from_name: jheiskan at welho.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crackpot articles

body:
Lainaus Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com>:

> After coming across [[reciprocal system of theory]] for the first time just
> recently, and after personally spending a great deal of time on
> [[neutrosophy]] and other articles, I have a feeling we're losing the war
> on
> pseudoscience, mainly due to an insufficient number of motivated skeptical
> contributors. I've been giving serious thought to advertising our cause on
> the major skeptical community forums.
>
> I don't really see any other way to do this, other than plain old-fashioned
> manpower. If any of these theories are truly idiosyncratic, we'll be able
> to
> save a lot of time if we can get them deleted. Other than that, we've just
> got to do the research, present the flaws, and contextualise.
>
> -- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>
>

I wouldn't be too disheartened. Remember that on wikipedia nonsense has to
eternally keep glancing over it's shoulders. Eventually someone will notice it,
and the heuristic of the system vastly favors sense over nonsense. Nonsense we
will always have with us, but that is what being open means. The only nonsense
that is secure is nonsense that is the current scientific paradigm. And such
nonsense always exists as well. It is the task of scientists, not us
encyclopedists to deal with that.

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

P.S. This is my first post on the mailing-list. May it reach you all safely.


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Database design and interwiki links

body:
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:24:42AM +0200, Timwi
> wrote:
> > Again, the contents of the Wikipedias should be
> the same. They should
> > only be in different languages.
>
> Let's just say that I completely disagree with that
> statement.

Seconded. Neither the content, nor the titles.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Oops...

body:
--- Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
> I have been doing an SQL-Query that I should not
> have done on WikipediaNL, and now the
> thing is grinding to a hold. Can someone please
> break it off for me? Thanks.
>
> Andre Engels

bad boy ;-)

There should be someone with ability to restart
servers (or do whatever technically is required),
living on non-american time zone. Each time something
similar happen at high-access hours (such as now), all
the non-english wikis are dead till  america wakes up.
This is a problem.

why is it also impacting the mailing list admin ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] sql query

body:
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> OK, I killed that thread. Don't do bad SQL queries
> in future, mkay ? :)

Wikip?dias down for 4h30 in the middle of the day.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Oops...

body:
I have been doing an SQL-Query that I should not have done on WikipediaNL, and now the
thing is grinding to a hold. Can someone please break it off for me? Thanks.

Andre Engels


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Duplicate user names

body:
What about me? There's a "Magnus" on de and en, but that's not me. I am
(at least) in de and en as "Magnus Manske", as well as in text,
textbook, meta, ...


from_name: steve vertigo

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] wikipedia in Arabiya

body:
>TImwi wrote Are you sure the problem is with Unicode
itself, and
> not with your
> browser or operating system? Unicode doesn't
> "render" anything, Unicode
> only specifies what codepoint corresponds to what
> letter. I don't know
> any Arabic, but if I type random Arabic letters in
> Windows 2000 Notepad,
> they are indeed rendered as different shapes
> depending on whether each
> letter is isolated, intial, medial, or terminal. It
> is not Unicode
> itself that does this, it should be done by your
> operating system.

Se?or Pablo wrote some smart clarification on the
issue already :: "Unicode is already widely used to
write Arabic. The problems are  mainly on the bidi
side of things (when portions of latin script are
mixed inside an arabic flow); I haven't heard of any
problem regarding  the shape of letters; and if
needed, then ZWJ and ZWNJ can be used (Farsi language
does, for example)."

There is an  summary here by Markus Kuhn:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html
-S-

Excerpt:
"Why are there no Indic or Syriac glyphs in the
ucs-fonts package?"

"In European and East Asian scripts, each Unicode
character can be represented by a single graphical
shape ("glyph"). The X11 font system is entirely built
around the idea that there is a one-to-one
relationship between characters and glyphs, which
works fine for Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Han,
Hiragana, Katakana, Hangul, etc. However, things are
far more complicated for handwritten cursive scripts
such as Arabic, Syriac and the various Indic scripts
(Devanagari, Bengali, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya,
Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, etc.). For these scripts, the
sequence of values ("characters") encoded in a Unicode
string (which usually corresponds to the sequence of
keystrokes during entry and the sequence of phonemes
when speaking) first has to be converted into a
sequence of graphical symbols ("glyphs") as they are
found in a font, before a string can be displayed. "

"...The Unicode standard does contain encoding ranges
for a simple scheme of Arabic glyphs, the "Arabic
Presentation Forms". This was possible, because for
Arabic there is a reasonably good consensus among font
designers on how many glyphs are actually necessary
for proper rendering of Arabic text, even though some
argue that for really high-quality typesetting the
Unicode collection of Arabic presentation forms is not
sufficient. For Indic scripts on the other hand, there
seems no consensus among font designers, which glyphs
are actually necessary as this can vary significantly
across different font styles."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
> >>On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:24:42AM +0200, Timwi
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Again, the contents of the Wikipedias should be
> >>
> >>the same. They should
> >>
> >>>only be in different languages.

Well, this is perhaps a simplistic way of saying
"there should be more cross-article pollenation in
paralell among different languages."

To say that there ought be some kind of rule regarding
what content actually exists in all of those articles
-- in terms that they be unified -- would present
serious problems.

Its bad enough people complain now about "bad English"
on the en.wiki -- (SIMPLE.WIKIPEIDA  people..)  It
would be equally bad for a non-speaker to get into
tiffs with people about the content of their pedias.

Certainly for each language there needs to be a
loyalty to GNUFDL -- period.  As far as other things,
like saying "George Bush's Mother is a Goat" in
Arabic... well,. that will have to be sorted out by
the academic standards that they can reasonably set
there.

Should there be an Arabic article on Salman Rushdie?
Certainly. But well not concern ourselves whether that
article takes the same slant as it does on the
en.wiki... I would strongly disagree with translating
all of the various cheezy media articles -- top 100
lists, anime summaries,  etc..  to each language.
Like anyone could do that anyway.. Were just concerned
with the core stuff, and the rest is fluff.

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Problems with the article title and special chars

body:
--- Thomas Corell <T.Corell at t-online.de> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > I blame Anthere mostly. Now that she's using
> Netscape 7 instead of some
> > dreadful old pre-Unicode version of Opera, we're
> good to go. ;)
>
> Anthere is no problem e.g. in de.wiki ;)
>
> You did want to read such a commnet, did you? ;)
> --
> Smurf

yep, except for the dozens of international links I
could made since non utf

in majority anonymously.

though I have an account.

If another user on mac 9 meets the pb, recommand
Netscape 7.

btw, I manage decently to read german :-)
only (counting on my fingers...) 5 years of german at
school.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Lightning

body:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:24:42AM +0200, Timwi wrote:
> > Again, the contents of the Wikipedias should be the same. They should
> > only be in different languages.
>
> Let's just say that I completely disagree with that statement.

I must say I agree. Another point to be made is organization, not all
wikipedias will be organized the same and we can't expect them to be, the
language they are written in, and the culture of the people that write them
will obviously affect how they are organized, and probably their contents
too. What is more lets say (hypothetically) We have the Category
"Chemistry", but people over in the X wikipedia actually have 2 different
words for what we call chemistry, and none of them are perfect translations
with concepts being split between the two. This is a real possibility and we
have to be sensitiveto that, 1:1 linking is not allways ideal.

Lightning


list: textbook-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Textbook-l] legal counsel on copyright issues

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> Karl Wick wrote:
>> Now there's a thought ... what if each textbook project
>> decides for itself depending on its own estimation of its
>> needs?  If a project decides wrongly, then only it has to
>> start over. Sitewide policy can be submitted to the public
>> domain, or kept under GFDL for copying from Wikipedia.
>
>I think that it would be very unpractical. Keeping everything
>GFDL makes us bidirectionally compatibe with Wikipedia.
>Changing license to something else breaks that link.

I tend to agree. IMO the most practical thing for us to do is to have
everything under the GNU FDL. This will make it very easy to use the vast
amounts of material already in Wikipedia (which is, by far, the largest open
content project in the world - please correct me if I am wrong anybody).

However, I also think it would be a great long term strategy to work with the
GNU, Creative Commons, Open Content and others who publish copyleft/open
content/viral licenses to ensure direct compatibility. IMO it is real stupid
and counter to the intent of these licenses that text cannot flow freely
between them. There should be some baseline of "freedom" that all these
licenses already have and will recognize for the purposes of transferability.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Languages [was: Database design and interwiki links]

body:
> Well, nobody's being hired yet, I was just curious
> ;)
> I suspect that translation fees vary a lot depending
> on source language
> (English is quite popular, so it isn't likely to
> cost extra) and country
> (we could get Wikipedia in 5 african languages in
> cost of 1 european).
>
> But what order of magnitude of work and money is
> that ?

>I'm not saying that translated English Wikipedia
>should replace
>other 'pedias, but these translations could be used
as sources
for them.

Paid translation is not an option -- in fact if it
wasnt for readily and cheaply available machine
tranlation, regardless of how fluent one is in a
second language -- it would bee just too much work.
So, generally were looking at a (Wiki-wide) project
that is perhaps 92% machine translated - at least.
After that, it can be left to the normal corrections
of fluent Wikipedians...

As far as languages sucking off of the English content
-- is this going to be one way or two -way?  How can
edit conflicts accross languages be resolved?

WP wasnt set up as a cross langa platform -- in fact
quite the opposite. It was set up as a series of
islands, and each island has a single rowboat. Some of
us think it might be nice to have a real, coordinated
and more efficient ferry system.  There would have to
be some centralization -- where the main articles are
concerned and in this imagined island chain, the big
island is not necessarily the one that should have all
the centralized functions.  Ie... the English wiki
Should not automatically have the last word, -- by the
defaults of a one-way process.

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

body:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 10:08:46PM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
> Karl Wick wrote:
>
> >(My textbook plans dont include using much from the WP anyway).
>
> Now there's a thought ... what if each textbook project
> decides for itself depending on its own estimation of its needs?
> If a project decides wrongly, then only it has to start over.
> Sitewide policy can be submitted to the public domain,
> or kept under GFDL for copying from Wikipedia.

I think that it would be very unpractical. Keeping everything GFDL
makes us bidirectionally compatibe with Wikipedia. Changing license
to something else breaks that link.


references: <benpvq$181$1@main.gmane.org> <3F105FFD.8090905@easynet.be> <beq7bq$580$1@main.gmane.org> <20030713003321.GA26679@tavaiah> <beqccc$rat$1@main.gmane.org>

body:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:24:42AM +0200, Timwi wrote:
> Again, the contents of the Wikipedias should be the same. They should
> only be in different languages.

Let's just say that I completely disagree with that statement.


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dreaming

body:
Ive been daydreaming lately... Imagining a place where
all translations were maching-processed, boiled down
to a trans-language file that upon every varied edit,
was translated back into all other languages....
The interface language would merely be a veneer--
a window into which whatever software used makes its
best guess at figuring out what it is you have to say,
and converts this to a nexus form -- a tongue which
uses as may components of as many languages as
necessary to describe and prescribe an idea -- a
language of nothing but vast quantities of metadata
and dried muffin remnants...

It would be ugly, disastrous, competitive, heated..
wily, gnarly, vicious, capricious, seedy, dastardly,
voluminous, voluptuous, harried, shitty, mungled,
bungled, wacked in the head, screwy, cheezy, and just
plain fucked up...   But it still ought work.  Instead
of a wiki it could be called a "sickie"

Heck, who here can remember what they thought of a
wiki when they first heard the idea?

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Dreaming


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Languages

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote in part:

>Just wondering - how much would it cost to hire translators
>that would translate all contents of English Wikipedia to
>some 20 or so languages ? Common sense suggests that translating
>is much easier than developing anew, yet we keep doing it the hard way.

Actually, I think that the hard way is /good/.

If you're writing an article in, say, Polish,
and you read, say, English, then by all means,
use an English article (if any exists) as a source.
But otherwise, I think that your time is best spent
(and this is true whether you pay for your time or not)
writing a new article based on the available sources.
This is because it gives fresh ideas and fresh input.
Then when somebody comes along that /does/ know both languages,
the different present takes on the subject
can be moved in /both/ directions.

Note that the idea of time management is quite important to my idea.
Rewriting an article from scratch when a good article is available
is not a wise use of time; translate when you can do that.
But when the translation can't be done now, for whatever reason,
then we should welcome the new article from scratch.

(I'm not sure that anything that I've said actually disagrees with you.)

-- Toby


from_name: Zeno Gantner

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Fwd: [Wikide-l] Wikipedia.de down?]

body:
Hello,

today, most of the non-English Wikipedias do not respond at all.
I tried German, Spanish, Esperanto, Danish and Polish.

The Wikipedias with old software versions, like Welsh or Catalan,
do work well.

Does anyone know the source of this problem, and how long it will
remain?

Best regards,
    Zeno

-----Weitergeleitete Nachricht-----
From: Daniel Herding <DHerding at gmx.de>
To: wikide-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [Wikide-l] Wikipedia.de down?
Date: 13 Jul 2003 12:52:46 +0100

Hallo,

Ist die deutsche Wikipedia down? Auf die franz?sische komm ich auch
nicht mehr drauf, auf die franz?sische und esperanto auch nicht. Die
englische klappt aber noch.

MfG
Daniel

_______________________________________________
Wikide-l mailing list
Wikide-l at wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikide-l


body:
Stevertigo wrote:

>Certainly for each language there needs to be a
>loyalty to GNUFDL -- period.  As far as other things,
>like saying "George Bush's Mother is a Goat" in
>Arabic... well,. that will have to be sorted out by
>the academic standards that they can reasonably set
>there.

If Jimbo ever finds out about this, then there'll be trouble.
(In practice, it may take him awhile -- unless you are vigilant!)
This violates NPOV -- even if all Arabic speakers agree!
We can't blame [[ar:]] writers if they don't know this,
but once a writer knows that this opinion is denied
by a reasonable population of people --
such as most citizens of the country that he leads! --
then the writer is obligated to attribute the opinion
rather than to state it as fact.

By Wikipedia's founding standards,
NPOV is as nonnegotiabble as the FDL --
even /more/ nonnegotiable, in fact!
(If a future version of the FDL allows a move
to, say, Creative Commons by-sa,
then Wikipedia may very well do just that.
See recent discussion on <textbook-l>.)

-- Toby


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Fwd: [Wikide-l] Wikipedia.de down?]

body:
The new Welsh Wikipedia is down today, as well.

Regards,

Arwel

In message <1058098639.2048.38.camel at mobilezeno>, Zeno Gantner
<lists=X4SvOYX45S+DjmgdnaGrkw at public.gmane.org> writes
>Hello,
>
>today, most of the non-English Wikipedias do not respond at all.
>I tried German, Spanish, Esperanto, Danish and Polish.
>
>The Wikipedias with old software versions, like Welsh or Catalan,
>do work well.
>
>Does anyone know the source of this problem, and how long it will
>remain?
>
>Best regards,
>    Zeno
>
>-----Weitergeleitete Nachricht-----
>From: Daniel Herding <DHerdingb7MZpHnFY at public.gmane.org>
>To: wikide-l5IaAUhVgiGglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>Subject: [Wikide-l] Wikipedia.de down?
>Date: 13 Jul 2003 12:52:46 +0100
>
>Hallo,
>
>Ist die deutsche Wikipedia down? Auf die franz?sische komm ich auch
>nicht mehr drauf, auf die franz?sische und esperanto auch nicht. Die
>englische klappt aber noch.
>
>
>MfG
>Daniel
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikide-l mailing list
>Wikide-l5IaAUhVgiGglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikide-l

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Crackpot articles

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I second the request!  The skeptical community types may have to be
>educated in the wiki way when it comes to articles on religion, but I
>think they'll get the hang of it quickly.

We just have to tell them to study NPOV,
as we tell any other POV community that comes to us.
We told some Marxists the same thing one time,
and we weren't overrun by the POV of Marxism then
(although I'm not sure that the Marxists ever arrived either).
Anyway, just treat them as we would any other newbies:
We're glad that you're here; please understand the policies.
^_^

-- Toby


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project

body:
> Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out
> of the textbook production business.
>
> It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the state
> to do this itself.

I will not support any effort to do anything of that nature.  That
sounds like a completley horrible idea, and I would speak at length to
the legislature (if they would listen to me) in opposition.

> 1) Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12
> textbook production.

I support this, although there's no reason for new legislation to
do that.

> 2) Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open source
> content) by the state.

I'm deeply opposed to this alternative.  The state has absolutely no
business being involved in the production of textbooks, and this would
virtually guarantee the elimination of all the possible cost savings
that you're pitching.

> The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony
> up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books.

Good grief!  I'm horrified.

You really need to change your mind on this aspect of things, as it
completely undermines everything that you're trying to do, and has a
huge number of negative side-effects as well.

I protest in the strongest possible terms, and have no interest in
helping with this aspect of your project.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] sql query

body: OK, I killed that thread. Don't do bad SQL queries in future, mkay ? :)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Away...

body:
I don't have any more time to work on Wikipedia just now... unless my
tickets get lost in the mail :D I'll be off to Sweden for two weeks from
Wednesday, and I've got lots of other stuff to finish before then.

Please direct technical complaints to our other suckers -- er, volunteer
developers -- for the interim. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Away...


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Editing problem on Portuguese Wikipedia

body:
I recently had occasion to go to this page:

http://pt.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Enciclop%E9dia

and needed to edit it (The first link is bad), but this is what I got:

http://pt.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Enciclop?dia

Can anyone fix this?

Fred Bauder

http://wwww.internet-encyclopedia.org


from_name: Michael Becker

subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: GFDL violation

body:
1 down :).

--
Michael Becker

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Bellis [mailto:inventors.guide at about.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 7.26
To: Michael Becker
Subject: Re: GFDL violation

Okay

At 03:54 AM 7/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Website Mary Bellis,
>
>We're delighted to see that your website,
>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blscrewdriver.htm?terms=sc
>r
>ews, uses content from Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), the free
>encyclopedia. This is just the sort of application that we at Wikipedia
>wish to promote.
>
>However, we'd like to point out that to use content from Wikipedia you
>should include a link back to the source Wikipedia article, as we've
>suggested on our copyrights page. Additionally, you should also include

>a GFDL notice. One way of doing this would be to add the text "This
>article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which
>means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work
>(including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link
>to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.
>
>Thanks for your assistance,
>Michael Becker
>
>----
>This message is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License
>(GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the
>entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
>
>GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>URL of source:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter


subject: [WikiEN-l] FW: 4reference.net

body:
Two down :)

--
Michael Becker

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaret Wilson [mailto:jaret at msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 3.45
To: wikipedia at jumpingjackweb.com
Subject: Re: 4reference.net

Michael,

I'll be glad to include a GFDL notice.  The site is new and still a work
in
progress, so it doesn't surprise me that I've missed something.  Thank
you
for pointing this out.  I'll make the change within the next couple
days.

Thanks,
Jaret Wilson

>From: Michael Becker <wikipedia at jumpingjackweb.com>
>To: webmaster at 4reference.net, jaret at msn.com
>Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:37:36 -0400
>
>Dear Jaret Wilson,
>
>We're delighted to see that your website, http://www.4reference.net/,
>uses content from Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ), the free
>encyclopedia. This is just the sort of application that we at Wikipedia

>wish to promote. We're also glad to see that you have included a link
>back to the source Wikipedia article, as we've suggested on our
>copyrights page.
>
>However, we'd like to point out that to use content from Wikipedia you
>should also include a GFDL notice. One way of doing this would be to
>add the text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation

>License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the
>entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and
>provide a link to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.
>
>Thanks for your assistance,
>Michael Becker
>
>----
>This message is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License
>(GFDL), which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the
>entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
>
>GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>URL of source:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter
>

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


from_name: JFrost8401 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l] FW: GFDL violation

body:
Nice work MB

JIm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030713/558e6906/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] wikipedia in Arabiya

body:
> almisrah.com is down. I can't confirm anything.

Whoops!  I meant
http://www.almisbar.com/salam_trans.html

> I hear ajeeb.com does good in translation.

Ajeeb requires a paid membership -- its out of
consideration for public use...

> Machine translation is far from a solution for
> Arabic. Especially when it
> comes to a publicly written encyclopedia.

I disagree with this -- if its making a blanket -case
statement.  Machine tools are merely for assistance.
They cannot hope to replace the keen eye -- in any
language, regardless of proficiency.  There are known
and published people on the WP -- ask any of them if
they have ever written anything worth reading that
didnt need at least a proofread or two.  Same
principle -- in fact, our usernames register our
authorship for Wiki articles (If they are substantive
enough -- if they dont get pruned, chopped, etc..) So
we treat each article like a series of copyedits --
why not apply this to translation?

> RNA, for example, was translated literally into its
> Arabic meaning, which
> then read: "rana".

> Arabic, BTW, doesn't use voels (sp?). My name is
> Ahmad. In Arabic the
> letters used are: ahmd. It is up to the reader to
> spell the word correctly.
> This is one reason why it is hard to do machine
> Arabic translation even
> theoretically.

Ahmad = AeLF, kHAe, MIM, DAeL ?

So your saying that machine translation doesnt take
into account the alphabet-abjad gap?
Thats amazing. With almisbar theres an option for
using Haraka -- though these might seem like training
wheels for the native speaker.  Would a rule to use
Haraka , when machine translated from the english work
-- wouldnt that add too  many oddities into the text
that would have to be sorted out later?

I can see how it could try to over-phoneticize words
it doesnt understand.. but anyway.. It bears some
further investigation. Not all are equal -- and it may
just be necessary to buy something -- though it would
be a limited kind of thing...

There should be a reasonable thresh-hold -- I dont
like to hear the typical criticism by native speakers
of non-native speakers and their poor language skills
-- as long as theres something on the page -- A title
and seven words -- this can be enough to seed the
interest of someone willing to expand on that.   What
I want to know is how much is too much --  is there
such a thing when anyone can edit/mach-translate a
page?

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


from_name: Thomas Corell

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> I blame Anthere mostly. Now that she's using Netscape 7 instead of some
> dreadful old pre-Unicode version of Opera, we're good to go. ;)

Anthere is no problem e.g. in de.wiki ;)

You did want to read such a commnet, did you? ;)
--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] problems with the GNU FDL

body:
>What problems are you seeing with the GFDL that the
"Creative Commons"
>license (which I'm not familiar with) would solve?

The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as it stands is
that it demands that any work that uses any of its content
must be released under the same GNU FDL license. However
there are other open content licences out there that people
will be using. So, if some day down the road anyone wants
to mix content from a Creative Commons license or any other
license at all, the work must be released under the GNU
license. So any work I do on a textbook will be limited to
only GNU versions.

It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to be  in
its own, propietary format, 100% incompatable with all
other sources and licenses, including all other open
content licenses that I am familiar with.

This will be very inconvenient to Sanford Forte of the
California Open Source Textbook Project and may make any
work we do for his project unusable unless he and all his
people are willing to release everything under the GNU FDL
license.

It is also very inconvenient for me because any work that I
do under the GNU FDL on the wiki is only mine to use under
another license as long as noone else makes any
modification at all to it that I keep. So if I wanted to
release my own work under another, more flexible license, I
would have to go thru the work of eliminating every letter
that wasnt my own. This is hardly the spirit underlying
open content.

Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software, not
open content. And remember that even RMS says that it may
not be the ideal license for open content.

One solution I see would be to create a special version of
the GNU FDL just for open content, or just for Wikipedia.
That way we could decide for ourselves without needing the
rest of the GNU world to go along with it. Or, adapting
another license like one of the Creative Commons ones.
Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
unmixable forks of content.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] problems with the GNU FDL


from_name: Timwi

body:
steve vertigo wrote:

> There is also the issue with Arabic that Unicode might
> not be able to keep up with its morphology... Ill
> report more later, but apparently Arabic -as rendered
> by unicode is not quite up to grade in terms of the
> rules for morphing letters depending on their
> placement

Are you sure the problem is with Unicode itself, and not with your
browser or operating system? Unicode doesn't "render" anything, Unicode
only specifies what codepoint corresponds to what letter. I don't know
any Arabic, but if I type random Arabic letters in Windows 2000 Notepad,
they are indeed rendered as different shapes depending on whether each
letter is isolated, intial, medial, or terminal. It is not Unicode
itself that does this, it should be done by your operating system.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special pages

body:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Timwi wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
> >
> > Please could a sysop or admin or someone update the following pages?
> >
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Longpages
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Shortpages
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Wantedpages
>
> I'm really not wanting to come off as impatient, but why is nobody doing
> this?

Because that's the wrong way to go about it. The special pages should be
rewritten to be faster so they can run live. If that's not feasible, then
they should be rewritten to work off a summary table (so people can scroll
to the next 50!) and which could be further improved to be updated as
relevant changes occur rather than rescanning the entire set of articles
at fixed intervals.

Apparently no one is interested in these pages enough to fix them. If you
are, then great! Do it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

body:
Anthere wrote:
>
> --- Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:24:42AM +0200, Timwi
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Again, the contents of the Wikipedias should be
>>
>>the same. They should
>>
>>>only be in different languages.
>>
>>Let's just say that I completely disagree with that
>>statement.
>
>
> Seconded. Neither the content, nor the titles.
>

Thirded, of course.

Luc Van Oostenryck, aka Looxix on fr: and en:


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Languages [was: Database design and interwiki links]

body:
In message <20030713191019.GA3465 at tavaiah>, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
<taw=Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f at public.gmane.org> writes
>Just wondering - how much would it cost to hire translators
>that would translate all contents of English Wikipedia to
>some 20 or so languages ? Common sense suggests that translating
>is much easier than developing anew, yet we keep doing it the hard way.
>
>I'm not saying that translated English Wikipedia should replace
>other 'pedias, but these translations could be used as sources
>for them.
>
>Any estimates in manhours or cash ?

As an experiment I've just spent half the afternoon translating most of
the English article on Argentina to cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yr_Ariannin --
I can't think of anything more soul-destroying if it was done on a large
scale.

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


body:
Just wondering - how much would it cost to hire translators
that would translate all contents of English Wikipedia to
some 20 or so languages ? Common sense suggests that translating
is much easier than developing anew, yet we keep doing it the hard way.

I'm not saying that translated English Wikipedia should replace
other 'pedias, but these translations could be used as sources
for them.

Any estimates in manhours or cash ?


subject: [Textbook-l] problems with the GNU FDL

body:
Karl Wick wrote:
>The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as
>it stands is that it demands that any work that
>uses any of its content must be released under
>the same GNU FDL license.

Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And the viral
nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a
proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.

>However there are other open content licences
>out there that people will be using. So, if some day
>down the road anyone wants to mix content from a
>Creative Commons license or any other license at
>all, the work must be released under the GNU
>license.

And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text
under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every
other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned
that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license
writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html

>So any work I do on a textbook will be limited
>to only GNU versions.

No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version
on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under
the GNU FDL.

>It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to
>be  in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible
>with all other sources and licenses, including all other
>open content licenses that I am familiar with.

Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?

>Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software,
>not open content.

Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.

>And remember that even RMS says that it may
>not be the ideal license for open content.

He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that
"We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also,
using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License
(GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the
licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the
GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?

>One solution I see would be to create a special
>version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or
>just for Wikipedia.

For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.

>That way we could decide for ourselves without
>needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.

Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a
chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot
be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique
copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.

And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project
under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole
purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that
can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.

>Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative
>Commons ones.

? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have
over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written
specifically for documention.

>Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
>unmixable forks of content.

And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is not
magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content
is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far
the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and
try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the
licenses.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] problems with the GNU FDL

body:
Karl Wick wrote:
>The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as
>it stands is that it demands that any work that
>uses any of its content must be released under
>the same GNU FDL license.

Replace "any work" with "any derivative work" and you are right. And the viral
nature of the license is the whole point - otherwise somebody could make a
proprietary fork. The GFDL ensures that the content is forever free.

>However there are other open content licences
>out there that people will be using. So, if some day
>down the road anyone wants to mix content from a
>Creative Commons license or any other license at
>all, the work must be released under the GNU
>license.

And the same problem applies to the Creative Commons Share Alike license; text
under that license can't be incorporated into GNU FDL works. Same for every
other copyleft viral license. So what is your point? I've already mentioned
that our long term goal should be to encourage the major open content license
writers to make their licenses compatible wherever possible. See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-July/000127.html

>So any work I do on a textbook will be limited
>to only GNU versions.

No - you can re-license any work you create any way you want. But the version
on Wikipedia and all subsequent modifications by others will forever be under
the GNU FDL.

>It would be as if the work wereforever condemned to
>be  in its own, proprietary format, 100% incompatible
>with all other sources and licenses, including all other
>open content licenses that I am familiar with.

Proprietary? Do you have any idea what that means?

>Remember that the GNU FDL was created for software,
>not open content.

Uh, no. It was created for documention and any other non-fiction works.

>And remember that even RMS says that it may
>not be the ideal license for open content.

He said no such thing. All that is written on that particular subject is that
"We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also,
using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License
(GNU FDL)." and "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the
licenses proposed by Creative Commons." Were in there does it say that the
GNU FDL isn't ideal for open content?

>One solution I see would be to create a special
>version of the GNU FDL just for open content, or
>just for Wikipedia.

For God's sake man! The GNU FDL /is/ already for open content.

>That way we could decide for ourselves without
>needing the rest of the GNU world to go along with it.

Where were you two and a half years ago when such an idea actually had a
chance to see daylight? Due to the viral nature of the the GNU FDL it cannot
be revoked unless every single person who has ever contributed unique
copyrightable content to Wikipedia agreed to the change in license terms.

And to ignore Wikipedia as a text resource by having the textbook project
under an incompatible license or license combination would defeat the whole
purpose of Wikipedia. There is already a great deal of text in Wikipedia that
can be ported to textbook form and organization with relative ease.

>Or, adapting another license like one of the Creative
>Commons ones.

? Sorry, but they have the same problems. The only real advantage they have
over the GNU FDL is that they are easier to understand and are not written
specifically for documention.

>Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
>unmixable forks of content.

And where are these mythical content forks that you speak of? There is no
magic bullet here and the only way we can ensure the freedom of our content
is to choose one copyleft viral license and go with it. Wikipedia is by far
the largest open content resource in the world -- let's follow their lead and
try to encourage license compatibility with the people who write the
licenses.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 07:54:31PM +0200, Oualmakran Youssef wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well, I would like to be hired... since I jave not found any
> job yet.

Well, nobody's being hired yet, I was just curious ;)
I suspect that translation fees vary a lot depending on source language
(English is quite popular, so it isn't likely to cost extra) and country
(we could get Wikipedia in 5 african languages in cost of 1 european).

But what order of magnitude of work and money is that ?


from_name: Youandme

body:
On 13 Jul 2003 at 21:10, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> Just wondering - how much would it cost to hire translators
> that would translate all contents of English Wikipedia to
> some 20 or so languages ? Common sense suggests that translating
> is much easier than developing anew, yet we keep doing it the hard way.
>
> I'm not saying that translated English Wikipedia should replace
> other 'pedias, but these translations could be used as sources
> for them.
>
> Any estimates in manhours or cash ?

Algorithm:
1. count all chars in the en-wp
2. divide this number by 1500*
3. multiply by the price offered by the translator or translation service**

* 1500 chars per page is the volume of one standard page of a sworn translation

** The price for translation en->pl offered by one of Polish Internet translation
services is 31 zlotys per page (= 7.9 USD). We can try to optimize this

The size of wp-en sql dump is 421407730 bytes (July 8, 2003)
if the ratio of rough text to sql dump & wikicode of wikipage is (let's say) 0.90,
then the price for the translation en->pl would be ~253000 zlotys (~= 64400 USD)

Regards
Youandme


body:
On 13 Jul 2003 at 22:28, Youandme wrote:

> Algorithm:
> 1. count all chars in the en-wp
> 2. divide this number by 1500*
> 3. multiply by the price offered by the translator or translation service**
>
> * 1500 chars per page is the volume of one standard page of a sworn translation
Ooops... it should be of course: non-sworn translation!

> ** The price for translation en->pl offered by one of Polish Internet translation
> services is 31 zlotys per page (= 7.9 USD). We can try to optimize this
And this is the price for non-sworn translation

> The size of wp-en sql dump is 421407730 bytes (July 8, 2003)
> if the ratio of rough text to sql dump & wikicode of wikipage is (let's say) 0.90,
> then the price for the translation en->pl would be ~253000 zlotys (~= 64400 USD)
So nothing changes here.

Sorry for the mistake
Youandme


body:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:28:04PM +0200, Youandme wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2003 at 21:10, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> > Just wondering - how much would it cost to hire translators
> > that would translate all contents of English Wikipedia to
> > some 20 or so languages ? Common sense suggests that translating
> > is much easier than developing anew, yet we keep doing it the hard way.
> >
> > I'm not saying that translated English Wikipedia should replace
> > other 'pedias, but these translations could be used as sources
> > for them.
> >
> > Any estimates in manhours or cash ?
>
> Algorithm:
> 1. count all chars in the en-wp
> 2. divide this number by 1500*
> 3. multiply by the price offered by the translator or translation service**
>
> * 1500 chars per page is the volume of one standard page of a sworn translation
>
> ** The price for translation en->pl offered by one of Polish Internet translation
> services is 31 zlotys per page (= 7.9 USD). We can try to optimize this
>
> The size of wp-en sql dump is 421407730 bytes (July 8, 2003)
> if the ratio of rough text to sql dump & wikicode of wikipage is (let's say) 0.90,
> then the price for the translation en->pl would be ~253000 zlotys (~= 64400 USD)

I can't repeat these numbers, not any computation error ?

Some googling (tl/umaczenie angielski, first hit) showed
1800 chars (including punctuation) per page, 30 zloty per page,

select sum(length(cur_text)) from cur;
    378 523 585

pages (1800 chars = 1 page)
    210 290.88

cost (30 zloty / page)
    6 308 726.4 zloty

cost (4 EUR / zloty, hehe)
    1 577 181.6 EUR

Of course it relies on absurd assumption that 1 byte = 1 character,
and it's really 210 thousand pages.

Any idea what's character:byte ratio like ?
Rendering 1000 random articles into HTML, and counting chars would probably work.


from_name: Sanford Forte

body:
> > Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out
> > of the textbook production business.
> >
> > It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the
state
> > to do this itself.

> I will not support any effort to do anything of that nature.  That
> sounds like a completley horrible idea, and I would speak at length to
> the legislature (if they would listen to me) in opposition.

> > 1) Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12
> > textbook production.
>
> I support this, although there's no reason for new legislation to
> do that.
-----------
All, (and Jimbo)

This is unfortunate, because it's based on misunderstanding.

I will respond here as best I can, as the meat of Jimbo's reservations are
gone into on another post (privately) to me. I will answer his post - I hope
to his satisfaction.

There would be in California, if California chose to sponsor the physical
publishing of the book. I've explained why in earlier posts.

Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher,
other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money,
otherwise.

Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content - would
have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive costs up, not
down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the system works, in
textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that business.

> > 2) Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open
source
> > content) by the state.
>
> I'm deeply opposed to this alternative.  The state has absolutely no
> business being involved in the production of textbooks, and this would
> virtually guarantee the elimination of all the possible cost savings
> that you're pitching.
----------------
How is that?

Here is some rational. It's all in the model that I posted to the list.

some comments:
I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In the model
I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the primary savings realized
from a state-sponsored textbook publishing 'business' would be marketing,
royalties, and carried inventory.

If California was willing to pony up the cash (to itself, not to me) to
perform the physical production of its own textbooks, (given certain
licensing schemes), they would have been able to charge a slight premium
back to other states for content that *California* had paid to develop,
independent of commercial publishers. This reverse licensing procedure would
save other states 100's of millions of dollars (realizing somewhere between
90-95% of the savings that California realizes).

However, *if* Wickipedia were to develop the textbook, under the GNU FDL
license, the picture changes slightly. Also, certain inefficiencies appear.

Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that book to
the California board, and the board approves it. *Then* (under the GNU
license) California could decide to publish itself (if it so chose), or
commercial publishers could enter the fray, use the Wickipedia content, and
compete on price for the end product (the textbook).

That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model, but I have
no problem at all with it. However, what this will mean is that certain
inefficiencies will get becak into the pricing model. As long as commercial
publishers *compete* with each other for business that the state can render
itself, prices will be higher to the state. These commercial firms will be
competing for state business, and all the huckstering, marketing,
conventions, etc. would continue. Note that 20-30% of the cost of a textbook
comes from competitive marketing.

> > The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony
> > up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books.
>
> Good grief!  I'm horrified.
--------------
Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in order to
remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The commercial publishers,
currently 'owning' the model of textbook production, create cost and content
inefficiencies. Why should thi sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for
taxpayers to get their money's worth?

YOur comments point in a direction that is completely opposite to what I've
intended.

In fact, under the
original model (using Connexions [at Rice U.]), there would be "content
bins" for every
chapter of every curricular area. There would be multiple textbooks
available (in fact, as many as possible) through open source that met the
frameworks standards. Thus, the districts could choose whatever book, and/or
approach, met their fancy.

To points about cost overruns, the process would keep those to a minimum,
because there would be no marketing, royalty, or inventory numbers to fudge.
It would be very straightforward - in this way: here's the content, here's
what it cost to print, do you want it? Case over.
Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if necessary, would
bring the print cost way down. (It's a fact that university math books in
the US that sell for over $100MSRP sell for less than $10 (real $$) in
places like India, printed on cheaper stock, in paperback.)

To points about limited choice by teachers and districts, I've answered
some of that (above). Also, realize that one of the primary goals of COSTP
is to *include* more teacher-related content in the process. It's in the
model I posted.

> You really need to change your mind on this aspect of things, as it
> completely undermines everything that you're trying to do, and has a
> huge number of negative side-effects as well.
----------
There are no negative side effects. They only exist if you assume the state
owns the content, which under the GNU license, and via the WIckipedia
publishing model, the state wouldn't. However, consider - again, looking ta
the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership (don't
flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's *anything* but
that!)

> I protest in the strongest possible terms, and have no interest in
> helping with this aspect of your project.
----------
Why? The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers,
students, teachers, etc.), give other states an opportunity to share in the
bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English,
etc. It's in the model. What's wrong with that?

One of the things that I've had to battle over the two years that COSTP has
been in existence is having everyone - on all sides - understand that it's
in the best interests of the end users of the product (textbooks) to have
them created in open source.

I hope this helps, and that everyone understands that any books created
under GNU, by Wickipedia, would *not* be owned by California.

Now, most of our kids are in public schools. They get crappy textbooks, some
don't get any textbooks because their districts are too poor (it happens,
even in California), the schools are overcharged by publishers, creating
massive opportunity cost penalties for school districts, etc.

The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by anyone.
That's a difference in the original model, but be warned that it will cost
students and taxpayers more money than a program owned by one (or more)
states, designed to create content efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will
still save money, and create better content, and cost less than current
books - but the price efficiencies won't be as dramatic

You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts of the
model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable, depending on
where the money to publish comes from.

The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers), give
other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal
organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model.

Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would own the
content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the Wickipedia operation,
the state would not own the content, but would (as I understand it) realize
*some* of the pricing benefits (but not all of them), because come of the
"cost-of-goods-sold" would be removed by the fact that the content
originates in open source.

I would urge you to call me to straighten this out.

Look, we're on the same side. We may differ how best to get to the end
goal - using open source to benefit *people*, but that's the goal for COSTP.
This is a pure effort, aimed at helping people, and helping to deliver what
I consider to be the ultimate promise of technology - that is: more, for
less, for everyone.

Sanford

> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Dreaming

body:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:07:51PM -0700, steve vertigo wrote:
> Ive been daydreaming lately... Imagining a place where
> all translations were maching-processed, boiled down
> to a trans-language file that upon every varied edit,
> was translated back into all other languages....
> The interface language would merely be a veneer--
> a window into which whatever software used makes its
> best guess at figuring out what it is you have to say,
> and converts this to a nexus form -- a tongue which
> uses as may components of as many languages as
> necessary to describe and prescribe an idea -- a
> language of nothing but vast quantities of metadata
> and dried muffin remnants...
>
> It would be ugly, disastrous, competitive, heated..
> wily, gnarly, vicious, capricious, seedy, dastardly,
> voluminous, voluptuous, harried, shitty, mungled,
> bungled, wacked in the head, screwy, cheezy, and just
> plain fucked up...   But it still ought work.  Instead
> of a wiki it could be called a "sickie"
>
> Heck, who here can remember what they thought of a
> wiki when they first heard the idea?

Sure, nice idea, I was thinking about something like that
for quite a few years now, but it doesn't seem to be actually doable.

Path 1:
* find some part of human knowledge that we want to generate
  translations for (set of unit tests)
* make some toy magic language with a generator, easiest one that will
  actually do the work
* iteratively extend

Path 2:
* describe all languages with vocabulary, grammar etc. on Wikipedias
* someday someone will use that for machine translation

I'm kinda following path 2 now ;-).
Any idea of good start set for path 1 ?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Dreaming


body:
On 13 Jul 2003 at 23:02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:28:04PM +0200, Youandme wrote:
> > The size of wp-en sql dump is 421407730 bytes (July 8, 2003)
> > if the ratio of rough text to sql dump & wikicode of wikipage is (let's say) 0.90,
> > then the price for the translation en->pl would be ~253000 zlotys (~= 64400 USD)
>
> I can't repeat these numbers, not any computation error ?
Oops... another error. I've forgotten to mutiply by the cost of one page.
So my estimation is 31 times higher: 7 843 000 zlotys (~= 1 997 000 USD)

> Some googling (tl/umaczenie angielski, first hit) showed
> 1800 chars (including punctuation) per page, 30 zloty per page,
Standards are different but I agree that 1800 chars per page
(instead of 1500 per page) is more common in Poland (my past experience says so).

> select sum(length(cur_text)) from cur;
>     378 523 585
>
> pages (1800 chars = 1 page)
>     210 290.88
>
> cost (30 zloty / page)
>     6 308 726.4 zloty
>
> cost (4 EUR / zloty, hehe)
>     1 577 181.6 EUR

So you see, we are talking about MILLIONS! :)
Who will pay for that? :)

Youandme


body:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:33:03PM +0200, Youandme wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2003 at 23:02, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 10:28:04PM +0200, Youandme wrote:
> > > The size of wp-en sql dump is 421407730 bytes (July 8, 2003)
> > > if the ratio of rough text to sql dump & wikicode of wikipage is (let's say) 0.90,
> > > then the price for the translation en->pl would be ~253000 zlotys (~= 64400 USD)
> >
> > I can't repeat these numbers, not any computation error ?
> Oops... another error. I've forgotten to mutiply by the cost of one page.
> So my estimation is 31 times higher: 7 843 000 zlotys (~= 1 997 000 USD)
>
> > Some googling (tl/umaczenie angielski, first hit) showed
> > 1800 chars (including punctuation) per page, 30 zloty per page,
> Standards are different but I agree that 1800 chars per page
> (instead of 1500 per page) is more common in Poland (my past experience says so).
>
> > select sum(length(cur_text)) from cur;
> >     378 523 585
> >
> > pages (1800 chars = 1 page)
> >     210 290.88
> >
> > cost (30 zloty / page)
> >     6 308 726.4 zloty
> >
> > cost (4 EUR / zloty, hehe)
> >     1 577 181.6 EUR
>
> So you see, we are talking about MILLIONS! :)
> Who will pay for that? :)

That's before multiplying by char:byte ratio, which I guess is
something like 1:5 (but we should measure, not guess).

Oh, and we can ignore RamBot stuff that makes some 20% of Wikipedia,
and get some bulk discount ;)

Including that, and 20% discount, that's 807 516.98 zloty or
182 580.07 euro (4.42281 zloty / euro, according to http://oanda.com/)

Still a lot of money.


from_name: Thomas Luft

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special pages

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Would it be feasible to set up a cron job that updates them
> automatically during off-peak hours (say once every 24 hours)? (Sorry
> for asking this again, but I didn't receive a reply to the previous
> time I asked :-p)

I second the idea to set up a cron job updateing the special pages which
are quite crucient to use the Wikipedia. At least the Special:ShortPages
and Special:WantedPages should be updated every 24 hours by a cron job
on *all* Wikipedias.
Regards

Thomas aka Urbanus


body:
> As an experiment I've just spent half the afternoon translating most of
> the English article on Argentina to cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yr_Ariannin

Shouldn't the text on the map (e.g. "South Atlantic Ocean") also be
translated?


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special pages

body:
Timwi wrote:
>
> Please could a sysop or admin or someone update the following pages?
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Longpages
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Shortpages
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Wantedpages

I'm really not wanting to come off as impatient, but why is nobody doing
this? Is it a lot of work? Do you need someone to write an automated
script? Please speak up and I'll do it! Or is there any other technical
reason/difficulty/obstacle that I'm not seeing?

Thanks,
Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Editing problem on Portuguese Wikipedia

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> I recently had occasion to go to this page:
> http://pt.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Enciclop%E9dia
> and needed to edit it (The first link is bad), but this is what I got:
> http://pt.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Enciclop?dia
> Can anyone fix this?

I'm afraid only you can fix this, because it seems to be a problem with
your browser or its configuration.

I was taken to
http://pt.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Enciclop%E9dia and I was
able to modify the page that way. (Interestingly, however, my change
didn't show up on RecentChanges. Am I supposed to be worried?)

Greetings,
Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: problems with the GNU FDL

body:
Karl Wick wrote:

>>What problems are you seeing with the GFDL that the "Creative
>>Commons" license (which I'm not familiar with) would solve?
>
> The main problem I see with the GNU FDL as it stands is
> that it demands that any work that uses any of its content
> must be released under the same GNU FDL license. [...]
> Or, adapting
> another license like one of the Creative Commons ones.
> Thats the only way I see that will prevent eternal,
> unmixable forks of content.

Can you lay out in easy terms for a newbie like me what the Creative
Commons license is, and what its major differences to the GFDL are? Or
is there a webpage that explains this? (I honestly don't really want to
read the actual license; I can hardly ever follow such texts.)

Thanks,
Timwi


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] New articles

body:
I just whipped up an article on river dolphins (fascinating animals, they).
If that is of interest to anyone, I'd ask that they please give it a look
and see if there's anything that they can add. I'd also appreciate it if
those same wonderful people would look over the articles on the 5
individual species. Thanks a bunch!

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_dolphin

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


in_reply_to: <00ad01c349ce$2bf9fd00$0400a8c0@oemcomputer>; from siforte@ix.netcom.com on Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:07:13PM -0700

body:
Sanford Forte wrote:
> Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher,
> other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money,
> otherwise.

I see no reason to suppose that the state doing something directly
would be cheaper than having private enterprises compete to do
the same thing.

> Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content
> - would have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive
> costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the
> system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that
> business.

No, it will drive costs down, not up.  Simply hand-waving and saying
that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of all economics and
all historical precedent, is not an argument.

Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too?  Do away with all
that wasteful competition and marketing?  Why do we need so many
different car manufacturers, surely one firm could do a better job
without all that wasteful competition driving costs up?

> I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In
> the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the
> primary savings realized from a state-sponsored textbook publishing
> 'business' would be marketing, royalties, and carried inventory.

Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed to you at every
step of the way.  This aspect of your project is not one which I can
in good conscience support, period.

> Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that
> book to the California board, and the board approves it. *Then*
> (under the GNU license) California could decide to publish itself
> (if it so chose), or commercial publishers could enter the fray, use
> the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for the end product
> (the textbook).
>
> That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model,
> but I have no problem at all with it.

If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of the textbook
business, then we can work together.  Otherwise, I'm going to be
butting heads with you at every opportunity I can get.

> Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in
> order to remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The
> commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the model of textbook
> production, create cost and content inefficiencies. Why should thi
> sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for taxpayers to get their
> money's worth?

It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's worth which is
precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a state run
publishing company.  What a monumentally bad idea!

> Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if
> necessary, would bring the print cost way down.

You're not making any sense.  You can't just pick and choose
*outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*.  And you've set down a
policy that would result in horrible inefficiences.  You claim to be
opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in favor of competitive
'printers'.  Same thing.

> the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership
> (don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's
> *anything* but that!)

But you *are* proposing a state-run content collective.  You've said
so quite explicitly.  You want the state to take over the content
production process from private firms.

There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than
this.

> The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by
> anyone.  That's a difference in the original model, but be warned
> that it will cost students and taxpayers more money than a program
> owned by one (or more) states, designed to create content
> efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still save money, and
> create better content, and cost less than current books - but the
> price efficiencies won't be as dramatic

That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid.  I'm sorry, but
this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me greatly.

> You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts
> of the model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable,
> depending on where the money to publish comes from.

If you are willing to abandon the parts of your model than involve
cutting out private publishers via a state takeover, then I can
support what you're doing.

> Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would
> own the content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the
> Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the content, but would
> (as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing benefits (but not
> all of them), because come of the "cost-of-goods-sold" would be
> removed by the fact that the content originates in open source.

No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings under the open
source model than under the 'state owned and controlled' model.
Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual certainty that a state
produced textbook would, open source or not, be extremely biased,
shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than the free
alternative.

Freedom works.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special pages

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Apparently no one is interested in these pages enough to fix them. If you
> are, then great! Do it.

Nevertheless they are not working as announced:
Try between 02:00 and 14:00 UTC (Current Server Time 04:51:25 UTC).

Because Brion is away, someone please can take a look and at least fix this?

Have Erik and Magnus now the rights, to take a look after?

--
Smurf

smurf at AdamAnt.mud.de
-------------------------  Anthill inside! ---------------------------


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Sanford Forte wrote:
> > Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State
> form being a publisher,
> > other than that it would cost taxpayers and school
> districts more money,
> > otherwise.
>
> I see no reason to suppose that the state doing
> something directly
> would be cheaper than having private enterprises
> compete to do
> the same thing.
>
> > Consider that commercial publishers, even if they
> access GNU content
> > - would have to *compete* for the state's
> business. That will drive
> > costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive,
> but that's how the
> > system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15
> years in that
> > business.
>
> No, it will drive costs down, not up.  Simply
> hand-waving and saying
> that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of
> all economics and
> all historical precedent, is not an argument.
>
> Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too?
> Do away with all
> that wasteful competition and marketing?  Why do we
> need so many
> different car manufacturers, surely one firm could
> do a better job
> without all that wasteful competition driving costs
> up?
>
> > I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the
> intention of COSTP. In
> > the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty
> clear that the
> > primary savings realized from a state-sponsored
> textbook publishing
> > 'business' would be marketing, royalties, and
> carried inventory.
>
> Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed
> to you at every
> step of the way.  This aspect of your project is not
> one which I can
> in good conscience support, period.
>
> > Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra
> book, shows that
> > book to the California board, and the board
> approves it. *Then*
> > (under the GNU license) California could decide to
> publish itself
> > (if it so chose), or commercial publishers could
> enter the fray, use
> > the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for
> the end product
> > (the textbook).
> >
> > That certainly alters the original intentions of
> the COSTP model,
> > but I have no problem at all with it.
>
> If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of
> the textbook
> business, then we can work together.  Otherwise, I'm
> going to be
> butting heads with you at every opportunity I can
> get.
>
> > Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had
> to publish in
> > order to remove the commercial publishers from the
> scene. The
> > commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the
> model of textbook
> > production, create cost and content
> inefficiencies. Why should thi
> > sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for
> taxpayers to get their
> > money's worth?
>
> It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's
> worth which is
> precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a
> state run
> publishing company.  What a monumentally bad idea!
>
> > Competitive biding on the print side -
> internationally, if
> > necessary, would bring the print cost way down.
>
> You're not making any sense.  You can't just pick
> and choose
> *outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*.  And
> you've set down a
> policy that would result in horrible inefficiences.
> You claim to be
> opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in
> favor of competitive
> 'printers'.  Same thing.
>
> > the model I posted - what advantages would lie in
> state ownership
> > (don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content
> collective...it's
> > *anything* but that!)
>
> But you *are* proposing a state-run content
> collective.  You've said
> so quite explicitly.  You want the state to take
> over the content
> production process from private firms.
>
> There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the
> GNU-free process than
> this.
>
> > The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not*
> be owned by
> > anyone.  That's a difference in the original
> model, but be warned
> > that it will cost students and taxpayers more
> money than a program
> > owned by one (or more) states, designed to create
> content
> > efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still
> save money, and
> > create better content, and cost less than current
> books - but the
> > price efficiencies won't be as dramatic
>
> That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid.
> I'm sorry, but
> this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me
> greatly.
>
> > You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I
> told you. The parts
> > of the model that had the state 'owning' the
> content are alterable,
> > depending on where the money to publish comes
> from.
>
> If you are willing to abandon the parts of your
> model than involve
> cutting out private publishers via a state takeover,
> then I can
> support what you're doing.
>
> > Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP
> model, the state would
> > own the content, and reverse license for a tiny
> fee. Under the
> > Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the
> content, but would
> > (as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing
> benefits (but not
> > all of them), because come of the
> "cost-of-goods-sold" would be
> > removed by the fact that the content originates in
> open source.
>
> No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings
> under the open
> source model than under the 'state owned and
> controlled' model.
> Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual
> certainty that a state
> produced textbook would, open source or not, be
> extremely biased,
> shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than
> the free
> alternative.
>
> Freedom works.
>
> --Jimbo

geee... you quite a liberal Jimbo !

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Vacation

body:
I'm off for a few days.  Brion is empowered to do whatever is
necessary in case of an emergency to restore the peace, following of
course our usual principles.  Jason's generally available for
techincal crises requiring physical intervention, and also Jason has
my cellphone number, which will surely work at least some of the time.
:-)

--Jimbo


subject: Correction! Re: [Wikipedia-l] Vacation

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I'm off for a few days.  Brion is empowered to do whatever is
> necessary in case of an emergency to restore the peace, following of
> course our usual principles.  Jason's generally available for
> techincal crises requiring physical intervention, and also Jason has
> my cellphone number, which will surely work at least some of the time.
> :-)

Uh, I see that Brion is away, too.  So I empower Magnus to do whatever
is necessary in case of an emergency to restore the peace, etc., etc.

--Jimbo


body:
In message <bet129$1uf$1 at main.gmane.org>, Timwi
<timwi=hi6Y0CQ0nG0 at public.gmane.org> writes
>
>> As an experiment I've just spent half the afternoon translating most
>>of the English article on Argentina to cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yr_Ariannin
>
>Shouldn't the text on the map (e.g. "South Atlantic Ocean") also be
>translated?

Ideally yes, but the same map is used in the English, German, Dutch,
Polish and Swedish wikipedias, so I'm not going to lose too much sleep
over it!

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Partial deletion

body:
sannse wrote:

> The article for "pop punk"  ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_punk ) was
>expanded last week by a new user.  He then realised that his work may have
>copyright implications and asked for it to be deleted.  I reverted to the
>stub that was there before he started work, but he asked for the versions in
>the history to be deleted too.  Presumably a developer could selectively
>delete the problem versions, or we could delete the whole thing and then
>replace the original stub.  The problem with doing that is that the history
>would be gone too.

Developers have deleted individual revisions in the past;
back when we allowed links to external images,
a vandal put in several links to goatse.cx,
and the versions of the pages with those links
were removed entirely from the database of old versions,
to avoid horrifying people that looked at these versions.
(Now that we don't allow links to external images,
these old versions would be free of goatse.cx
even if they still existed.)

For our own protection under copyright,
we should be legally safe unless a copyright holder
demands that we remove the text under the DMCA provisions.
In that case, to comply would require devloper activity
as in the previous paragraph.

If the new user is worried about our own liability,
then we shouldn't have to do anything for now.
If the new user is worried that people will revert to their old material,
then the talk page should be enough to discourage this.
If the new user is demanding removal on behalf of the copyright holder,
then they're not going about it properly per the DMCA --
but I don't think that this is what's going on. ^_^

>How should we deal with selective deletions of this type?  Or am I worrying
>too much about the article history?

Potentially, the article history in this case
could be dealt with rather easily on the talk page.
Say what anonymous ID created the text and when;
say what user wikified it and when,
and the entire relevant history has been described.
But in general, it'd be better if a developer deleted the revisions.

-- Toby


from_name: lisacush

subject: [WikiEN-l] Partial deletion

body:
This is on VfD but I thought it worth mentioning here.

The article for "pop punk"  ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_punk ) was
expanded last week by a new user.  He then realised that his work may have
copyright implications and asked for it to be deleted.  I reverted to the
stub that was there before he started work, but he asked for the versions in
the history to be deleted too.  Presumably a developer could selectively
delete the problem versions, or we could delete the whole thing and then
replace the original stub.  The problem with doing that is that the history
would be gone too.

How should we deal with selective deletions of this type?  Or am I worrying
too much about the article history?

Regards

sannse


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Partial deletion

body:
Appologies if this comes to the list twice I used the wrong address last
time...

This is on VfD but I thought it worth mentioning here.

 The article for "pop punk"  ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_punk ) was
expanded last week by a new user.  He then realised that his work may have
copyright implications and asked for it to be deleted.  I reverted to the
stub that was there before he started work, but he asked for the versions in
the history to be deleted too.  Presumably a developer could selectively
delete the problem versions, or we could delete the whole thing and then
replace the original stub.  The problem with doing that is that the history
would be gone too.

How should we deal with selective deletions of this type?  Or am I worrying
too much about the article history?

Regards

sannse


body:
> Sanford Forte wrote:
> > Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher,
> > other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money,
> > otherwise.
>
> I see no reason to suppose that the state doing something directly
> would be cheaper than having private enterprises compete to do
> the same thing.
-----------
Jimbo,

The States *are* the source for the published materials. The states *create*
the frameworks for the textbooks. They had given over the right to publish
to commercial publishers when the baby boom made it impractible to
self-publish. This has become an untenable situation, because private
publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form
competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the
prices again.

If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy GNU-licensed
content that will be "taken over" by commercial publishers (who will realize
great economies from your free content), and take even *larger* profits as
they compete for state business. Sure, the commercial publishers won't be
able to "charge-up" for the content - do you think they'll care? Do you
think that the very low rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of
these books will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books
adopted? Think again. I've been there.

Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't understand
economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get into the fine
points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect competition, if you like) that
inefficiencies are created in this system.

The cost of textbooks has risen at 3x the rate of inflation since 1992,
Jimbo. Is that 'efficiency'?

I have no problem with commercial publishers doing the books; I just stated
that. I'm saying that the cost *in the current system* will not be as low as
otherwise.

> > Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content
> > - would have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive
> > costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the
> > system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that
> > business.
>
> No, it will drive costs down, not up.  Simply hand-waving and saying
> that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of all economics and
> all historical precedent, is not an argument.
-----------
I was initially trained as an economist. I spent 15 years (another career
ago, for me) in the textbook industry? I know how that business
works, and I know it cold. I know the state side. I know what dostricts are
clamoring for.

Again, has competition in this sector led to lower textbook costs? I can
walk into Barnes and Noble today and purchase a trade version of a geometry
text for $25. The very same (or similar) content in a commercial textbook
will cost *three to four times* that amount. Soo where's your commercial
'efficiency'?

> Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too?  Do away with all
> that wasteful competition and marketing?  Why do we need so many
> different car manufacturers, surely one firm could do a better job
> without all that wasteful competition driving costs up?
-----------
You ar completely misunderstanding my proposition. Would you like to turn
over the highways to private enterprise? How about medical care (look what a
great job private enterprise has done there)? How about pharma (there's a
really cool example of private enterprise creating something that only the
wealthy can afford).

Education is a public service. You may be philosophically opposed to public
education. We probably share a lot of opinions about the real problems that
effect the education sector. However, public education isn't going to go
away, not anytime soon. There's a way to help school districts get more
money to pay teachers, to help with school lunch programs, etc. One way is
to reduce to cost of books. That's what COSTP is about.

> > I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In
> > the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the
> > primary savings realized from a state-sponsored textbook publishing
> > 'business' would be marketing, royalties, and carried inventory.
>
> Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed to you at every
> step of the way.  This aspect of your project is not one which I can
> in good conscience support, period.
----------------
Did I not say that if Wickipedia started a project, that any state choosing
to use your materials would have to abide by the licenses you mandate? The
COSTP idea is to get the books out there, cheaply. My original model was
contrived because I didn't have the funds to lobby many states at one time.

Did I not say that my original model was contrived in this way because of
the above set of constraints, and that if it *had* to change (due to the
states not having the vision to fund their own publishing ventures), that
that would be OK with me?

btw, the states currently *are* publishers. They have long relationships
with the R.R. Donnelly's of the world. They publish all kinds of material
themselves, and they do it *cheaper* that it would cost to outsource. Please
don't tell me about government inefficiency.

Yes, government is inefficient, often; however, that doesn't mean that it
*has* to be that way. You, as a change agent, someone who wants to make
things better for people, should surely understand that.

> > Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that
> > book to the California board, and the board approves it. *Then*
> > (under the GNU license) California could decide to publish itself
> > (if it so chose), or commercial publishers could enter the fray, use
> > the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for the end product
> > (the textbook).
> >
> > That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model,
> > but I have no problem at all with it.
>
> If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of the textbook
> business, then we can work together.  Otherwise, I'm going to be
> butting heads with you at every opportunity I can get.
-------------
This is *not* about a "state takeover" of the textbook business. I'll say it
again; if the material coming from Wickipedia is under the licenses you
state, the states cannot own the material. Period. Case closed. I don't have
a problem with that. What I am saying, is that we will see
(counterintuitively), some price inefficiencies rising from that.

Now, there might be ways to deal with those inefficiencies. Maybe we help
the adopting states by finding our own publishers, who are willing to state
(via contract) up front that they will not charge over a certain raw cost
percentage of the content. There are many (hypothetical, at present) ways to
deal with this.

> > Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in
> > order to remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The
> > commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the model of textbook
> > production, create cost and content inefficiencies. Why should thi
> > sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for taxpayers to get their
> > money's worth?
>
> It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's worth which is
> precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a state run
> publishing company.  What a monumentally bad idea!
--------------
Again, for all intents and purposes, the current situation *is* 'owned and
operated' by the states. Don't you see that? They create the standards, they
create the frameworks, they decide what content goes into the books, they
decide which books to approve (depending on how hard the commercial
publishers wine and dine the selection committees). I've been there.

COSTP's intent was to put *hard* restraints on a **public/private**
cooperative that would publish books economically. That is *not*  - as you
put it - "a state run publishing company".

> > Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if
> > necessary, would bring the print cost way down.
>
> You're not making any sense.  You can't just pick and choose
> *outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*.  And you've set down a
> policy that would result in horrible inefficiences.  You claim to be
> opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in favor of competitive
> 'printers'.  Same thing.
----------
With due respect (and I mean that), you are illustrating a complete
ignorance of the textbook publishing business. The "print" side of the
business is very competitive, because the barriers to entry are very low
(more economics).

The content side is *not* competitive, because there is essentially a
private content publishing cartel, owned by just a few publishing giants.
Surely, you're aware of the economic convergence that has taken place in
textbook publishing over the last few decades. Thonpson, Pearson, etc. These
are massive companies that price their goods in a cartel-like fashion. They
pass nothing on to their customers except what the non-cometitive market for
their goods will bear. Again, I"ve been there, Jimbo.

> > the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership
> > (don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's
> > *anything* but that!)
>
> But you *are* proposing a state-run content collective.  You've said
> so quite explicitly.  You want the state to take over the content
> production process from private firms.
------------
Read what I stated above, if you still think that after digesting what I've
written, then there isn't much hope for us working together.

> There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than
> this.
-----------
What? Again, read what I wrote. The states would *not* own the content, they
would *not* publish the books - *if* Wickipedia gets one finished, or proves
it can be done.

Do you think the states want COSTP? No way. Why? Because (and the devil is
in the details, I've invited a phone call to explain those details, but so
far, nothing but attacks and invective). OK, Why do the states not want to
take on COSTP?

Because the whole sick business of how content is selected, dumbed-down,
limited, etc. would be up to public view. Because there would actually be
*oversight* - private, citizen-oversight* applied to the process. This is
*anything but* the "state-run" balderdash that you're dishing out.

It's offensive, based on incomplete information, and not worthy of the hard
work that you and I both are trying to do.

> > The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by
> > anyone.  That's a difference in the original model, but be warned
> > that it will cost students and taxpayers more money than a program
> > owned by one (or more) states, designed to create content
> > efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still save money, and
> > create better content, and cost less than current books - but the
> > price efficiencies won't be as dramatic
>
> That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid.  I'm sorry, but
> this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me greatly.
-----------
Jimbo, calling what I wrote above 'stupid', won't make it that. You can say
it, but that doesn't make it true. I've done my level best to answer your
queries. Why the ad hominums? At this point, I'm mostly disappointed that
you would go into this forum, trash a project that is itwo hard years in the
making, etc. *without* the benefit of a phone call to have me answer deep
reservations that you have.

Instead, I find COSTP attacked as something *it isn't*. Labeled as
'socialist', and so on. What purpose does that serve?

> > You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts
> > of the model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable,
> > depending on where the money to publish comes from.
>
> If you are willing to abandon the parts of your model than involve
> cutting out private publishers via a state takeover, then I can
> support what you're doing.
------------
I said that from the beginning. I've also said that the cost efficiencies
won't be as great. (we might be able to find ways to help that out, going
forward).

> > Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would
> > own the content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the
> > Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the content, but would
> > (as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing benefits (but not
> > all of them), because come of the "cost-of-goods-sold" would be
> > removed by the fact that the content originates in open source.
>
> No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings under the open
> source model than under the 'state owned and controlled' model.
> Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual certainty that a state
> produced textbook would, open source or not, be extremely biased,
> shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than the free
> alternative.
----------------
Call me, because you're repeating yourself in the face of my statements to
the contrary. Look, many, many people who are "open source" supporters have
seen, and support COSTP. They took the time to discuss the fine details. Not
a *single* person of the dozens who have taken the time to learn the details
thinks this is a bad idea.

> Freedom works.
---------
Right, if you give it a chance.

"freedom is participation in power" - Cicero

Sanford
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Sanford Forte wrote:
>This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers
>control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form
>competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up
>the prices again.

Competition drives *down* prices.  Economics 101.

> If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy
> GNU-licensed content that will be "taken over" by commercial
> publishers (who will realize great economies from your free
> content), and take even *larger* profits as they compete for state
> business.

I hope they do realize larger profits, because then our success is
ensured all the more.

> Sure, the commercial publishers won't be able to "charge-up" for the
> content - do you think they'll care? Do you think that the very low
> rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of these books
> will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books adopted?
> Think again. I've been there.

If the state of California accepts a pilot text produced by the
Wikimedia Foundation into the curriculum (and why wouldn't they?),
then *anyone* could produce that book, and the license would guarantee
it.  At that point we'd have price competition to produce those books
-- now a commodity -- and the best possible outcome.

If you're going to say that for political reasons (bribes?) the
standards committee will never approve a 'free' textbook, then
*that's* where you need to focus your lobbying efforts, to ensure that
the process of getting acceptance is fair and open.

> Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't
> understand economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get
> into the fine points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect
> competition, if you like) that inefficiencies are created in this
> system.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Special pages

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
>>
>> Please could a sysop or admin or someone update the following pages?
>>
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Longpages
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Shortpages
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Wantedpages
>
>
> I'm really not wanting to come off as impatient, but why is nobody doing
> this? Is it a lot of work? Do you need someone to write an automated
> script? Please speak up and I'll do it! Or is there any other technical
> reason/difficulty/obstacle that I'm not seeing?
>
> Thanks,
> Timwi

I tried but I just managed to kill the wiki for about 5 minutes, with
nothing to show for it. I'm not game to give it another go when I can't
kill my query if I need to. But like I've said at the village pump, I
don't know why you're so anxious to have them updated, since they're
useless anyway. What use is Special:Lonelypages, for example, if it only
goes up to C?

-- Tim Starling <tstarlingphysicsunimelbeduau>


subject: [WikiEN-l] There is also an english wikipedia available

body:
To quote Walter...

Could editors on the various international wikipedia
and english wikipedia (that is the correct
denomination I guess) think of *offering* to the
proper wikipedia, any relevant article that landed by
mistake in a wrong language on their wikipedia ?

such as http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant

written in italian on the en wikipedia

whose content was first blanked, then proposed for
deletion, and finally googled translated.

Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by
this article ?
But were they told ? I saw no sign of it anyway.

I put the link in the talk page of the equivalent
article.

but...

In the spirit of international cooperation, could not
this kind of offering be natural and automatic ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by
> this article ?
> But were they told ? I saw no sign of it anyway.

This is a good idea, but how to tell them?