogr wrote:
> Would it be possible to search for a word in the (whole or a part) of the wikipedia "corpus", not just in the tables of keywords?
> If yes, how and when?

Type the word in the "Search" box and push the "Search" button.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040823/814dd939/attachment.pgp


from_name: Benedikt Mandl

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Hi,

in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
which is meant to become a wikimedia project.

I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I
really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can
get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be
basically the same as the one of wikipedia.

I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic
structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual
species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be
searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail).

If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much
appreciated! Thanks,

Benedikt

-------------------------------------------------------

MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE

Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional user,
therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search page that
provides a determination key as well.

Search terms

A general division in ?standard search? and ?advanced search? with details
would be good.

NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.)
CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a PDA
compatible one for field applications)
GLOSSARY
FAMILY (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail search functions see at fishbase: ?country?)
ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
TOPIC (special topics and articles)
TOOLS (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a
reference/literature search)
BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at fishbase)
MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available)

Subpage for species:

CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path)
NAMES
MORPHOLOGY (incl. picture or illustration)
BEHAVIOUR
RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION
HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.)
CLIMATE
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms of countries)
CONSERVATION STATUS
DANGERS
REFERENCES

entered/checked/modified

--
Superg?nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Ok.  Would the wikispecies then be a redirect to the wikipedia, or how do
> you think it should run?

Improve the Wikipedia by adding these data to it. I see no need for a separate
project. Categories could be used all they way to the species level and an
advanced search should eventually be added to allow people to search *within* a
category (or set of categories). Thus what we need are some additional and
logical MediaWiki features, not a separate project.

Balkanization of our biology section (which is relatively weak in the English
Wikipedia) will harm, not help, that area.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Kate

body:
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 03:38, Jeff Warnica wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-21-08 at 09:35 +0100, Kate wrote:
>
> > The easiest way to do this would be via a mailing list which users
> > subscribe to
> Why would you want to use a full blown MLM system?

Because it's designed to do exactly this, and it's already there with
little effort required.  What is the problem with using a mailing list?

> You wont need
> archiving, you wont need moderation, you wont need, well damm near
> anything beyond the most basic mail-to-a-lot-of-people abilities.

It's been a while since I used mailman, but ISTR most of these features
can be disabled.

> It
> could be done with a very long alias :)

Yes, it could.  I had considered that, but automatic subscription and
management is likely to be a lot easier than doing it by hand.

> Users have exactly one option:
> get the mail, or not. Make it a mediawiki preference.

Are you offering to write the code?

Kate (who just woke up, so excuse me for being a little short).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- Benedikt Mandl <benedikt.mandl at gmx.at> wrote:

> I totally disagree; I am sure that a lot of information will be overlapping
> and therefore, the two projects should remain connected. Nevertheless, a
> species directory would serve a different purpose than the wikipedia as such
> and have a significantly different structure (as seen in the draft at my
> last e-mail) to allow highly specific search functions.

Use categories to create the directory. Done. All we need is something that all
projects should have anyway: an advanced search capability so that users can
search within any category or group of categories. This will be very useful for
*all* areas that Wikipedia covers.

> I already got a lot of supportive e-mails by a range of people - and that is
> eventually what counts for a wiki project, to my understanding. There is a
> need for an extensive species directory, and I will keep asking for support!

Your understanding is wrong since well-reasoned and strong opposition often
creates a situation where no consensus can be formed.

You are more than welcome to create Wikispecies anytime you wish. But don't
expect it to be a Wikimedia project without a great deal of justification that
1) It advances our goals
2) It does not harm existing projects
3) The idea cannot be incorporated into an existing project (sometimes some
technical issues need to be fixed to make that possible)

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikispecies question

body:
--- Benedikt Mandl <benedikt.mandl at gmx.at> wrote:
> Nevertheless, in the spirit of wikipedia I think it is desirable to go for
> other languages; also for practical reasons: it would make wikispecies
> attractive for kids/schools and regional applications, such as local
> bird-watchers (I live in England right now, and these people do exist,
> actually in vast amounts) or national biodiversity projects as the German
> "GEO Tag der Artenvielfalt". As always with wiki-projects, it will mainly
> depend on the will of the people who contribute and use it.

And many of these same people are *already* working on Wikipedia to create
articles on species.

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!

body:
--- Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com> wrote:
> The current stable of Wikimedia projects (Encyclopedia, Dictionary,
> Source repositroy, Quote library) do not overlap very much. The species
> project and ToL sub-project of the encyclopedia however, will certainly
> overlap a lot. I think it is very important to work out the best way to
> deal with that.

Exactly.

> Firstly, the ToL project pages want the same data as you want, though
> pages tend to be in more prose form than your list of headings indicate
> that you desire. Thus wikispecies is effectively a subset of wikipedia,
> unless you intend there to be detail that would not be allowed in Wikipedia?

Wikipedia contains a great deal of tabular data. We put those data in tables,
not in separate projects.

-- mav

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image upload and tagging

body:
I think we have too many tags to list them all.  Also, they are not mutually
exclusive, and in some cases I'm not sure the uploader will necessarily
understand them (we certainly have a lot of dubious claims of "public
domain").

I'd rather see a simple choice: 1) I have created this work and agree to
license it under the terms of the GFDL.  2) I have not created this work,
however I am permitted to incorporate it into Wikipedia under the following
license: [text box].  3) I have not created this work, however it is public
domain due to the following reason: [text box]. 4) I have not created this
work, however I believe it can be incorporated into Wikipedia under the
doctrine of fair use.

For those choosing 2 or 3 (which I assume is a minority), we can have new
tags which can be made more specific after being analysed.  We should also
have a text box for author information.

This would go a long way toward speeding up the tagging process.  I'm not
even sure if the rate of new untagged images is greater than the rate of
image tagging at this point.

Anthony


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] species directory

body:
I think there is room for such a project to co-exist with wikipedia,
but I think you're vastly underestimating the human obstacles to
creating something that is not just a weak half-clone of WP content.

The chief problem I see is to get some sort of cross-discipline
cooperation. For instance, FishBase has made a good start with fish,
but the database entries for beetles or plants will be mostly
different; sure, there is some sharing, but the coleopterists'
approach to taxonomy is (seemingly :-) ) rather more chaotic, and,
well, the botanists have seven different ways just to define the
concept of "species", not least because plants easily do the
equivalent of crossing humans with tamarins and getting fertile
offspring, and molecular info doesn't necessarily demystify either.
So you're talking about pushing all of these specialists into a
single framework, and if they don't fit well, they're not going to
participate.

So before talking to developers about software, you need to talk with
people in different areas and get an agreement in principle. Could
the FishBase guys sign on to import their data into a cross-phylum
project? Are there coleopterists able and willing to mechanize the
immense number of characters that differentiate their subjects? Will
specialist experts even want to participate in a wiki that anybody
can edit, or will they only want a more controlled environment?

And finally, what content would this have that is not just as
appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that
boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every
sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I
could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all
out on that sort of thing.

Stan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!

body:
Benedikt Mandl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
> establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
> which is meant to become a wikimedia project.

Hi Benedikt,

I am sure you have seen Wikipedia's largest WikiProject - the Tree of
Life project. It currently contains thousands (maybe tens of thousands
by now, I am not sure) of articles on taxa at every level.

The current stable of Wikimedia projects (Encyclopedia, Dictionary,
Source repositroy, Quote library) do not overlap very much. The species
project and ToL sub-project of the encyclopedia however, will certainly
overlap a lot. I think it is very important to work out the best way to
deal with that.

Firstly, the ToL project pages want the same data as you want, though
pages tend to be in more prose form than your list of headings indicate
that you desire. Thus wikispecies is effectively a subset of wikipedia,
unless you intend there to be detail that would not be allowed in Wikipedia?

Would the new project be GFDL? Would it be easy to transfer contents
to/from Wikipedia? How would we ensure that effort is not duplicated
between the two projects? Do you have suggestions for improvements to
the ToL project?

Pete

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
I don't know much about the "category system," but if you were to use
Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Family, Class, Order, etc. down to Genus and
Species as categories, that'd make it quite simple.  I don't know how you'd
work that, but it would make things simpler.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Manske
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:47 AM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

Most of the items on your list can be done without a developer, except for
the "advanced search". I strongly suggest that you use the template system
for filling in the data, not just because of the unified look of things, but
also because other software could then extract the information (e.g., for
statistical purposes). This can also be used to maintain the category system
(where you pass a parameter "family=xyz", the template could do both
"[[xyz]]" and "[[category:Family xyz]]").

It would be best if you had a demo system set up to play around with.

Magnus

Benedikt Mandl wrote:

>Hi,
>
>in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
>establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
>which is meant to become a wikimedia project.
>
>I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but
>what I really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so
>that we can get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital
>wikispecies would be basically the same as the one of wikipedia.
>
>I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a
>basic
>structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an
>individual species/genus/family and so on, whith different features
>that can be searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail).
>
>If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much
>appreciated! Thanks,
>
>Benedikt
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE
>
>Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional
>user, therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search
>page that provides a determination key as well.
>
>Search terms
>
>A general division in "standard search" and "advanced search" with
>details would be good.
>
>NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.)
>CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a
>PDA compatible one for field applications) GLOSSARY FAMILY (loads of
>detail search functions, see at fishbase) DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail
>search functions see at fishbase: 'country') ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail
>search functions, see at fishbase) TOPIC (special topics and articles)
>TOOLS (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a
>reference/literature search) BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at
>fishbase) MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available)
>
>Subpage for species:
>
>CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path) NAMES MORPHOLOGY
>(incl. picture or illustration) BEHAVIOUR RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION
>HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.)
>CLIMATE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms
>of countries) CONSERVATION STATUS DANGERS REFERENCES
>
>entered/checked/modified
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Ok.  Would the wikispecies then be a redirect to the wikipedia, or how do
you think it should run?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 1:44 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be
> redirects from the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then
> Wikispecies could hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia
> space for other stuff (don't know what, but it could).  Would it be
> like current wikis as in en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org,
ang.wikispecies.org?

Absolutely not! Wikipedia is the place to have articles on species - not a
separate project.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
How would the articles / species directory entries differ?  Would the
species entry focus on genetic similarities between species, evolutionary
genealogy, or what?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 1:53 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

I totally disagree; I am sure that a lot of information will be overlapping
and therefore, the two projects should remain connected. Nevertheless, a
species directory would serve a different purpose than the wikipedia as such
and have a significantly different structure (as seen in the draft at my
last e-mail) to allow highly specific search functions.

I already got a lot of supportive e-mails by a range of people - and that is
eventually what counts for a wiki project, to my understanding. There is a
need for an extensive species directory, and I will keep asking for support!

Benedikt

> --- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be
> > redirects
> from
> > the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then Wikispecies
> > could hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for
> > other stuff (don't know what, but it could).  Would it be like
> > current wikis as in en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org,
ang.wikispecies.org?
>
> Absolutely not! Wikipedia is the place to have articles on species -
> not a separate project.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Superg|nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f|r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

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


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Most of the items on your list can be done without a developer, except
for the "advanced search". I strongly suggest that you use the template
system for filling in the data, not just because of the unified look of
things, but also because other software could then extract the
information (e.g., for statistical purposes). This can also be used to
maintain the category system (where you pass a parameter "family=xyz",
the template could do both "[[xyz]]" and "[[category:Family xyz]]").

It would be best if you had a demo system set up to play around with.

Magnus

Benedikt Mandl wrote:

>Hi,
>
>in case you havn't read my initial e-mail: I am currently trying to
>establish a wiki-based, open species directory at www.wikispecies.org/,
>which is meant to become a wikimedia project.
>
>I got some support for contents by a range of wikipedia writers, but what I
>really need now are developers who set up a basic structure so that we can
>get started. Jimbo Wales suggested that the inital wikispecies would be
>basically the same as the one of wikipedia.
>
>I evaluated some species data bases and based on that I worked out a basic
>structure: a main page with search functions and sub-pages for an individual
>species/genus/family and so on, whith different features that can be
>searched for (for details see bottom of this e-mail).
>
>If you think you can help, please let me know - every support is much
>appreciated! Thanks,
>
>Benedikt
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>MAIN PAGE AND SUBPAGE STRUCTURE
>
>Best viewed at: www.fishbase.org (though for a rather professional user,
>therefore a bit extensive). Main page would need to be a search page that
>provides a determination key as well.
>
>Search terms
>
>A general division in ?standard search? and ?advanced search? with details
>would be good.
>
>NAME (common name, scientific names, synonyms, taxonomic number, etc.)
>CLASSIFICATION KEY (classification, would be perfect if we could get a PDA
>compatible one for field applications)
>GLOSSARY
>FAMILY (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
>DISTRIBUTION (loads of detail search functions see at fishbase: ?country?)
>ECOSYSTEM (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase)
>TOPIC (special topics and articles)
>TOOLS (loads of detail search functions, see at fishbase; including a
>reference/literature search)
>BIODIVERSITY MAP (once again: see at fishbase)
>MEDIA (maps, films, pictures, if available)
>
>Subpage for species:
>
>CLASSIFICATION (as tree diagram, looks like a path)
>NAMES
>MORPHOLOGY (incl. picture or illustration)
>BEHAVIOUR
>RESILIANCE / REPRODUCTION
>HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT
>MEDIA (images, maps, diagrams, videos, etc.)
>CLIMATE
>ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
>DISTRIBUTION (geographically and in terms of countries)
>CONSERVATION STATUS
>DANGERS
>REFERENCES
>
>entered/checked/modified
>
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikispecies question

body:
Well, I'll give you some articles in English and Anglo-Saxon, and a little
German (maybe add to other people's articles there), and in a few months, my
German will be better after having lived there.  Can't wait to see it
started.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Benedikt Mandl
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:55 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikispecies question

Benedikt

> Benedikt,
>     Do you want the wikispecies to be English only, or have
> sub-domains en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org
and so forth?
>
> James
>
------------------

Hi James!

Highest priority is to get it started properly in English, and for
scientists (who are my starter/beta-test-target group) English is the lingua
franca.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of wikipedia I think it is desirable to go for
other languages; also for practical reasons: it would make wikispecies
attractive for kids/schools and regional applications, such as local
bird-watchers (I live in England right now, and these people do exist,
actually in vast amounts) or national biodiversity projects as the German
"GEO Tag der Artenvielfalt". As always with wiki-projects, it will mainly
depend on the will of the people who contribute and use it.

Benedikt

--
Superg|nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f|r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE(2): Developers needed!

body:
> I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be redirects
> from
> the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then Wikispecies could
> hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for other stuff
> (don't know what, but it could).  Would it be like current wikis as in
> en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org?
>
> If you put up an Anglo-Saxon wikispecies, I'll give you a lot of info!
>
> James
>
I think that a multi-lingual approach would serve best for the wikipedia -
idea and it would be useful as the species directory would target for any
user and not exclusivly for scientists.

Re-directs would be good, as I e-mailed Jimbo before and would want the
Wikispecies to be a proper wikimedia project. The next step would be to
set up a website with the inital tools on a wikimedia server.

I have no clue about how at all, but Magnus' suggestions sound very
sensible to me. I got www.wikispecies.org and can re-direct the URL at any
time the demo-system is set up.

Who could do that or knows how?

Thanks,

Benedikt

--
Superg?nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:

>I don't know much about the "category system," but if you were to use
>Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Family, Class, Order, etc. down to Genus and
>Species as categories, that'd make it quite simple.  I don't know how you'd
>work that, but it would make things simpler.
>
I have mixed feelings about the proposal.  While the textual material
might be better in the existing encyclopedias, there are probably data
structural advantages that could be derived from the proposal, though I
would see it as a single project that could be interlinked with the
various Wikipedias.  The idea of having a separate Wikispecies for each
language would be a tremendous waste of resources.

Having a sample Wiki that works out some of the problems over a limited
taxonomic range would likely be helpful so that those involved could
work out the bugs in their system.  This includes dealing with the view
of some cladists that the traditional taxonomic ranks shown above whould
be avoided.  It will also be the best way to convince the skeptics that
this could be a valuable spin-off.  At the same time it should be made
abundantly clear that support of a sample Wikispecies should not imply
acceptance of a full blown project.

Spin-off or daughter projects need to be distinguished from forks in
that they would seek to maintain full interoperability with the other
member projects in the family.  They should be bound by the same
fundamental principles such as NPOV, free access, respect for copyright
and each other, and the software used by each should maximize
compatibility.  Outside that core of policies, the diversity of
approaches and formats enriches us all.  It encourages members to find
their own solutions to problems.  In the long run over time these
diverse solutions can be compared, and the techniques that prove
successful on one project can be imported into another when the
participants are ready.  This gives more opportunity to think outside
the box.  The one big single project sometimes requires us to apply
solutions prematurely in a way that makes it more difficult to
reconsider what in hindsight might have been a superior solution.

Smaller projects also involve more people in the decision making, and
mean that a newbie can feel some level of ownership much earlier.  That
means more wikiholics are available to do work, many of whom would soon
feel unwanted on a big single project.  This is a much bigger question
than what happens with Wikispecies.  It has more to do with scalability,
and the fundamental right of every individual to reinvent the wheel.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
(Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can
narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo
erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then
Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that page.
Is that what you mean by category?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:42 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

--- Benedikt Mandl <benedikt.mandl at gmx.at> wrote:

> I totally disagree; I am sure that a lot of information will be
> overlapping and therefore, the two projects should remain connected.
> Nevertheless, a species directory would serve a different purpose than
> the wikipedia as such and have a significantly different structure (as
> seen in the draft at my last e-mail) to allow highly specific search
functions.

Use categories to create the directory. Done. All we need is something that
all projects should have anyway: an advanced search capability so that users
can search within any category or group of categories. This will be very
useful for
*all* areas that Wikipedia covers.

> I already got a lot of supportive e-mails by a range of people - and
> that is eventually what counts for a wiki project, to my
> understanding. There is a need for an extensive species directory, and I
will keep asking for support!

Your understanding is wrong since well-reasoned and strong opposition often
creates a situation where no consensus can be formed.

You are more than welcome to create Wikispecies anytime you wish. But don't
expect it to be a Wikimedia project without a great deal of justification
that
1) It advances our goals
2) It does not harm existing projects
3) The idea cannot be incorporated into an existing project (sometimes some
technical issues need to be fixed to make that possible)

-- mav

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


from_name: Ivan Krstic

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bug 179 patch

body:
Attached. Patch for 181 should follow in the next day or so. With
bugzilla in place, would people prefer patches to be attached to bug
reports there?

-IK
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 179.patch
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040823/c62e6da9/attachment.ksh>


subject: [WikiEN-l] defining Free Encyclopedia

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>
>>Should a free encyclopedia be redistributable by anyone in every
>>country, or only the United States, or need it not be
>>redistributable at all?
>>
>>
>It should be as widely redistributable as is practical.  Due to
>differences in jurisdiction, there can be difficulties associated with
>this.  We must not bend our NPOV/encyclopedia policies to conform to
>censorship, for example, but we can try as hard as we can to
>accomodate minor differences in copyright laws.
>
The variations in copyright laws can be a tremendous hurdle.  As a
person active on Wikisource, I've developed quite a different
perspective on the matter.  There, the issue rarely has anything to do
with images.  To whatever extent we may want images the copyrights are
usually an extension of the work that contains them.  Nor, since we
include whole books, is fair use a major topic.

Whether or not a given work is in the public domain, is a far more
common problem and far more difficult.  It can be even more difficult if
we need to look after the interests of the downstream user.

In an earlier post in this thread Jimbo said "we are not legal risk
takers"  That does not get rid of the problem.  When does the risk
probability become so small that it is no longer a risk?  Which carries
the greater risk, an earthquake in California, or a hurricane in
Florida?  Compare that with the risk of a law suit over a particular
technical copyright infringement.  The range of risks is very wide, and
nobody is seriously suggesting that we carry the text of any current
best seller.

These are among the questions we have encountered:

    1. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - Volume 1 was originally published in
    1926.  There were four distinct English translations (one British,
    three American) between 1932 and 1041.  The British translator died
    in 1946.  The American translation copyrights are all owned by
    Houghton-Mifflin and were properly renewed.  We determined that we
    could not carry the existing English versions.  The German language
    version could probably be safely carried in the US because of enemy
    property exemptions when the U. S. agreed to honour European
    copyright extensions.  Other countries have had mixed messages about
    whether the copyrights continue to be valid.

    2. Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi"  This was originally
    published in 1946.  He died in 1952.  The organization that held
    posthumous rights to the work renewed the copyright in 1974, but it
    was challenged in court in 2000.  The copyright was overturned on
    the grounds that it could not be proved that Yogananda had granted
    them the right to renew.  We now carry this work.

    3. Max Planck won the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1918.  This was
    awarded to him at a ceremony in 1920 where he delivered an
    acceptance speech.  The Swedish Academy published this with other
    similar speeches in 1921.  A separate version of the speech was also
    published in England in 1922.  It has not yet been established
    whether a U.S. edition exists.  Planck died in 1947.  The work would
    appear to be in the public domain in the U. S. because it was
    published before 1923, but would continue to be protected in Sweden
    and Germany  until 2017.  Following this line of thought the lecture
    delivered by Pieter Zeeman when he won the 1902 physics prize would
    be the oldest one still covered by copyright.  This issue is still
    undecided.

In dealing with matters like this to what extent do we protect
downstream users?  Should we go ahead and include the text, and add a
warning that a downstream user republishes the material at his own risk?

There are probably other areas where we could safely republish material
that is prima facie copyright, but that point can be discussed at some
other time.  Suffice it to say that any such action should not be done
recklessly.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can
> narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo
> erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then
> Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that page.
> Is that what you mean by category?

Taxoboxes are a standard part of every WikiProject Tree of Life article. The
only time there are breaks in the navigation are when an intermediate article
does not yet exist for that taxon.

But your example already exists. Start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote and work your way down.

As time passes there will be few and fewer breaks until all taxa are covered
(hopefully every species known to science will also be covered).

There could also be a category for each taxon, but that needs to be worked out
first.

-- Daniel

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


from_name: xmlizer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: PATCH "last modified on .. by user(talk)" and
 "revision as
 of .. by user(talk)" - - Putting the size of the article

body:
Timwi a ?crit :

> Thomas Gries wrote:
>
>> to show and link who edited last the article (or revision)
>> (1) on every article's footer
>
>
> This is not sufficiently important to warrant putting on every article.
> People wanting to know this only need to click "history"; people only
> wanting to read the article shouldn't be presented with this kind of
> secondary information.

And what about putting the size of the article (this information cannot
be easily found).

So the footer will look like

"This $2 bytes page was last modified $1"

Any idea to workaround

Xmlizer


from_name: apogr

subject: [Wikipedia-l] inquiry

body:
Hi, Folks,

Would it be possible to search for a word in the (whole or a part) of the wikipedia "corpus", not just in the tables of keywords?
If yes, how and when?
If not, would you see the advantages of such a feature?
Reards
apogr


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Looks essentially what a wikispecies should look like, I guess.  I guess a
> w-species would focus more on the biology, history, genealogy, genetics, or
> what, so that it's different from the w-pedia?

All that should be covered in the Wikipedia article.

-- mav

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
I totally disagree; I am sure that a lot of information will be overlapping
and therefore, the two projects should remain connected. Nevertheless, a
species directory would serve a different purpose than the wikipedia as such
and have a significantly different structure (as seen in the draft at my
last e-mail) to allow highly specific search functions.

I already got a lot of supportive e-mails by a range of people - and that is
eventually what counts for a wiki project, to my understanding. There is a
need for an extensive species directory, and I will keep asking for support!

Benedikt

> --- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for it - sounds pretty cool.  Could there possibly be redirects
> from
> > the Wikipedia to the Wikispecies, or vice versa?  Then Wikispecies could
> > hold all the species info, and free up wikipedia space for other stuff
> > (don't know what, but it could).  Would it be like current wikis as in
> > en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org?
>
> Absolutely not! Wikipedia is the place to have articles on species - not a
> separate project.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Superg?nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


from_name: Jeff Warnica

body:
On Mon, 2004-23-08 at 12:34 +0100, Kate wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 03:38, Jeff Warnica wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-21-08 at 09:35 +0100, Kate wrote:
> >
> > > The easiest way to do this would be via a mailing list which users
> > > subscribe to
> > Why would you want to use a full blown MLM system?
>
> Because it's designed to do exactly this, and it's already there with
> little effort required.  What is the problem with using a mailing list?

I think that you have come up with a solution before you have correctly
identified the problem. The question is not: What is the best mailing
list system to use for feature-of-the-day? but: What is the best way to
distribute feature-of-the-day by email? It may be that doing so with an
(existing) MLM is the best way, but a full blown MLM is not the only way
to distribute large volumes of mail.

>
> > It
> > could be done with a very long alias :)
>
> Yes, it could.  I had considered that, but automatic subscription and
> management is likely to be a lot easier than doing it by hand.

Well, that depends on the MTA. I suspect that at least one MTA has the
ability to use arbitrary SQL statements as the source for the "right
hand side" of an alias. My MTA of choice's router is programmable by a
sh clone; a one or two line wrapper around echo/mysql would do it. Moot
point, an alias wouldn't be a good idea, I don't know how one would
restrict random people from sending mail to it without the alias being a
pipe to a program, in which case, just go with the program alone.

>
> > Users have exactly one option:
> > get the mail, or not. Make it a mediawiki preference.
>
> Are you offering to write the code?

I am, and I have. Adding a toggle pref was surprisingly easy. Since it
is only about 5 new lines its not even worth while posting the diff.

On the other hand: It disturbs me that the prefs are in a BLOB (rather
then say, a prefs table). This itself may be reason not to make this a
preference, as the following would likely take a very long time:

select user.user_email from user where user.user_options like "%
featuredbymail=1%";

I don't know how, or if, MySQL could optimize that. I believe it would
have to do a comparison on every record in the user table.

Is there some regular daily processing that inspects every user record
already?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re(4):Developers needed!

body:
Would the new project be GFDL? Would it be easy to transfer contents
to/from Wikipedia? How would we ensure that effort is not duplicated
between the two projects? Do you have suggestions for improvements to
the ToL project?

I understand that the information collected by the ToL project will indeed
overlap to a big extent with the wikispecies directory, but that might turn
out as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. As you said, the ToL
presents information in a prosaic way as it is suitable for an encyclopedia.
If wikispecies should become a reference for all users (including
scientists), however, there are some points you need to consider:

1.) A clear sturcture as the one presented previously would be crucial for a
specific (mind the play on words - specific) search; and that is imortant to
attract professional users

2.) The sheer amount and uniformness of the bio-data would justify a
separate access to the information

3.) A separate platform does NOT mean that wikispecies will have to be
segregated from the wikipedia. Rather the opposite: wikispecies websites
should use the same layout and should be accessible from wikipedia by normal
search. More advanced users, however, would search with more detailed tools
from the "wikispecies.org" portal.

So far, the ToL is ambitous, but doesn't serve the purpose of a wikispecies
that should be organised in taxonomic terms and trees and deal exclusively
for biological contents.

It is not meant to compete with wikipedia, but rather branch out of it
without being a separate unit. I am looking forward to your support! By the
way: most people who already assured me of their support were people who
work as authors for wikipedia in bio-related subjects. Best,

Benedikt

--
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f?r e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikispecies question

body:
Benedikt

> Benedikt,
>     Do you want the wikispecies to be English only, or have sub-domains
> en.wikispecies.org, de.wikispecies.org, ang.wikispecies.org and so forth?
>
> James
>
------------------

Hi James!

Highest priority is to get it started properly in English, and for
scientists (who are my starter/beta-test-target group) English is the lingua
franca.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of wikipedia I think it is desirable to go for
other languages; also for practical reasons: it would make wikispecies
attractive for kids/schools and regional applications, such as local
bird-watchers (I live in England right now, and these people do exist,
actually in vast amounts) or national biodiversity projects as the German
"GEO Tag der Artenvielfalt". As always with wiki-projects, it will mainly
depend on the will of the people who contribute and use it.

Benedikt

--
Superg?nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f?r 0,- EUR*
Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Or maybe just have a wikispecies that allows you to navigate via Kingdom,
Phylum, Subphylum, and so on, down to species (or go directly via binomial
nomenclature to the wikipedia) and then go to the wikipedia article, by
having links to each language's version of that article.  At least that way,
the language teams would know which animals they have yet to write about.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:38 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

James R. Johnson wrote:

>I don't know much about the "category system," but if you were to use
>Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Family, Class, Order, etc. down to Genus
>and Species as categories, that'd make it quite simple.  I don't know
>how you'd work that, but it would make things simpler.
>
I have mixed feelings about the proposal.  While the textual material might
be better in the existing encyclopedias, there are probably data structural
advantages that could be derived from the proposal, though I would see it as
a single project that could be interlinked with the various Wikipedias.  The
idea of having a separate Wikispecies for each language would be a
tremendous waste of resources.

Having a sample Wiki that works out some of the problems over a limited
taxonomic range would likely be helpful so that those involved could work
out the bugs in their system.  This includes dealing with the view of some
cladists that the traditional taxonomic ranks shown above whould be avoided.
It will also be the best way to convince the skeptics that this could be a
valuable spin-off.  At the same time it should be made abundantly clear that
support of a sample Wikispecies should not imply acceptance of a full blown
project.

Spin-off or daughter projects need to be distinguished from forks in that
they would seek to maintain full interoperability with the other member
projects in the family.  They should be bound by the same fundamental
principles such as NPOV, free access, respect for copyright and each other,
and the software used by each should maximize compatibility.  Outside that
core of policies, the diversity of approaches and formats enriches us all.
It encourages members to find their own solutions to problems.  In the long
run over time these diverse solutions can be compared, and the techniques
that prove successful on one project can be imported into another when the
participants are ready.  This gives more opportunity to think outside the
box.  The one big single project sometimes requires us to apply solutions
prematurely in a way that makes it more difficult to reconsider what in
hindsight might have been a superior solution.

Smaller projects also involve more people in the decision making, and mean
that a newbie can feel some level of ownership much earlier.  That means
more wikiholics are available to do work, many of whom would soon feel
unwanted on a big single project.  This is a much bigger question than what
happens with Wikispecies.  It has more to do with scalability, and the
fundamental right of every individual to reinvent the wheel.

Ec

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!

body:
That sounds pretty close to what I was thinking wikispecies should be, but I
was hoping to go not by the anglicized name, but the Latin version of the
names (Animalia Deuterostomata Chordata Vertebrata ....)  And maybe have an
overview like:

Animalia
---------------------------------
Monostomata
Deuterostomata

Then click Deutero, and see:

Animalia
-----------------------------------
Deuterostomata
------------------------------------
Chaetognatha
Chordata       (primates, canines, felines, etc.)	<-- some more
'important'/'common' animals in this category
Echinodermata  (starfishes, sea urchins, etc.)
Hemichordata

Then click so on and so forth...down to canis domesticus, felis domesticus,
or whatever.  That's what I was thinking it should do.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pete/Pcb21
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:56 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!

James R. Johnson wrote:
> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I
> can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis,
> homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata,
> then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that
page.
> Is that what you mean by category?
>
> James

Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animalia and keep working
down the subcategories for examples.

A typical category chain goes:

(Fundamental -> Knowledge -> Science -> Natural sciences -> Biology ->
Life) -> Animalia -> Chordates -> Mammals -> Carnivora -> Canines -> Dogs ->
Dog breeds -> (185 articles about dog breeds)

My wikitime this week has been categorizing all mammals in a sensible
fashion. The chosen categories (typically at the KPCO and F levels) have
been extensively thought out at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life]]
so comments are welcome there.

Pete/Pcb21

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


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Looking through the wikipedia...
>
> Going through the wp, I'm finding that a wikispecies, in my humble opinion,
> should get a go as a starter project, to see what happens.  The
> organization, I'd vote to organize by the taxonomic names, in Latin form
> (deuterostomata page, not "deuterostomes"), and have whatever everyone
> thinks should be on there.  I'd be happy to help out with organizing it,
> doing some articles on homo, australopithecus, and dinosauria (my favorite
> subjects in biology).  Perhaps also in the main Wikispecies page, there
> should be an outline of evolution, and the current theories regarding that,
> and how the taxonomic system itself implies the evolutionary nature of life
> itself.  A link to www.talkorigins.org may also be useful on the main page
> as well.

All that info should be covered in Wikipedia. You are free to start a
non-Wikimedia project called Wikispecies at any time though.

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Smaller projects also involve more people in the decision making, and mean
that a newbie can feel some level of ownership >much earlier.  That means
more wikiholics are available to do work, many of whom would soon feel
unwanted on a big single >project.

Anglo-Saxon wikipedia....

James


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Looks essentially what a wikispecies should look like, I guess.  I guess a
w-species would focus more on the biology, history, genealogy, genetics, or
what, so that it's different from the w-pedia?  My only thought was to click
on the taxonomic names to go down to what you wanted, with perhaps shortcuts
along the way to more common or popular animals/plants, etc.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:57 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I
> can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis,
> homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata,
> then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that
page.
> Is that what you mean by category?

Taxoboxes are a standard part of every WikiProject Tree of Life article. The
only time there are breaks in the navigation are when an intermediate
article does not yet exist for that taxon.

But your example already exists. Start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote and work your way down.

As time passes there will be few and fewer breaks until all taxa are covered
(hopefully every species known to science will also be covered).

There could also be a category for each taxon, but that needs to be worked
out first.

-- Daniel

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Would the w-species give EVERY species a place, even extinct ones?  And how
would species of unknown or questionable placement work (dinosaurs to birds,
or perhaps dimetrodons)?  Hopefully w-species could come up with an ordering
system, so that if one person were to edit the species' page, say the genus
changed, it would change elsewhere on the w-species automatically?  Say homo
sapiens were renamed to jimbo sapiens.  Then all the links or redirects
would alter accordingly, perhaps through a webbot or automatic crawler?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:57 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I
> can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis,
> homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata,
> then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that
page.
> Is that what you mean by category?

Taxoboxes are a standard part of every WikiProject Tree of Life article. The
only time there are breaks in the navigation are when an intermediate
article does not yet exist for that taxon.

But your example already exists. Start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote and work your way down.

As time passes there will be few and fewer breaks until all taxa are covered
(hopefully every species known to science will also be covered).

There could also be a category for each taxon, but that needs to be worked
out first.

-- Daniel

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
Looking through the wikipedia...

Going through the wp, I'm finding that a wikispecies, in my humble opinion,
should get a go as a starter project, to see what happens.  The
organization, I'd vote to organize by the taxonomic names, in Latin form
(deuterostomata page, not "deuterostomes"), and have whatever everyone
thinks should be on there.  I'd be happy to help out with organizing it,
doing some articles on homo, australopithecus, and dinosauria (my favorite
subjects in biology).  Perhaps also in the main Wikispecies page, there
should be an outline of evolution, and the current theories regarding that,
and how the taxonomic system itself implies the evolutionary nature of life
itself.  A link to www.talkorigins.org may also be useful on the main page
as well.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Johnson
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:04 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

Looks essentially what a wikispecies should look like, I guess.  I guess a
w-species would focus more on the biology, history, genealogy, genetics, or
what, so that it's different from the w-pedia?  My only thought was to click
on the taxonomic names to go down to what you wanted, with perhaps shortcuts
along the way to more common or popular animals/plants, etc.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:57 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

--- "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:

> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I
> can narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis,
> homo erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata,
> then Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on
> that
page.
> Is that what you mean by category?

Taxoboxes are a standard part of every WikiProject Tree of Life article. The
only time there are breaks in the navigation are when an intermediate
article does not yet exist for that taxon.

But your example already exists. Start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote and work your way down.

As time passes there will be few and fewer breaks until all taxa are covered
(hopefully every species known to science will also be covered).

There could also be a category for each taxon, but that needs to be worked
out first.

-- Daniel

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

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers needed!

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:
> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can
> narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo
> erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then
> Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that page.
> Is that what you mean by category?
>
> James

Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animalia and keep working
down the subcategories for examples.

A typical category chain goes:

(Fundamental -> Knowledge -> Science -> Natural sciences -> Biology ->
Life) -> Animalia -> Chordates -> Mammals -> Carnivora -> Canines ->
Dogs -> Dog breeds -> (185 articles about dog breeds)

My wikitime this week has been categorizing all mammals in a sensible
fashion. The chosen categories (typically at the KPCO and F levels) have
been extensively thought out at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of
Life]] so comments are welcome there.

Pete/Pcb21


subject: [Wikipedia-l] species directory

body:
> I think there is room for such a project to co-exist with wikipedia,
> but I think you're vastly underestimating the human obstacles to
> creating something that is not just a weak half-clone of WP content.

I don't think I am underestimating these challenges - in fact they are one
of my main worries, but will be sorted out when they become more urgent.
>
> The chief problem I see is to get some sort of cross-discipline
> cooperation. For instance, FishBase has made a good start with fish,
> but the database entries for beetles or plants will be mostly
> different; sure, there is some sharing, but the coleopterists'
> approach to taxonomy is (seemingly :-) ) rather more chaotic, and,
> well, the botanists have seven different ways just to define the
> concept of "species"...

And so do Zoologist and there is a great argument going on about how many
KINGDOMS apart from animals and plants there might be - but again: There are
plenty of contents we will be able to put together even if the taxonomic
background of a particular species is unclear. If fact, the wiki approach is
perfectly suitable for a dynamic science such as taxonomy.

> So you're talking about pushing all of these specialists into a
> single framework, and if they don't fit well, they're not going to
> participate.
>
They will: An expert on bats of Panama will not care about whether
archaebacteria have thir own kingdom or not - as long as the bats' features
are worked out properly. Every branch of the taxonomic tree has its own
leaves, in paper-publications as well as it will have to be in wikispecies.

> So before talking to developers about software, you need to talk with
> people in different areas and get an agreement in principle. Could
> the FishBase guys sign on to import their data into a cross-phylum
> project?
>
I don't agree with that. Fishbase is fairly scientific and partly
commercial. It is not open access as wiki projects are. To me it is the best
species directory on the web; still, I don't know if fishbase will
co-operate, I will give it a shot as soon as I got technical support. They
do co-operate with Species2000, so there's hope...

> And finally, what content would this have that is not just as
> appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that
> boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every
> sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I
> could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all
> out on that sort of thing.
>
Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and
generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia.
Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs for
field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.

Benedikt

PS: Anybody keen on helping out with the tech-part? Setting up a basic
structure?

--
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f?r e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
> For a wikispecies, I would expect to be able to click on the Kingdom
> (Animala), Phylum (Chordata), Subphylum (Vertebrata), and so on so I can
> narrow down progressively to homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo
> erectus, etc., and on the each further down level (i.e. Chordata, then
> Vertebrata), the most notable species would have higher links on that
> page.
> Is that what you mean by category?
>
> James
>
Yes, partly. A taxonomic order should be one very important aspect, but
there are plenty of other ways to set up a order for species; by size; by
distribution; by behaviour, etc. The organisation of a database is ideal for
a cross-linked, highly specific search.

Benedikt

--
NEU: Bis zu 10 GB Speicher f?r e-mails & Dateien!
1 GB bereits bei GMX FreeMail http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
I for one welcome our new mailing list overlords.
-Slowking Man
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mark Ryan<mailto:ultrablue at gmail.com>
  To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
  Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 7:57 AM
  Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please welcome your new Mailing List admins

  WikiEN-l has two new mailing list administrators, Fuzheado (Andrew
  Lih) and David Gerard. They are two of Wikipedia's most trusted names.
  They are the Panadol of Wikipedia.

  At the same time, Ed Poor is retiring after an illustrious career of
  adminning. I hope you all join me in congratulating Ed Poor for a job
  well done, and welcoming Andrew and David.

  Remember, if you should ever require assistance from us, you can
  contact all of us simultaneously through the email address
  wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l-owner at wikipedia.org>.

  ~Mark.
  Administrator


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikipedia-l] species directory

body:
On Monday 23 August 2004 17:06, Benedikt Mandl wrote:
> > And finally, what content would this have that is not just as
> > appropriate for WP, and do the WPers agree with setting that
> > boundary? For instance, the full list of papers reporting every
> > sighting of a species of plant seems too detailed for WP, but I
> > could imagine a parallel set of "dig deeper" articles that go all
> > out on that sort of thing.
>
> Your example is a good one. Also, a determination key might be useful and
> generally a lot of details that are not relevant in an encyclopedia.
> Schematic drawings. Keys for text-only browsers that can be read on PDAs
> for field work. A range of things that WP would not want to provide.

I'd like to see the set of characters by which taxonomists determine that a
particular plant belongs to, say, the Rosales. Delta/Angio has this for
flowering plant families, but it's in highly technical jargon. Which suggests
another thing that should be in it: an explanation of all this jargon (cyme,
raceme, gamosepalous, bitegmic, Polygonum-type, etc.).

phma
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] PATCH: (un)watch this page X --> autoreturns to
	this page X (not to MainPage)

body:
Thomas Gries wrote:
> When you are on page X and click on "watch this page" or "unwatch this
> page", the 1.3.1 MediaWiki returns to the Main_Page.

This is already fixed for 1.4 in CVS, but thanks for the reminder. I've
checked it into the 1.3 branch and it will be in 1.3.2.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040823/725ed6b5/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bug 179 patch

body:
Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Attached.

Applied to 1.4 and 1.3 branches.

> Patch for 181 should follow in the next day or so. With
> bugzilla in place, would people prefer patches to be attached to bug
> reports there?

That would be nice. It's hard to remember what 179 and 181 are from here. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040823/b274da42/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] per page rss recent/change or history feeds

body:
Joel Reed wrote:
> I'd like to hack SpecialRecentChanges so that one could
> retrieve per page RecentChange RSS/Atom feeds or alternatively
> hack PageHistory to offer RSS/Atom feeds.
>
> Can anyone direct me as to which approach might be more
> useful for mediawiki user's in general?

If you work from Recentchanges, you'll only be able to include whatever
changes are listed in the recentchanges table. This only covers the last
few days' worth of edits generally, so if you're trying to watch a less
active page it may just disappear off the feed.

I think PageHistory is definitely the place you want to be.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040823/342f7bdb/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Logs of DOOM

body:
Been meaning to do this for ages... I've just checked in a replacement
for the old wiki page-based LogPage system which uses an actual table,
and Special:Log as a viewer.

Why do wiki-based log pages suck? Let me count the ways:

* Timestamps can't be shown in the user's local timezone and format.
* Links in the log can break assumptions (image use, wantedpages, etc)
* Broken or long markup in comments often breaks the logs beyond legibility
* They get *really long* really quick on big wikis like en.wikipedia.org
* Archiving them manually is a pain in the butt and makes it hard to
look up past information
* The way it overwrites the current revision breaks history/contribs so
they don't behave like normal pages anyway.
* When someone changes the translation for the log name the log breaks
continuity.

Why does a log table rock?

* Like page history, only shows the most recent N items but can dig
arbitrarily far backwards
* Won't break when someone 'archives' or renames the page.
* Can limit the display to actions by a particular user
* Can limit the display to actions on a particular page
* Can limit the display to actions in a particular date range
* Can combine all logged actions in a single display, or keep them separate
* Links don't stink up the link tables!
* Comments don't get fouled up with unintended markup.
* Timestamps use user's timezone and format preference.

I had to modify the recentchanges table to allow signed namespaces in
order to include Special:Log updates in RC. Right now they list kind of
ugly, as eg 'Special:Log/delete' but RC could be hacked to display a
localized name as a special format (as we have a special format for page
moves). Be sure to run patch-logging.sql to update the tables.

There are probably still some rough spots: please try out all the
loggable things and make sure the result is more or less pleasant.
Messages probably need updating to look nicer or point at the new log
location.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040824/fe016ba6/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:

>Would the w-species give EVERY species a place, even extinct ones?  And how
>would species of unknown or questionable placement work (dinosaurs to birds,
>or perhaps dimetrodons)?  Hopefully w-species could come up with an ordering
>system, so that if one person were to edit the species' page, say the genus
>changed, it would change elsewhere on the w-species automatically?  Say homo
>sapiens were renamed to jimbo sapiens.  Then all the links or redirects
>would alter accordingly, perhaps through a webbot or automatic crawler?
>
Extinct species are recognized species.  (There was even a "Journal of
Improbable Research" article on the taxonomy of Barney.)  This would be
the same with or without a Wikispecies.  Species with doubtful placement
are a fact of life, and what we do won't change that.

Experimenting with the automatic changes as you suggest is the kind of
interesting thing that comes more easily in a specialized project.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers needed!

body:
James R. Johnson wrote:

>Looking through the wikipedia...
>
>Going through the wp, I'm finding that a wikispecies, in my humble opinion,
>should get a go as a starter project, to see what happens.  The
>organization, I'd vote to organize by the taxonomic names, in Latin form
>(deuterostomata page, not "deuterostomes"), and have whatever everyone
>thinks should be on there.
>
Formal taxonomic names is the only way that would work in a multilingual
project.

Ec