subject: [WikiEN-l] Goatausaur for sysop

body:
Isn't it currently the convention to use [[Wikipedia:Requests for
adminship]] for this?

At 01:09 PM 6/21/2003, you wrote:

>I want to propose Goatasaur to become a sysop. (This is my third attempt.
>Two previous attempts ran into technical difficulties!) In my experience
>Goatasaur is a competent, serious contributor who would make a extremely
>good and effective sysop. It is a pleasure to propose him.
>
>JT
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----
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


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Crown Copyright

body:
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:37:33 -0700
>
> Of course you would score a major coup for the project by getting the
> copyright holder (the Royal Navy if I recall) to allow us to use their text
> under terms of the GNU FDL.

I'm working on letters to various government officials pointing out
that since the US government is required by law to publish in the
public domain, its publications are used worldwide. If other
governments, such as Canada, adopted a similiar practice, there
would be more diversity in public domain information to choose
from, and projects like ours would be able balance American
perspective with material from other countries.

I encourage other Canadians (and all citizens of countries without
that lovely American law, for that matter) to apply a little pressure
to your government officials. A few well-placed letters on issues
that aren't in the public eye really can make a difference.

- Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Proper foreign names

body:
> From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:42:36 -0700
>
> This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea =
> of
> spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' =
> pronunciation.
> The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - =
> the
> actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be =
> left
> to stand along English lines.

<snip>

> All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc)  =
> let
> "Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of
> Czechlosovakia.  Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the
> denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere.  Why depricated?
> Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for =
> example)
> . Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this issue, but I believe that this
suggestion is misguided. Proper names have been translated from
their original language into others long before English came on the
scene. Trying to establish a "proper" way to write and say a name
would be next to impossible, and not very desireable. It also
assumes that each place is inhabited by people who speak a
single language and use the same names universally. What is be
the "proper" name of "Africa"? Will Canadian places use English or
French names? Will Korea become Hanguk (used in the South) or
Chosen (used in the North)?

In English, the capital of the Czech Republic is Prague. This is a
translation of the name. As you point out, there is some
momentum in the English to use translations that more closely
approximate the pronunciation in the dominant language of the
area. However, language evolves naturally. Wikipedia can declare
"Prague" deprecated, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the
rest of the English speaking world, and it would make the project
look silly.

 - Stephen G.
-------
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
How's that? Honestly there is no pleasing people. b on b was no good... all of a sudden w on b is no good..  and announced so rudely.  I feel so compelled now to comply with the complications of the great 14th century bard.

-S-

| I am hereby announcing my intention to ignore (neither read nor respond to)
| any message that arrives in my inbox in other than black text on
| background. This includes both white text on black background as WELL as
| black on black.
|
| On a side-note, I'd sure like to discuss the new naming convention that
| Stevertigo has suggested. How about we move it off of the mailing list
| (where there seem to be *cough* problems *cough* with some peoples' email)
| and onto the Wikipedia where it belongs? I suggest [[Wikipedia:Naming
| conventions (Proper names)]].
|
| -----
| 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
|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030621/c498b9c4/attachment.htm


from_name: Pedro M.V.

body:
Not, really. I was thinking about the dictatorship of propietary players and where obtain a free code player and file extension.

Regards.

P.D. : I am not interested nor in often sexually explicit beyond words or in the announces of spamradio about them. So, delete me of their mind.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Jansson" <jansson at gmx.net>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

> Pedro M.V. schrieb:
> > I think we need a free code Wikimedia Program to recieve radio broadcasting in the Internet . This would be a program similar to real player and media player, but free code, not property owned by a company.
>
> We could ask the guys from Spamradio if they'd like to start a Wikipedia
> articles channel :-)
> If they don't, maybe they'll help us in setting up our own (especially
> with choosing a good text to speech program). There's not much info on
> http://spamradio.org/html/background.html
>
> I really love this idea, but I guess it's not exactly what you were
> thinking of.
>
> Kurt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Proper" foreign names

body:
Stevertigo said in part:
>Once again - referring to how confused people are.
>Well, Lir was right. The only people who disagree with
>that were people stuck in convention.

Oh was he? Crist?bal Col?n is SPANISH but Columbus was born in
Italian-speaking Genoa under the name Cristoforo Colombo. This underscores my
point; Different languages have different words for the same thing. And
pardon me if I'm stuck in the conventions of the English language.

>But you do have some strong points to address - however,
>Im calling for a change of convention - Im not making claim
>that its *not conventional to simply follow convention. I'm
>calling to question the *merits of that convention - and
>whether its a convention from another era - say, 1672.
>(Before telephones, I might add.)

This convention is from this era. Here and now and used throughout the
English-speaking world -- especially by native speakers. You are trying to
subvert that by inputing your minority POV that names should be exactly like
they are in the places from where the names originate. Sorry but that isn't
going to happen since /most languages/ are written in non-Latin scripts that
are completely unrecognizable by the great majority of English speakers.

The merits of the convention we use is that it follows already established
conventions used throughout the English-speaking world. Different languages
have different rules on pronunciation and rules of stress so when you present
an English-speaking person not familiar with the language a given foreign
word is in (even if it is in Latin-based script) what you are going to get
from the mouth of that person is utter garbage that will vary from person to
person. /That/ is exactly why many foreign words are Anglicized.

>Well your toughest argument by far is based on a limitation
>of the En wikipedia to en "native English speakers" - again.

I did not limit en.wiki to native speakers. I merely said that whatever
conventions we do use should have an emphasis on the needs of native
speakers. This is only fair (see below).

>As a said before -- being the lingua franca has advantages
>and disadvantages.  Among the disadvantages is that English
>is no longer owned bu the English ("England for the English")

Think of who gets harmed most; A German speaker who knows English as a second
language and who already has access to a German encyclopedia that follows
proper German rules and conventions.  Or an English speaker with an English
language encyclopedia that follows a weird convention that replaces the place
and person names they know with foreign words. Now the German speaker gets to
have an encyclopedia in his native tongue that follows the rules of his
language but the English speaker does not get to have such an encyclopedia.
How is that fair?

>I disagree, again, that the only reason for redirects
>is a "hack". As for "reflecting a bias" -- Im not sure this
>is NPOV.  IS the area of language forever to be an issue
>where the prime directive of  NPOV is undermined?

What? How is it at all neutral to replace terms known by the majority of
English speakers with terms that are only known by a few? I would venture to
guess that there is no English speaker alive who knows all 3,000 or so
languages in the world. Sure, they would be perfectly at home with your
"convention" but the rest of us won't.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
Erik wrote:
>Magnus-
>> Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we
>> also have a test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
>
>Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)

IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever textbook is being worked on
should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means that if a textbook is on
Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the book. There will be
neutrality rules but they only apply from within whatever discipline the
textbook is being written for. So for example a chapter on evolution would
focus on the major differing views on the subject that exist from within the
biological sciences but it would not seriously consider the POV of groups
outside the biological sciences.

The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is because our audience is a
general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV is because our
audience is very focused (the biology student, for example) and we need to
bring that student through the material in a logical and efficient way.

Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ; we leave
out most of the history and the different political views on the subject and
just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have a single paragraph at the
end sating something about access to the procedure and that risks doctors
face when they choose to specialize in this area.

So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each time somebody tried to
write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were quickly thwarted.

Textbooks are organized in a very different way than an encyclopedia and they
also have a specific audience. These two things make textbook material
completely incompatible with Wikipedia. Thus a separate project is needed
(and probably a few tweaks to the software to make it easy to have chapters).

Hm. Maybe http://textbook.wikimedia.org would be better... I guess it doesn't
really matter because that URL will be replaced by a real name for the
project as soon as somebody thinks of one.

--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
>> Erik wrote:
>>> Magnus-
>>>> Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a
>>>> test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
>>>
>>> Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
>>
>> IMO it can't and shouldn't.
>Wasn't that just a joke commenting on the apparent typo "gunpedia"?

There I go again. :) On second read I see the typo now. Funny stuff but the
rest of my message still is valid since it is not directed specifically at
Erik's comment.

--- mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proper Foreign Names

body:
I see my initial suggestion meets with some resistance. Some of it is
reasonable, some not.
Perhaps it will be suggested again.

As for Czechoslovakia... I never claimed to be particular to those
interests... rather the people who live in Praha dont call it Prague.

I read all of Mavs points, and as usual he ignores any strong argument
against his position. Quite Ignoratio Elenchi.  It did clear up some
particular points, but these were mixed in so much triteness -- "your
minority opinion", "Think of who gets harmed most" -- its hard to gauge the
merits of his reasoning -- if it comes from a grocery shelf or not.

I asked a rather lofty and expansive question: "IS the area of language
forever to be anissue where the prime directive of  NPOV is undermined?" To
wit Mav replied:

    "What? How is it at all neutral to replace terms known by the majority
of
     English speakers with terms that are only known by a few? "

Once again he assumes the context of English as being limited to a majority
interest - rather than deal with the possibility that conventions can
change, if reasonable.  Maverick goes on:

    "I would venture to  guess that there is no English speaker alive who
knows all
     3,000 or so languages in the world. Sure, they would be perfectly at
home with your
      "convention" but the rest of us won't."

Sigh. This is perhaps not the time for this discussion.  Granted, I prefaced
the idea as a highly academic one - one that would require some changed
minds. It no doubt would arouse some ire, as such things tend.  I also
predicted where that typical ire would come from and I was spot-on. :}

Respectfully,
-Steven


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
Vicki and Richards thoughful comments -- even on such a trivial issue -- are
never to be underappreciated.  I was wondering why the issue was a *issue
again...

--plain text Steve.

| When you first posted in WoB I inadvertantly haddisplay of HTML version if
| available switched on. After reading and closing it I was seeing stripes
| everywhere! Reverting to text view has kept me happy. And I'd just like to
| point out again that Steve wasn't really to blame for the initial
problems -
|  rather those people who posted in HTML (to which Steve replied). I still
| maintain that all HTML posting is bad news for both the digest and archive
| versions of this list.
|
| BTW I view in black on warm grey. The environment surrounding my monitor
is
| reasonably light, so it offers the most comfortable viewing for my
| situation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: "Proper" Foreign Names

body:
Stevertigo wrote:
>I read all of Mavs points, and as usual he ignores any
>strong argument against his position.

And where were you hiding your "strong" arguments? I didn't see any.

>It did clear up some particular points, but these
>were mixed in so much triteness -- "your minority opinion",
>"Think of who gets harmed most" -- its hard to gauge the
>merits of his reasoning -- if it comes from a grocery shelf
>or not.

It is hard to measure the merits of /your/ reasoning. Why make it more
difficult for English speakers to use what is supposed to be an English
language encyclopedia? Sorry if I'm a bit "trite" when somebody trys to make
the English Wikipedia less useful to its primary audience.

>Once again he assumes the context of English as being
>limited to a majority interest - rather than deal with the possibility
>that conventions can change, if reasonable.

If and *when* the majority rules of English grammar and usage change then we
should follow that. In isolated cases words have changed from a previous
Anglicization to something more that more closely resembles the way the
foreign word looks and sounds.  Beijing has replaced Peking, for example BUT
the Mandarin characters have not yet entered our language so we use a
well-accepted transliteration instead.

Our job is to follow majority naming conventions that are already
well-established in the English speaking world as much as possible. Our job
/is not/ to push some minority linguistic agenda that would render our
article titles unrecognizable by a majority of our readers (especially the
native speaking ones).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Textbooks and other Wikibooks

body:
I might have been a bit rash but due to the fact that wikimedia.com was stolen
by a cyber-squatter I went ahead and bought wikibook.com and wikibook.org for
the Wikimedia Foundation (somebody else could go ahead and buy the plural if
they want - but I may still beat them to it).

My thoughts are this; Wikibook could be a new uber-project aimed at creating a
host of different types of e-books. Different broad types of wikibooks would
get their own sub-domain.

So for example textbooks would be at http://textbook.wikibook.org while
fiction would be at http://fiction.wikibook.org. Internationalization would
not be accomplished by sub-domains but by having different directories for
each language. All English language textbooks, for example, would be at
http://textbook.wikibook.org/en/ and all Spanish language textbooks would be
at http://textbook.wikibook.org/es/.

This of course is very long-term planning for where Wikimedia may go in the
next several years but IMO it is an obvious extention of where we are already
going.

I'm still open to better ideas on what to name the textbook project though (if
people think that project should have a very specific name). My above
purchase was impulsive but I would probably secure other domain names for
Wikimedia if good names are proposed.

But I kinda like the idea of having one domain name for an uber e-book project
if for no other reason than that would reduce the domain name registration
fee load on the Foundation (which is US$100 for 10 years ; I'm a cheapo and
only registered the domain names for a year at 20 bucks each, though).

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sifter code (was: filtering, etc.)

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet.
> Where can we find this?  Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?

The magnificent and magnanimous Magnus Manske spoke thusly:

  http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/sifter-l/2002-November/000034.html

Axel

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


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
At 01:42 PM 6/21/03 -0700, Stevertigo wrote:
>How's that? Honestly there is no pleasing people. b on b was no good...
>all of a sudden w on b is no good..  and announced so rudely.  I feel so
>compelled now to comply with the complications of the great 14th century bard.
>

Plain text was good enough for Dante and Shakespeare, and it's good enough
for mailing lists.

_Different people find different things most readable_. Therefore, it makes
sense
to let the _reader_ decide what colors to display messages in.

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database trouble again

body:
Nick-
> Everybody else: Now our database server has 2047MB of memory rather than
> 896MB of memory.  It should be much faster.  ;)

Thanks for fixing this! Be careful, though, or you'll soon have Brion's
workload on your shoulders ;-)

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dates: Your vote is needed

body:
Erik wrote:
>Today Mav changed this to the effect that the style
>"Month Day" should be  used on pages about US/world
>topics, and "Day Month" on pages about British topics.

No - that's not what I wrote. I wrote that whatever date style that is already
in an article should, in general, be respected the same way as we already
respect American/International English spellings. I then added that it might
be preferable to use the formats which are more appropriate to the subject
matter. So a purely Americana article might read better if it had American
date and spelling styles and a purely British topic might read better if
International date and spelling styles are used. This is a compromise since
there was no clear majority supporting either style as absolute policy. So we
must tolerate both. If we do not then whatever side losses is going to /very/
pissed and many of them may leave or fork the project based on such a minor
difference.

>This is analog to our currently (IMHO silly) rule to have
>British spelling on British pages, US spelling on .. pretty
>much every  other page. This further leads to a split into a
>British Wikipedia and an "American" Wikipedia.

If you want to see a real split (sic fork) see what happens if we outlaw one
or another spelling style. Date formats are directly analogous to the
spelling situation.

>Of course,
>no similar rule exists for German style   if I wrote "17. June"
>in an article about a German subject, I would be  called a
>vandal after three reverts.

German style? Why the straw man? We are talking about two competing /English
language/ styles. What the Germans do is their own business and has no
bearing on the subject at hand.

>Interestingly, what Mav did is in contradiction to the
>current distribution of opinion on the talk page

The distribution of opinion is that a large group of people want to have the
International style be the absolute standard and another large group want to
have the American style be the absolute standard. Both sides should be able
to live with a compromise that allows both. Just like our policy on spelling.

>....
>Mav has now turned a separate option into policy,
>namely the  one of separating between UK and
>US/world topics.

Again this is a mischaracterization. See above.

>I do not think that we should have a UK-Wikipedia
>and a US/World- Wikipedia. Personally, I would love to
>have the following compromise:
>
>        * US-style spelling in all articles
>        * British style dates in all articles

And then World War III starts between American and non-American Wikipedians.

>But the worst solution is one where every article looks
>different. That conveys an unprofessional image: That
>we only can maintain consistency on  a single page,
>but not throughout our encyclopedia.

An even worse situation than that is the pissing off of very large segments of
our contributors by choosing one spelling or date style over the other. The
day articles are already at the American style and that is where they should
stay (thus respecting and tolerating the date style choice of the original
authors of those pages). But there are redirects from the International date
style to each of these pages. Contributors can therefore choose which date
style they think is best for them and for the article in question.

I don't buy the argument that we look unprofessional by tolerating variant
spelling and date formats. We /would/ look unprofessional if we lost a large
segment of our users because we made an absolute policy to use one or the
other style though.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikitech-l] layout and stylesheet

body:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> Oh no, we are perfectly balanced, it's non-free 'pedias that contain
> too little about computer stuff, science, pop music and
> sci-fi/fantasy, and surprisingly lot about some boring and not very
> relevant topics.

:-)

The issue of balance among topics is indeed interesting.  I think the
wiki mechanism that anybody can add information is the perfect
guarantee for relevance.  But the balance will reflect the interests
of those who *write*, not those who only *read*.

I digitized an old Swedish encyclopedia ("Nordisk familjebok",
http://runeberg.org/nf/) and it is clear that the 1st edition
(1876-1899) contains a lot more of ancient Greek and Roman mythology
and history (stuff known by people who took Latin and Greek in school)
and the 2nd edition (1904-1926) focuses more on inventions, technology
and contemporary politics (stuff known to people who took French,
German, and English in school).

I think you should be able to trace similar trends if you compare
different editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Larousse, Brockhaus,
or other encyclopediae.  So it should be natural that Wikipedia
reflects the interests of those living in the 21st century and who are
familiar with computers.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dates: Your vote is needed

body:
LMAO.  Style philosophy and its applications to conduct or structure. Nobody
wins.

It reminds me of the 2000 US Election where lawyers would argue in state
court for a spiritual, non-literal interpretation of the law, and then cross
the street to federal court to make a letter of the law argument against the
spirit of the law (and vice-versa).

Cant we all just toke a bong?
-Steve

| >Interestingly, what Mav did is in contradiction to the
| >current distribution of opinion on the talk page
|
| The distribution of opinion is that a large group of people want to have
the
| International style be the absolute standard and another large group want
to
| have the American style be the absolute standard. Both sides should be
able
| to live with a compromise that allows both. Just like our policy on
spelling.

| I don't buy the argument that we look unprofessional by tolerating variant
| spelling and date formats. We /would/ look unprofessional if we lost a
large
| segment of our users because we made an absolute policy to use one or the
| other style though.


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

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

Stevertigo wrote:
| This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of
| spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names'
pronunciation.
| The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha"
- - the
| actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left
| to stand along English lines.

Hear him, hear him!  I have long lobbied for my city to re-adopt its
true name of Yang-na, given to it by its original inhabitants.  The
religious-fundamentalist colonialist oppressors have successfully
insisted on their own foreign name of "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora, la
Reina de Los Angeles de la Porciuncula" for far too long now -- and even
that abomination of a name is often abbreviated even further, implying
that the Christian concept of angels defines our city in its entirety!

It is good to know that Stevertigo agrees with me that mere millions of
people and centuries of tradition cannot be allowed to stand in the way
of CORRECTNESS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+9SXzv/8xpnvE6M8RAvAuAKCYxFMWLz8G3NfxO0uA8u5PbSkPoACgpcAG
0wem7Orx5BDCmzcgRDylYvY=
=kJFK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: jlk7e at juno.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proper Foreign Names

body:
I have to say that I strongly disagree with this.  In English, Prague is always called "Prague", not Praha.  We use Vienna, not Wien, and Moscow rather than Moskva.  These ought to be the names of the articles, as they are not incorrect, and they are the way that the place is most familiarly known in English.  Furthermore, if this standard were adopted, it would break open the possibility for a whole lot of other changes.  For instance, monarchs' names are currently, for the most part, transliterated into English.  Country names are translated.  If we don't translate city names that are always translted into English, why shouldn't we have articles on King Fernando VII of Spain, or on Deutschland or Rossiya, and so forth?

Further, I think it's ridiculous to act as though this is somehow offensive to people from those places.  As an English-speaker, I'm not offended that French people call my country the Etats-Unis, or that they call London "Londres".  Why should I be?

Also, for somebody so sensitive to Czech national concerns, perhaps you should be aware that Czechoslovakia has not existed for more than ten years...sigh.

--__--__--

Message: 14
From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo at attbi.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:08:26 -0700
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names
Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

(this is being sent in HTML - white on black. I hope... you like. I like.)

This may sound offlandish - but I want to throw support behind the idea of
spelling proper names in close accord to their actual names' pronunciation.
The English spelling/pronunciation "Prague" would redirect to "Praha" - the
actual name of the place. This is not something that should simply be left
to stand along English lines.

 The idea of keeping English consistent is valid -- the proper spelling of
English words means that all who read that word can interpret it to a
reasonable degree of similarity - albeit in their own accents. (Dan and I
have been talking at length about this).  Proper English spelling then is
generally important because it provides an anchor for the word - which is
used by billions around the world.  Similar to Han characters, which can be
read consistenly by peoples who can barely say hello to each other.

Hence this is also a good reason also to name proper names according to
their proper pronunciation.  Proper names have long undergone a normal
Anglicization when translated to English.  Attempts in different aread have
been made to reform this --  the Hepburn system given way to the pinyin,
being an example -- We do it here already too: [[The Chang Jiang]] article
redirects from Yangtze - perhaps in tune with the proper name of the
Yangtze - I dont know for certain -- but this edit was done by a
ZhongGuo-pedian, and not an Anglo-pedian - hence deference in Chinese
matters would naturally goes to the guy/gal who is actually Chinese.  Im not
going to give Erik any lectures about travel in Deutchland.

A part of the reason why the En.Wikipedia has far more traffic than all of
the other languages combined.  (Internet access issues, WP founded by
English speakers, etc.) is that English itself, being the world lingua
franca - tends to attract people to it - simply because of the numbers.
There is no reason why a foreign speaker, even with poor English skills,
should feel like they are unwelcome -  (as long as they can take
correction - but thats attitude -related) - nor should they need to
excercise some kind of compartmentalized way of thinking about their
articles  -  certainly integrated language tools -implementation might
someday speed up the process of making more articles avaliable.

In fact - what it looks like to me is that the En wikipedia will be the
major component in a world language wikipedia - that allows for all kinds of
cross-textual content. To separate these out by language makes some sense -
for sake of non-confusion, but I submit that these other variants represent
rifts between English and these other languages - and hence the willingness
of people to use them.  Perhaps a WorldPedia where only a few of the major
languages are allowed would fit the bill to start.

Naturally grammatical errors will come up, and this is just the price to be
paid for being the common tongue.  There will always be a struggle between
the forces of ethnoconvergence and ethnostasis - both of which see each
other as being 'diverent' and 'destructive' - according to their different
value systems.  The one reveres multiculturalism, while the other reveres
only its own.

All that said, I'd just like to see Prague redirect to "Praha" -(etc)  let
"Prague" be recorded as a depricated way of naming the capital city of
Czechlosovakia.  Proper names, at least we can all agree - belong to the
denzens of those cities, and not to people elsewhere.  Why depricated?
Because I play go, chat, etc, with people from Czechlosovakia (for example)
. Not something that was a reality as little as a decade ago.

WLBUY,
-SteveM.

--__--__--

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

End of WikiEN-l Digest


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Goatausaur for sysop

body:
I want to propose Goatasaur to become a sysop. (This is my third attempt.
Two previous attempts ran into technical difficulties!) In my experience
Goatasaur is a competent, serious contributor who would make a extremely
good and effective sysop. It is a pleasure to propose him.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
Blue and gold are fine, they're the colors of my alma mater. :) By the way,
I trust that you realize that my "proclamation" below was tongue-in-cheek,
and not at all intended rudely.

-Dante

At 01:42 PM 6/21/2003, you wrote:
>How's that? Honestly there is no pleasing people. b on b was no good...
>all of a sudden w on b is no good..  and announced so rudely.  I feel so
>compelled now to comply with the complications of the great 14th century bard.
>
>-S-
>
>
>| I am hereby announcing my intention to ignore (neither read nor respond to)
>| any message that arrives in my inbox in other than black text on
>| background. This includes both white text on black background as WELL as
>| black on black.
>|
>| On a side-note, I'd sure like to discuss the new naming convention that
>| Stevertigo has suggested. How about we move it off of the mailing list
>| (where there seem to be *cough* problems *cough* with some peoples' email)
>| and onto the Wikipedia where it belongs? I suggest [[Wikipedia:Naming
>| conventions (Proper names)]].
>|
>| -----
>| Dante Alighieri
>| <mailto:dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com>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
>|


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

body:
I'd just like to point out that if I couldn't succeed in getting [[Occam's
Razor]] to redirect to [[Ockham's Razor]] (rather than vice versa) then
there is no way in hell that [[Prague]] will ever redirect to [[Praha]]. ;)

-----
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


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>>I'm pleased to announce the existence of the
>>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
>>organized under the laws of Florida, United States.

Great! Well, good things take their time... :-)

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> I also noticed the Nupedia stuff. Does that mean that Nupedia is also now part
> of the Wikimedia family? I'm not certain if the Nupedians (if there are any
> left or who care) would be too happy about that.... Oh well, maybe we can
> bring some life to that project. I still think Nupedia (perhaps under the
> name GNUpedia) should be refactored to be a repository of expert-approved
> Wikipedia articles (along the lines of Larry's Sifter project). Thus that
> project would be a stable distribution of Wikipedia content but all editing
> would still take place at Wikipedia.

I'd like "gnupedia" for that as well. "Sifter" doesn't really sound too
interesting somehow. (And, as one of the more active former Nupedia
authors, I don't object including Nupedia in the wikimedia family:-)

Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a
test wiki for the gunpedia project set up? It might be confusing to
implement the rather restrictive sifter setup on test.wikipedia.org.

Magnus


body:
Magnus-

> Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a
> test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?

Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proper Foreign Names

body:
I'm starting to understand the Lir school of edit first ask questions later.
I'm sure Mav would agree.

-Steverti Gogh-

| Dante: I'd just like to point out that if I couldn't succeed in getting
[[Occam's
| Razor]] to redirect to [[Ockham's Razor]] (rather than vice versa) then
| there is no way in hell that [[Prague]] will ever redirect to [[Praha]].
;)


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Intention to (re-)ban: Pizza Puzzle (Lir)

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Unless there are objections, I intend to ban "Pizza Puzzle", who is
>another incarnation of Lir. Evidence:
>
>- same editing style (lots of minor edits, lots of sections)
>- same language
>In this edit, he declares the creation of a "Pizza Puzzle Banking
>Consortium" and signs as "The Wiki Proletariat":
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/
>wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:WikiMoney&diff=1053016&oldid=1052965
>- changed his user page to "HAHHAHAAH VANDAL POWER! YOU CANNOT STOP ME!"
>- linked a Googlism.com search for "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" (Lir's real name) on
>James Duffy's talk page (the Googlism result is: "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a
>troll")
>
>Reasons for enforcing ban:
>
>In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make
>dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds, e.g.:
>
>* (cur) (last) . . M 03:54 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:53 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:53 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:52 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . M 03:51 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:51 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . M 03:49 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:48 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>* (cur) (last) . . 03:46 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
>
>This is extremely annoying: clutters RC, wastes harddisk space, makes the
>generation of meaningful diffs more difficult.
>
>Since Lir is already banned, I believe it should only take very little to
>re-ban him. I know some people think he can be reformed, but his
>unwillingness to change his behavior here shows otherwise.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>
>
I haven't had much interaction with this account, so I can't really
speak for or against them. I will say that Adam hasn't told me about
this account, and other than being suspiciously similar to Adam, and
making lots of edits, what's the harm? If it is another incarnation of
Lir, and they have the same writing style and habits, why ban them if
they aren't harassing other users or defacing pages? (Or are they?)

--

--cprompt


from_name: a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
Dante writes:

> I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it
> is, it probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone
> think about changing the default behavior of the search box? As of
> now, if I type something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage
> return, or whatever) the behavior is as if I had pressed the search
> button. I suggest changing this to acting is if I had pressed the
> GO button.

And Richard Grevers writes:

> Agreed. I would also like to have the Search/Go on pages other than
> the index page, rather than just search on other pages (saves
> having to reload the index all the time.

I'm confused. When I press return, it behaves like I'd clicked Go.

Also, the Search pane is on every page.

Unless these changes were made today in response to these
suggestions. But I thought it had always been this way... :-)

--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk


from_name: JFrost8401 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dates: Your vote is needed

body:
In a message dated 22/06/03 01:58:15 GMT Daylight Time, erik_moeller at gmx.de
writes:

> I do not think that we should have a UK-Wikipedia and a US/World-
> Wikipedia. Personally, I would love to have the following compromise:
>
>         * US-style spelling in all articles
>         * British style dates in all articles
>
> But the worst solution is one where every article looks different. That
> conveys an unprofessional image: That we only can maintain consistency on
> a single page, but not throughout our encyclopedia.
>
> I would like to ask you to vote on the above page, preferably for one of
> the two options "Month Day" or "Day Month" (I'm trying to use my evil
> manipulative powers here), so that we can get a clear result, change (or
> not change) all our articles accordingly, and move on to more important
> things.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> __________

Not a generous offer, Erik - why not British spelling, US dates? I get fed up
with adding "in the [[US]]" to articles where it it is simply assumed that
there is only one country that matters. The day I have to use US spelling is the
day I stop contributing.

Jim (aka jimfbleak)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030622/36ca8725/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dates: Your vote is needed

body:
Our official "Manual of Style" policy until today was that dates are
written in the form "Month Day", what is referred to by some as the
"American style" (even though some British newspapers used it since the
19th century).

Today Mav changed this to the effect that the style "Month Day" should be
used on pages about US/world topics, and "Day Month" on pages about
British topics. This is analog to our currently (IMHO silly) rule to have
British spelling on British pages, US spelling on .. pretty much every
other page. This further leads to a split into a British Wikipedia and an
"American" Wikipedia. Of course, no similar rule exists for German style
-- if I wrote "17. June" in an article about a German subject, I would be
called a vandal after three reverts.

Interestingly, what Mav did is in contradiction to the current
distribution of opinion on the talk page

[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]

where 21 users favor the British style, 16 the American style and 8/10
respectively voted for two very similar options that amount to "do what
you want". Mav has now turned a separate option into policy, namely the
one of separating between UK and US/world topics.

I do not think that we should have a UK-Wikipedia and a US/World-
Wikipedia. Personally, I would love to have the following compromise:

        * US-style spelling in all articles
        * British style dates in all articles

But the worst solution is one where every article looks different. That
conveys an unprofessional image: That we only can maintain consistency on
a single page, but not throughout our encyclopedia.

I would like to ask you to vote on the above page, preferably for one of
the two options "Month Day" or "Day Month" (I'm trying to use my evil
manipulative powers here), so that we can get a clear result, change (or
not change) all our articles accordingly, and move on to more important
things.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] GNUArt.net switching from GPL to GFDL?

body:
This may interest people looking for GFDL-compatible photos... GNUArt
(http://www.gnuart.net/) has a collection of various media (photos,
music, etc) under GPL license. Apparently they're considering switching
en masse to GFDL, as GPL doesn't really cover public performance rights
etc as clearly as one might like.

I've attached below a couple posts from their mailing list (in french).
Archives at http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/gnuart/ , but I think you
have to sign up for the list -- and yahoo -- to get at it.

Of course, even if they don't switch it's always possible to contact
authors directly about dual-licensing.

Okay, back to lurking... :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

[deja, en mon francais terrifiant]

Peut-etre ceci interesserait des gens ici qui cherchent des photos
compatible avec GFDL... GNUArt (http://www.gnuart.net/), qui a une
collection des media divers (photos, musique, etc) sous license GPL,
commence a penser a switcher tout vers GFDL.

(Naturellement, meme si ils ne changent rien, on peut toujours contacter
les auteurs directement a propos licensing double.)

Voici un-deux postes de sa liste de diffusion (archive a
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/gnuart/ , apparament pas accessible que
pour des souscrits):

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gnuart] probleme
Date: 	Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:06:38 +0200
From: 	mirko vidovic <mirko at vidovic.org>
Reply-To: 	gnuart at yahoogroupes.fr
To: 	gnuart at yahoogroupes.fr

Bonjour
Rien de grave dans ce que j'ai a vous annoncer mais un changement
fondamental se profile a l'horizon :
Il se trouve que la Licence GNU GPL, aussi puissante qu'elle soit ne
considere jamais les "representations publiques".
Donc, pense switcher toute la galerie vers la GNU FDL (Free
Documentation Licence) qui elle gere cet aspect supplementaire.
Y a-t'il des objections ?

[snip, this from a later post:]

On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 11:10 AM, antman wrote:
> En d'autres mots, concr?tement, ?a signifie quoi ?
> Quels en sont les principales diff?rences (en fran?ais dans le texte) ?

Les droits sont les memes a la difference que les projections,
concerts, expositions, representations, lectures publiques sont
explicitement (au lieu de implicitement) couvertes.

La FDL ne couvre cependant pas les programmes informatiques, seulement
les oeuvres statiques, la seule oeuvre a etre touchee est donc
l'animation Flash d'Esenka.

> Faut changer les textes de licences dans tous nos .zip ?
Ne vous embetez pas, un script Perl y parviendra a merveille.
--
http://gnuart.net
Artists call me a nerd
Nerds call me an artist


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dates: Your vote is needed

body:
Daniel-
> No - that's not what I wrote. I wrote that whatever date style that is
> already in an article should, in general, be respected

Oh, so there's also a firstborn rule. OK, that makes things even more
complicated for editors.

1) Check: article has dates in it? Yes: Use that style - No: Proceed
2) Check: article is about a British subject? Yes: Use British style - No:
Proceed
3) Use "American" style

> This is a compromise since there was no clear majority supporting either
> style as absolute policy. So we must tolerate both.

As I said before, this is an illogical conclusion. Many of the same people
who voted FOR either of the existing options have already REJECTED the
other options that were listed. Nowhere was it made clear that if no
"clear majority" (whatever that is) could be determined, one of the other
listed options would be used. Nor have you been invested with the
authority to decide which option that would be.

> If we do not then
> whatever side
> losses is going to /very/ pissed and many of them may leave or fork the
> project based on such a minor difference.

That can always happen, with all of our policies. Whether it is worth
it should be decided by the Wikipedia community at large, not by a few
members of it. I personally think it is, but maybe many others agree with
you. So far it doesn't look like it.

>> Of course,
>> no similar rule exists for German style   if I wrote "17. June"
>> in an article about a German subject, I would be  called a
>> vandal after three reverts.

> German style? Why the straw man? We are talking about two competing /English
> language/ styles. What the Germans do is their own business and has no
> bearing on the subject at hand.

The underlying logic between the British/American split is to accommodate
the feelings of different users. Well, there's a third group of countries
that adds a dot after the number. One of these countries is Germany,
others are Denmark and Norway. Should we now, according to the same logic,
use this style in articles about Danish, German, and Norse subjects?

My point is: Giving stylistic privileges to one group of users working on
one segment of articles does not seem to be in the spirit of a neutral,
consistent encyclopedia to me.

> The distribution of opinion is that a large group of people want to have the
> International style be the absolute standard and another large group want to
> have the American style be the absolute standard. Both sides should be able
> to live with a compromise that allows both.

Then let them vote for it, please. If they think the "compromise" (which
heavily favors the British user segment of Wikipedia) is worse than the
danger of losing some contributors, I don't think you have the privilege
to enforce another solution.

>>        * US-style spelling in all articles
>>        * British style dates in all articles

> And then World War III starts between American and non-American Wikipedians.

If so, hopefully one side will win and we can carry on with our business.

> I don't buy the argument that we look unprofessional by tolerating variant
> spelling and date formats. We /would/ look unprofessional if we lost a large
> segment of our users because we made an absolute policy to use one or the
> other style though.

Personally, I don't think that will happen. Sure, there are always
absolutists. But if we agree on a style as a result of an open community
process, most people will probably be able to accept it.

What we do not want is a cabal. Agreed?

Regards,

Erik


body:
Unless there are objections, I intend to ban "Pizza Puzzle", who is
another incarnation of Lir. Evidence:

- same editing style (lots of minor edits, lots of sections)
- same language
In this edit, he declares the creation of a "Pizza Puzzle Banking
Consortium" and signs as "The Wiki Proletariat":
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/
wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:WikiMoney&diff=1053016&oldid=1052965
- changed his user page to "HAHHAHAAH VANDAL POWER! YOU CANNOT STOP ME!"
- linked a Googlism.com search for "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]" (Lir's real name) on
James Duffy's talk page (the Googlism result is: "Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is a
troll")

Reasons for enforcing ban:

In spite of repeated warning, persists in his annoying habit to make
dozens of edits per page within an interval of seconds, e.g.:

* (cur) (last) . . M 03:54 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:53 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:53 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:52 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . M 03:51 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:51 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . M 03:49 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:48 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle
* (cur) (last) . . 03:46 22 Jun 2003 . . Pizza Puzzle

This is extremely annoying: clutters RC, wastes harddisk space, makes the
generation of meaningful diffs more difficult.

Since Lir is already banned, I believe it should only take very little to
re-ban him. I know some people think he can be reformed, but his
unwillingness to change his behavior here shows otherwise.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Many things

body:
>
> Subject:
> [Wikitech-l] search in spanish wikipedia is not workin
>

Fixed.

>   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <wikidown at wikipedia.org>
>    (reason: 550 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown)

Should be wikidown at bomis.com; this is now set in LocalSettings.php (it
used to be hard coded), I've corrected it there.

>Brion goes on vacation and everything starts to fall apart. First order of
>business of the Wikimedia Foundation is to set up a fund to clone Brion. :-)
>
Hey, that could be fun. :)

>There must be something like
>
>   set-variable =   max_connections=somebignumber
>
>in mysql.conf.
>
At present my.cnf has:
set-variable    = max_connections=560

vs Apaches':
MaxClients 175 (on pliny)
MaxClients 200 (on larousse)

so we might have at most 375 apache processes attacking us at once.
However, they might each take two mysql connections -- if the persistent
connection is broken, it can't be closed (at least from PHP) short of
killing the process, so it just opens a second non-persistent
connection. And, in theory, we might see a handful more from SQL
queries, which open another connection using a separate user for
restricted permissions.

We could probably do with lowering the max apaches on pliny a bit and
upping the max connections on mysql a bit just to keep that particular
part from blowing up; however if they are blowing up, that's going to be
a symptom of something else...

> We do dynamic gzipping of pages on a rather large website (~3.000.000
> dynamic hits daily). The experience we gathered so far showed us, that
> the gzipping itself is actually rather fast, compared to the page
> generation process through PHP/Perl. The main problem with dynamic
> gzipping is, that you have to build up the whole page in memory,
> instead of sending out lines as they are generated (don't know, how
> the Wikipedia software currently works).

Currently the page is output in several chunks, but usually the majority
of it is the wiki page itself, which is processed (over and over and
over) and eventually output as one chunk. The other chunks are in the
headers and footers, generally.

If we're generating a newly cachable page, we turn on complete page
buffering and capture the buffer to save it to disk (gzipped and not).

There are, of course, improvements that can be made to our parser...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Richard Grevers

subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems?

body:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:48:04 -0700, Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> gave utterance to the following:

> K Forstner wrote in part:
>
>> 5.1.1 <wikidown at wikipedia.org>... User unknown
>
> You're supposed to send reports to <wikidown at bomis.com>.
> The idea is that when the wiki is down,
> it may well be that all of wikipedia.org is down.
> But bomis.com will probably still be up!
>
Then it might make sense for a developer to change the error handling code
in the wiki. We (the several of us who mentioned this) were only mailing to
the email address linked to by the error message!
--
Richard Grevers
I prefer to remain anomalous


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:05:06 -0700, Dante Alighieri
<dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com> gave utterance to the following:

> Darn, sent this via the wrong email address. ;) Sending again.
> ----
>
> I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it is, it
> probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone think about
> changing the default behavior of the search box? As of now, if I type
> something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage return, or whatever)
> the behavior is as if I had pressed the search button. I suggest changing
> this to acting is if I had pressed the GO button.
>
> This is a Good Thing because: if someone types in French Revolution they
> will probably appreciate going to the article ON the french revolution
> immediately without having to click on the top link. Secondly, if someone
> wants to find the article on the letter A, they currently have to /know/
> to type in A and click GO. If they click search, the search engine craps
> out on them. If the default action were a GO search then there would be
> no problem.
>
> Any opinions on the matter?

Agreed. I would also like to have the Search/Go on pages other than the
index page, rather than just search on other pages (saves having to reload
the index all the time.

--
Richard Grevers
I prefer to remain anomalous


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unreadable email messages

body:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:42:03 -0700, Stevertigo <stevertigo at attbi.com> gave
utterance to the following:

> How's that? Honestly there is no pleasing people. b on b was no good...
> all of a sudden w on b is no good..  and announced so rudely.  I feel so
> compelled now to comply with the complications of the great 14th century
> bard.
>
When you first posted in WoB I inadvertantly haddisplay of HTML version if
available switched on. After reading and closing it I was seeing stripes
everywhere! Reverting to text view has kept me happy. And I'd just like to
point out again that Steve wasn't really to blame for the initial problems -
 rather those people who posted in HTML (to which Steve replied). I still
maintain that all HTML posting is bad news for both the digest and archive
versions of this list.

BTW I view in black on warm grey. The environment surrounding my monitor is
reasonably light, so it offers the most comfortable viewing for my
situation.
--
Richard Grevers
I prefer to remain anomalous


body:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:41:41 -0700, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
gave utterance to the following:

> Erik wrote:
>> Magnus-
>>> Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a
>>> test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
>>
>> Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
>
> IMO it can't and shouldn't.
Wasn't that just a joke commenting on the apparent typo "gunpedia"?
--
Richard Grevers
I prefer to remain anomalous


from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] A puzzle of pizzas

body:
>Pizza Puzzle wrote: I would like to note that I agree with you. Prague
should be henceforth >"Praha"; just as the German cities should be written
in German. Two points were made >against you:

>A) The Christopher Columbus issue; one should note that whether Cristoforo
or Cristobal >is used; either one is infinitely more correct that
Christopher since Colombo, himself, used >both the Spanish and Italian
versions BUT NEVER the English version which is wholly >fallacious.

Well, I tend to agree. It does however bring into mind the possibility that
asserting such "policy" as i suggested (aside from contradicting my long
standing dislike for propriety) would not be really practical.  Maybe this
would be a far better argument against.  The argument for really relies on a
change of convention, like I said - namely something that would be somewhat
revolutionary. The question then is implementation - would it be too
confusing? Could it be a way to enhance cross-lingual communication?

I finally realized that this really was about attempting to break down the
language barriers - allowing some easier cross-operability that ignores the
established language barriers, allowing for some compromises in our
much-hailed "standards" -- but also allowing for increased multi-lingual
participation.   This is no doubt the future of wikipedia, but it would
require some heavy assistance from language tools -- technologies that are
barely in their fruition.

It could be after all, that the solution is simply for all these miserable
foreigners to just learn English gooder.

>B) The Los Angeles issue in which one user sarcastically stated that we
should revert to >the Native American name. Such a reversion would not be in
accordance with your more >reasonable suggestion since Los Angeles was
essentially built on top of the older city, in a >like manner, Mexico DF
should not be renamed Tenochtitlan.

All such arguments were red herring attacks, summat.  But GTBOTD* they
attempt to illustrate the fuzzy boundaries inherent to drawing lines to
differentiate changes to how things are done.  In essence I agree with
them - 'dont mess with it if it aint broke.' To a large degree I threw it
out there to see what the climate was, and what the real idea was that I was
trying to materialize.  I had it saved as a draft and decided to send it -
to see if it would stir some braincells. Not that I intent to fight a one
man war for something so stupid and trivial as policy. In short - they were
abolutely correct, though their arguments were a bit convoluted.

The funny thing in that case, is that it actually illustrates my point.
"Los Angeles" isnt changed in American speech to "The Angels" -- nor to
Americans call most other Latin based names by anything different, simply
due to some language similarities. In fact, in most cases the Anglicization
is rather loyal - thus its the minority that are modified, and then usually
only slightly.  To change the minority to their proper local names, would be
to actually enforce the existing *standard. (something again I dont
advocate). "Roma" instead of "Rome" -- 'would be too confusing?' I dont
think so. These are the same arguments against the deprication of the term
"Indians" to refer to American Natives. Tie that in with the Christoforo
Colombo factor, and youll get the joke.

>In secret correspondence with certain unnamed individuals, I have been
informed that you >are now classed as a "true troll" and are walking on
"very thin ice". Good luck, viva la >resistance!

As it should be. I wonder if theyre using Danny's once-stated definition of
a troll - here on the list. "Very thin ice?"  I was on "very thin ice" from
the day I started contributing.  This later became "good job on this" and
"good job on that."  People get pissy, and I dont give out blowjobs - thats
what that means.  All of humanity is on thin ice, so its like the pot
calling the kettle... "nigga!"

BTW, IMHO, "Troll" is almost like the internet equivalent of calling someone
a "terrorist" - 'I saw you marching at a peace rally, you terrorist...'
It's a very slippery slope, and some here have gotten quite quick to use the
T word, (at least in private :]) it seems they never understood the late,
great, Robert Zimmerman when he said... "don't speak too soon for the
wheel's still in spin."

-Wove and trolling,
Steven

*GTBOTD Given the benefit of the doubt.


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] brochures about Wikipedia

body:
I've noticed that the Esperanto Wikipedia has had a
brochure about itself since July 13, 2002 and I've
passed it out every time I've lectured about
Wikipedia.  I have however noticed that there were no
interwiki links there to other languages.  Do
brochures about Wikipedia exist in other languages?

The page of the Esperanto brochure is at
http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedio:Vikipedia_proklamo

Thanks,
Chuck

=====
Learn Esperanto - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.amuzulo.net/
TEJO-Vikio - http://www.tejo.org/vikio/
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt?ne f?rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Feature request?

body:
Karim Moussally wrote:
> I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it is,
> it probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone think
> about changing the default behavior of the search box? As of now, if I
> type something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage return, or
> whatever) the behavior is as if I had pressed the search button. I
> suggest changing this to acting is if I had pressed the GO button.
>
> This is a Good Thing because: if someone types in French Revolution they
> will probably appreciate going to the article ON the french revolution
> immediately without having to click on the top link. Secondly, if
> someone wants to find the article on the letter A, they currently have
> to /know/ to type in A and click GO. If they click search, the search
> engine craps out on them. If the default action were a GO search then
> there would be no problem.
>
> Any opinions on the matter?
>
> -----
>
> Karim Moussally
> kmoussally at cal.berkeley.edu
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly
> submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
> intelligence."
>    -Albert Einstein, attributed

on some skins there is only a search button...there should be a search
and go buttons on all skins


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Goatausaur for sysop

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> Isn't it currently the convention to use [[Wikipedia:Requests for
> adminship]] for this?
>
> At 01:09 PM 6/21/2003, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> I want to propose Goatasaur to become a sysop. (This is my third
>> attempt. Two previous attempts ran into technical difficulties!) In my
>> experience Goatasaur is a competent, serious contributor who would
>> make a extremely good and effective sysop. It is a pleasure to propose
>> him.
>>
>> JT
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> -----
> 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
definately


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] brochures about Wikipedia

body:
Chuck Smith wrote:

>Do
>brochures about Wikipedia exist in other languages?
>
>
>
the fr: have begun work writing one.
linked :-)


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-) (no
Mav)
>
> IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever
> textbook is being worked on
> should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means
> that if a textbook is on
> Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the
> book. There will be
> neutrality rules but they only apply from within
> whatever discipline the
> textbook is being written for. So for example a
> chapter on evolution would
> focus on the major differing views on the subject
> that exist from within the
> biological sciences but it would not seriously
> consider the POV of groups
> outside the biological sciences.
>
> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is
> because our audience is a
> general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be
> DPOV is because our
> audience is very focused (the biology student, for
> example) and we need to
> bring that student through the material in a logical
> and efficient way.

No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for
the reason the audience is more focused. That has
nothing to do.

Logical and efficient is totally compatible with NPOV.
What you suggest is "cutting" very important
information, that students will later need to make
informed decisions. Removing infos is neither logical
nor efficient in the long term.

> Same thing is true for a section of a medical
> textbook on abortion ; we leave
> out most of the history and the different political
> views on the subject and
> just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have
> a single paragraph at the
> end sating something about access to the procedure
> and that risks doctors
> face when they choose to specialize in this area.

I disagree with you Mav.
By thus doing, we will only propose technical books,
cold and disincarnated. That is against what some
people consider education is.

There are some aspects, even of technical education,
that require understanding of politics, that require
ethical information. A book limiting itself to the
pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.

This is particularly true in the biological domain you
cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical
procedure is an error. If only because abortion is
allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and
this should be known. Also because an abortion is a
terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no*
doctor should know it only from the tech point of
view. He should be aware of the psychological impact
of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to
proceed with such an act with the physical and
psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also
because he should be aware of all the limits to such
an act from a religious point of view.

Offering bare technical teaching is wrong.

Similarly, in agriculture, it makes no sense to *just*
understand how fertilization works, if you do not
understand the pollution it creates, the CAP rules
about N uses and the incentives. Just providing the
tech info is just giving enough information for
survival, not for thinking and making good decisions.

> So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each
> time somebody tried to
> write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were
> quickly thwarted.

Sorry ?
Do we have examples ?

> Textbooks are organized in a very different way than
> an encyclopedia and they
> also have a specific audience. These two things make
> textbook material
> completely incompatible with Wikipedia. Thus a
> separate project is needed
> (and probably a few tweaks to the software to make
> it easy to have chapters).

Along with chapters on the ethical aspects of creating
GMOs, using Xenogreffes, offering life to abnormal
babies. Yes. Many chapters. Thank god, there is no
room limitation.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation

body:
 I can Bart over to Emeryville and get a 2o'clock with Steve Jobs if you
like. ;)

-S-

| I see that my coinage of "Wikimedia" has become the name of the
| Wikimedia Foundation. Well and good, well and good. Now I'll just
| wait a few years until this thing gets really big, and then I'll sue
| for intellectual property theft, settle out of court for a few
| million bucks, and then retire to my country estate. Heh heh heh... ;)
|
| Seriously, folks...has anyone considered approaching some of the big
| computer companies like Microsoft or Apple, or for that matter the
| Free Software Foundation? I'd think that some of them might have an
| interest in coming up with some funding. For example, Apple is
| primarily in the hardware business and might have an interest in
| encouraging the development of an open source internet platform for
| multimedia that motivates people to go out and buy more iBooks and
| iPods so they can use iMovie and iTunes.
| --
| --------------------------------
| |  Sheldon Rampton
| |  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| |  Author of books including:
| |     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| |     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| |     Mad Cow USA
| |     Trust Us, We're Experts
| |     Weapons of Mass Deception
| --------------------------------
| _______________________________________________
| WikiEN-l mailing list
| WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
| http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> My thoughts are this; Wikibook could be a new uber-project aimed at creating a
> host of different types of e-books. Different broad types of wikibooks would
> get their own sub-domain.

Which reminds me of something completely different: Are there any useful
e-book readers (machines) out there? My Palm is rather unsuitable for
reading more than some phone book entry, and the laptop is not very
comfy either. Is there a reader with a decent display, memory enough to
hold, say, en.wikipedia, and the ability to load TXT, HTML, and/or PDF?
So far all I found was something called "hiebook" from Korea, which
seems pretty cool, but is not available in Europe :-(

Sorry for posting off-topic (yeah, easier to say at the end of the mail;-)

Magnus


from_name: Oualmakran Youssef

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

references:
<8oOvNbGxpVB@erik_moeller>
	<3EF7284A.1030601@planetunreal.com>
	<3EF751BA.5090709@web.de>

body:
Hi,
>
> Done. Tell me if I made a mess ;-)
>

Yes, you did. Never mind.

Regards,

~~~ aka Youssefsan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
> So I rephrase my request to "please could we have a go button in the
> cologne blue skin". Or an option which is independent of skins.

OK, I installed it on http://test.wikipedia.org (need to log in and turn
on CB, of course). The reason I didn't just commit it to CVS is that the
Go/Search buttons have to break into the next line in the quickbar,
making it even longer.

Change it to this, or leave it "as is"?

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sifter code

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> --- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I didn't realise that the Sifter project had written code yet.
>>Where can we find this?  Is there (crossing fingers) documentation?
>
>
> The magnificent and magnanimous Magnus Manske spoke thusly:
>
>   http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/sifter-l/2002-November/000034.html

Yes, this kinda works. No, I haven't worked on it for some time, and
there's no documentation.

I thought I could make this work with Yet Another Software Rewrite, but
after we installed the TeX thingy, I surrender ;-)

I'd rather add extended user management to the current wikipedia
software (emphasis on the software, not the wikipedia; the latter will
remain unchanged by this!) to a similar mode like the one I mentioned in
  that old mail.

Short rules for the sifter:
* No editing of articles for anyone, including sysops!
* Articles are created by importing them from wikipedia (thus no fork)
* Only logged-in users with "editor" state can import articles
* You'll have to apply for "editor" state by the Powers To Be with
(scientific) reference or similar (e.g. "I've been a good guy on
wikipedia";-)

That's why I asked for a sifter test site the other day - testing all
this would block the test.wikipedia.org site.

Magnus


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Anthere wrote:
>> The reason why our encyclopedias have to be
>>NPOV is because our audience is a  general one.
>>The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV
>>is because our audience is very focused (the biology
>>student, for example) and we need to  bring that
>>student through the material in a logical and efficient
>>way.
>
>No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away
>NPOV just for the reason the audience is more
>focused. That has nothing to do.

No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be
nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)

>Logical and efficient is totally compatible with
>NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very
>important information, that students will later
>need to make informed decisions. Removing
>infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long
>term.

You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that
most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of
material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college
textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints.
That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook.
In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.

>> Same thing is true for a section of a medical
>> textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the
>> history and the different political views on the
>> subject and just talk about the procedure itself
>> and maybe have a single paragraph at the
>> end sating something about access to the
>> procedure and that risks doctors  face when
>> they choose to specialize in this area.

>I disagree with you Mav.

Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?

>By thus doing, we will only propose technical
>books, cold and disincarnated. That is against
>what some people consider education is.

Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is.  You are more than welcome
to write liberal education textbooks that treat each area taught in a
comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't stop other people from
making more technically-focused works since that is what actually gets used
in most college classrooms (at least in the US).

Also, most people take /separate/ classes in history, science and ethics. So
the history of the how an element has been used is irrelevant to the
chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL that is relevant to that
student is is the chemical reactions of the element, and its properties and
placement in the periodic table (of course a nice and short intro on why the
element is important would be a good thing to have but not vital to the
subject matter). The other stuff is optional background information that is
easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.

The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of the sum total of all
human knowledge known about a particular subject. The goal of a textbook is
to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so that students can learn
about that aspect in detail.

We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the encyclopedia for all the
info about a certain element. Let's not confuse encyclopedia articles  with
textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project will not be differentiated
enough to exist for long if at all.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Richard Grevers wrote:
>
>>>Erik wrote:
>>>
>>>>Magnus-
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a
>>>>>test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
>>>>
>>>>Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
>>>
>>>IMO it can't and shouldn't.
>>
>>Wasn't that just a joke commenting on the apparent typo "gunpedia"?
>
>
> There I go again. :) On second read I see the typo now. Funny stuff but the
> rest of my message still is valid since it is not directed specifically at
> Erik's comment.

Took me just as long to see my own typo ;-)

At least, "gunpedia" would be from the survivor's point of view (SPOV)!

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Feature request?

body:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:20:53 +0100, <a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk> gave
utterance to the following:

> Dante writes:
>
>> I'm not entirely certain that this IS a feature request (and if it
>> is, it probably doesn't belong on this list) but what does everyone
>> think about changing the default behavior of the search box? As of
>> now, if I type something into the box and hit <enter> (or carriage
>> return, or whatever) the behavior is as if I had pressed the search
>> button. I suggest changing this to acting is if I had pressed the
>> GO button.
>
> And Richard Grevers writes:
>
>> Agreed. I would also like to have the Search/Go on pages other than
>> the index page, rather than just search on other pages (saves
>> having to reload the index all the time.
>
> I'm confused. When I press return, it behaves like I'd clicked Go.

Ah, I see I misdescribed the problem: The reson I thought the go button
only appeared on the home page is that there are separate go and search
buttons with the default skin, but when I log in (Cologne Blue skin) there
is only a search button (and hitting enter does a *search*). Of course the
only page  see frequently while looged out is index.

So I rephrase my request to "please could we have a go button in the
cologne blue skin". Or an option which is independent of skins.
--
Richard Grevers
I prefer to remain anomalous


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

body:
I've just created a separate mailing list for discussion on the proposed
Wikipedia / Wikimedia-based textbook projects. Those interested in this,
please sign up at:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

If someone more into the subject wants to take over administration of
the list, please do. (It's the usual list admin password.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sifter code

body:
Magnus-

I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the
Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles
can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it
the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:

1) decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its
claims with references

2) decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per
scholarship on the matter.

Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And
if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I
would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are
trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not
suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the
resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that
acceptable?

In general, the project would have to decide for areas such as history
whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different
viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a
consensus requirement might make sense.

The policies for the sifting process could be worked out on regular
Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

body:
I see that my coinage of "Wikimedia" has become the name of the
Wikimedia Foundation. Well and good, well and good. Now I'll just
wait a few years until this thing gets really big, and then I'll sue
for intellectual property theft, settle out of court for a few
million bucks, and then retire to my country estate. Heh heh heh... ;)

Seriously, folks...has anyone considered approaching some of the big
computer companies like Microsoft or Apple, or for that matter the
Free Software Foundation? I'd think that some of them might have an
interest in coming up with some funding. For example, Apple is
primarily in the hardware business and might have an interest in
encouraging the development of an open source internet platform for
multimedia that motivates people to go out and buy more iBooks and
iPods so they can use iMovie and iTunes.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin wrote:

> I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
> (yay! it worked!)
> Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
> their dates to be fixed for several weeks!

how many people have the power to move files from the CVS to the test
server or the real server?


subject: [Wikitech-l] History search

body:
It would be fairly convenient to be able to search the history of an
article for the first occurance of a specific phrase. So if I want to know
who inserted claim X into the article, I would just enter "XYZ" in the
search box, and the next screen would show me either "no results" or the
diff of the edit that added XYZ to the article, as well as the user name.

I don't think performance would be much of an issue, since article
histories are very much limited in size. Site-wide search is so slow
because our database is so huge. Histories could be searched by starting
with the oldest revision, loading each one into memory and grabbing for a
specific string -- don't know if this would be faster than an optimized
SQL query. In any case, not much more than 10 revisions or so would have
to be typically searched, with an average article size of 1000 bytes or
so, and the feature would be fairly obscurely placed on the history page
only. So I don't think it would add much load, but save us a lot of time
otherwise spent comparing revision pairs.

Regards,

Erik


body:
>I've just created a separate mailing list for discussion
>on the proposed Wikipedia / Wikimedia-based textbook
>projects. Those interested in this, please sign up at:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
>If someone more into the subject wants to take over
>administration of the list, please do. (It's the usual list
>admin password.)
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Cool, thanks Brion. But it does seem odd that Wiktionary doesn't have its own
mailing list... I guess they don't have nearly as much to work out policy or
otherwise.

I'll be the Admin but haven't a clue what the password would be. Could you
send a private email to me with this information?

We still do need to clone you, BTW. ;)

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>>I've just created a separate mailing list for discussion
>>on the proposed Wikipedia / Wikimedia-based textbook
>>projects. Those interested in this, please sign up at:
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>>
>>
>Cool, thanks Brion. But it does seem odd that Wiktionary doesn't have its own
>mailing list... I guess they don't have nearly as much to work out policy or
>otherwise.
>
Well, they don't clutter up the other lists so much with arguing about
NPOV vs DPOV.  ;)

If anyone *wants* a Wiktionary list, I can set one up.

(Note that I'm currently having trouble getting my initial message
through to textbook-l at wikipedia.org, so I'm not 100% sure if I set it up
right, though. Or, that may just be because there aren't any list
members yet.)

>I'll be the Admin but haven't a clue what the password would be. Could you
>send a private email to me with this information?
>
Done.

>We still do need to clone you, BTW. ;)
>
Will this involve a secret offshore medical research facility in an
undisclosed location with a mysterious, inexhaustable source of funding?
If so, sign me up. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sifter code

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Magnus-
>
> I'm not generally opposed to the sifter idea (and would suggest using the
> Nupedia name for it), but I would like to know who decides which articles
> can be used, and based on which decision making system. The way I see it
> the sifter-editors will have two jobs to do:
>
> 1) decide whether an article is stylistically correct and does back up its
> claims with references
>
> 2) decide whether the factual claims in the article are correct as per
> scholarship on the matter.
>
> Most good Wikipedians could do 1), but who will be allowed to do 2)? And
> if there are several people who do so, how will conflicts be mediated? I
> would prefer a policy similar to our current sysop policy: If you are
> trusted to be an editor, you can become one until you are proven to be not
> suitable for the subject area you have chosen. OTOH, in that case the
> resulting project would still in part be run by amateurs. Is that
> acceptable?

I'm not into "Ph.D.s only" (and not just because I've only just recently
started working on my doctoral thesis;-)
What we need in a sifter project are people that can be reasonably
trusted to import articles they can verify (your points 1 and 2 above).
Mainly, that means they know when *not* to touch a subject. I think
someone who has proven to work on wikipedia can become an editor (or
"importer"?).

But, as a sifter project promises to give accurate information just like
a "normal" encyclopedia (hell, that's the *only* point of a sifter
project!), we need to be careful not to let people import tit-and-tat
just because it looks OK at first glance. This does not mean amateurs
can't be trusted; it can mean the exact opposite, as an amateur will,
when in doubt, think "I better leave that to someone else"; a
professional might think "well, looks good, and I should know, I studied
that stuff for some time".

> In general, the project would have to decide for areas such as history
> whether only the most recent scholarship is accepted, or whether different
> viewpoints through time are presented. This is a case where I think a
> consensus requirement might make sense.

Well, the sifter project Larry and I (among others) were working on is
"import only, edit on wikipedia". So, the discussion should take place
there. Beneficial, wikipedia will thus be improved by the sifter project.

> The policies for the sifting process could be worked out on regular
> Wikipedia pages, and sifted just like all other material.

Oh, you already said it :-)

Magnus


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 07:06 PM 6/22/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:

>--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-) (no
>Mav)
> >
> > IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever
> > textbook is being worked on
> > should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means
> > that if a textbook is on
> > Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the
> > book. There will be
> > neutrality rules but they only apply from within
> > whatever discipline the
> > textbook is being written for. So for example a
> > chapter on evolution would
> > focus on the major differing views on the subject
> > that exist from within the
> > biological sciences but it would not seriously
> > consider the POV of groups
> > outside the biological sciences.
> >
> > The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is
> > because our audience is a
> > general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be
> > DPOV is because our
> > audience is very focused (the biology student, for
> > example) and we need to
> > bring that student through the material in a logical
> > and efficient way.
>
>No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for
>the reason the audience is more focused. That has
>nothing to do.

> > Same thing is true for a section of a medical
> > textbook on abortion ; we leave
> > out most of the history and the different political
> > views on the subject and
> > just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have
> > a single paragraph at the
> > end sating something about access to the procedure
> > and that risks doctors
> > face when they choose to specialize in this area.
>
>
>I disagree with you Mav.
>By thus doing, we will only propose technical books,
>cold and disincarnated. That is against what some
>people consider education is.
>
>There are some aspects, even of technical education,
>that require understanding of politics, that require
>ethical information. A book limiting itself to the
>pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.
>
>This is particularly true in the biological domain you
>cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical
>procedure is an error. If only because abortion is
>allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and
>this should be known.

It should be known and is known, but it's not a medical
matter. Similarly, which medicines are legally available
depends on the jurisdiction, but the medical effects,
benefits, and risks of diamorphine don't change when
you cross a national border.

>  Also because an abortion is a
>terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no*
>doctor should know it only from the tech point of
>view.

It is "terrible" for some women--not most--and in large
part because they have been told that it's wrong, and
been taught to expect it to be traumatic.

>He should be aware of the psychological impact
>of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to
>proceed with such an act with the physical and
>psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also
>because he should be aware of all the limits to such
>an act from a religious point of view.

Which religious point of view? Will you cover the
religious point of view that mandates abortion under
certain circumstances? Do you expect a medical
textbook to explain that the Catholic church once
taught that abortion is morally acceptable in early
pregnancy, and that the point at which it stopped
being acceptable depended on the gender of the
fetus?

Those aren't medical issues. They're historical,
theological, and/or philosophical ones.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:48:35PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
>
>
> tarquin wrote:
>
> >I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
> >(yay! it worked!)
> >Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
> >their dates to be fixed for several weeks!
>
> how many people have the power to move files from the CVS to the test
> server or the real server?

8 (at least so many members has wikidev group on the server)


subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageFr.php

body:
tarquin-

> tarquin wrote:

>> I've uploaded the new LanguageFr.php.
>> (yay! it worked!)
>> Please could it go live fairly soon, the fr: have been waiting for
>> their dates to be fixed for several weeks!

> how many people have the power to move files from the CVS to the test
> server or the real server?

Only those with ssh access to the server (not everyone marked as a
developer has ssh access. I don't.). That would be Lee, Brion, Magnus,
Nick, and the Bomis folks.

Regards,

Erik