body:
>> >Saramaccan,
>> Is an inland language not commonly used outside the jungle areas that
>>Saramaccaners live in. Not a nationally widely spoken language
>>
>>
>
>5% of the population of Surinam
>
>
>
Most of whom life in a small area ......... in the jungles.

 > >Aukan,<>>> Aucaners same situation as Saramacaners.
 >3,5% of the population of Surinam.

Most of whom life in a small area ......... in the jungles.

 > >Guyanese,

 >> Definately not spoken in most of Surinam and as the name suggest it
is not a Surinamese language.

>11% of the population of Surinam. You're right that most of its
>speakers are in Guyana, but 50000 of them are in Surinam which is 11%
>of the population of the nation.
>
>
>
50000? That is a large number which I very very much doubt!

 >>Javanese,

>> Only spoken by people of Indonesian background and as the name suggest it
>>is not a Surinamese language.
>>
>>
>
>It has a longer history in Surinam than Arabic (not "Moroccan") does
>in the Netherlands. In fact, what is Sranan Tongo's history in
>Surinam? How long has it been spoken there? It was brought by
>"immigrants" just as much as Javanese was. And also, the Javanese
>spoken in Surinam is a distinct variety of Javanese, unique to
>Surinam, so it IS very much a Surinamese language.
>
>
>
The Javanese were one of the last groups to be brought to Surinam. The
first group starting from the 17th century were African slaves. It was
here that Sranan comes from. The Javanese didn't appear untill the end
of the 19th century as contract labourers after the abollishment of slavery.

>It is spoken by 14% of the population, hardly a negligible figure.
>
>
>
Yes and they also speak Sranan.
 >> Chinese,

>> Only spoken by people of  Chinese background and as the name suggest it is
>>not a Surinamese language.
>>
>>
>
>Chinese has nearly as long a history in Surinam as does Sranan Tongo.
>In addition to that, it's spoken by 3% of the population.
>
>
No it doesn't same story as Javanese. They didn't appear untill the end
of the 19th century as contract labourers. While the slaves arrived in
etc ........ you'll figure it.

>>Hindustani
>>
>>
>
>A form of Hindustani unique to Surinam, so it's a very much
>"Surinamese" language, and it's spoken by a whopping 35% of the
>population.
>
>
Forgotten this in my initial assesment. It is not Hindustani. It is
called Sarnami Hindustani. And this 35% of the population also speaks
Sranan.

>> and Native American languages.
>> There are about 10.000 of those, they are not even acknowledged in the
>>Surinamese flag with its five points which stand for the five most important
>> ethniticities.
>>
>>
>
>3385 speakers total. In addition, the speakers of these languages have
>a much much much longer history in Surinam than any of the other
>people, they are more "Surinamese" than Indians, Chinese, Javanese,
>Blacks, Europeans, or mixed-race.
>
>
3385? did you count them?

>"Five most important ethnicities" is a judgement passed by the ruling
>elites. Do you think the Native Americans would agree that they're not
>important??
>
>
I don't know. Never met them in my four years there as they all live in
densely forested remote areas. So that figure could be plus or minus a
lot. In my time in Surinam I remember 10.000 in my textbooks.

>> These are just as much "Surinamese" as Sranan.
>> No they are not. Sranan is what binds most of the population together with
>>Dutch .... so what is next you are going to call  Moroccan a Dutch language
>>because people in the Netherlands speak Moroccan? Or Dutch a Thai language
>>because there are Dutch people in Thailand? All of these languages are not
>>Surinamese. They happen to be spoken in the country of Surinam yes. There is
>>but one Surinamese and that is Sranan Tongo.
>>
>>
>
>This is a very glorified view of a language spoken by only 29% of the
>population. Hindustani is spoken by more people in Surinam, actually
>35%, and Dutch is spoken by 46% of the population.
>
>
Much more than 29% of the population speaks Sranan. Everybody in
Paramaribo (which makes for approx half the population) did (at least
the ones I met) plus most Surinamese in the Netherlands do (considering
more than 50% of Surinamese do not life in Surinam this is a big group).

>> So while "Sranan" does indeed mean "Surinamese", the name "Sranan" is also
>>used in English to distinguish it from other languages of Surinam.
>>
>> Well I am not a native Oxford-English or American-English or whatever
>>English speaker but I still have my doubts about that.
>>
>>
>
>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sranang_Tongo,
>http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=srn, both of which
>prefer the name "Sranang Tongo" or "Sranan".
>
>
Well wikipedia is silly. In nl.wikipedia we call it Surinaams. Great
argument ain't it?

ethnologue ...... well the more I look at  it the more I am wondering
about the way they get their data.

>><>Well, you're one person, and "rusty I admit though" is not comforting
>> at all. And what about Papiamento??
>> How comforting is it for me to see you requesting many languages you never
>>spoke or heard of? If we go in that road of argumenting. My 4 years in
>>Surinam are a lot more comforting. And no I do not speak Papiamentu.
>>
>>
>
>What the hell? How many languages have I requested in my ENTIRE
>LIFE??? Sicilian, Friulian, and Ligurian. THAT IS ALL. 3 languages. A
>whopping 3 languages. With Sicilian and Friulian, I had native
>speakers who expressed interest BEFORE the Wikipedias were created.
>Both were created, are now active, and scn.wiki has over 1000
>articles.
>
>
That is not the impression I got when I look at your activity on the
meta page and when I looked at the developers reaction when you came in
to ask for new wiki's to be created.

>> Who decides if wikipedias get created? You? It sometimes seems like it.
>>
>> You know very well it isn't me.
>> Precisely but your reactions on this list and elsewhere always show that
>>you feel you should be the one who is deciding. 6 people support NDS-NL
>>among which 2 native speakers. And you oppose and because you oppose you
>>feel you can obstruct the whole progress because your "demands" weren't met.
>>Frankly I am getting a littlebit tired of your "every language has to go by
>>me" attitude. You are doing lots of good work in the languagefield. But
>>destroying it by your behaviour.
>>
>>
>
>No, I don't feel that I should be the one deciding. But the process is
>one of community discussion, and any community member has the right to
>express their opinion. "every language has to go by me" attitude? What
>the hell??!? A language obviously doesn't need my blessing to get a
>Wikipedia created, and I don't think it should be the case, but I as
>everybody else in the community have a right to express my opinion on
>each language. So stuff it.
>
>
Yes and you are expressing your opinion so vehemently and so dominantly
that everybody seems to stay away from the meta languagepage and any
other language related discussion because they do not want to have to
deal with you it seems. On the stuffing it matter ....... I am actually
eating at the moment ..... so yes I am stuffing it thanks ;)

>> It's the decision of the developers, ultimately, although if a board member
>>or somebody else high up in the organisational structure decides it should
>>be created, the developer will usually create it for them.
>>
>> So maybe I should go to a board member instead of discussing with you here!
>>Good alternative indeed. Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>>
>
>Asking a board member is not an "alternative" for community
>discussion. Community discussion, and resolution of outstanding
>issues, is nessecary before the creation of any new Wikipedia.
>
>On the talkpage, Angela implied in one of her comments that as long as
>there is an opposing vote, there needs to be a community discussion to
>observe objections and explore solutions before it can be created.
>
>I have a right to express my opinion on any language. So please, let
>me express my opinion.
>
>
So that means that if one person is against something and a lot of
people are in favour. That one person can stop the other persons from
getting something? I am sure Angela never said that. It just doesn't
sound like here.

Waerth/Walter


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Guaka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of Dutch-Low Saxon (nds-nl)

body:
On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 20:25 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Re Papiamentu and Sranan Tongo (NOT "Surinamese"), they have indeed
> gotten plenty of support votes but have any native speakers showed up
> yet? No. People have said "I have a friend..." or "My dad's business
> partner is a native speaker..."  or things like that, but as of yet
> not a single native speaker has showed up to express their support for
> these Wikipedias. If they had, they would've been created with
> Cebuano, Kapampangan, Scots, and V?ro.

Which is a pity. Would the Bambara and the Fulfulde Wikipedia have been
created if I had asked for it?


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Thomas Gries

subject: [Wikitech-l] Enotif - "bolded" page titles in watchlist view - nice

body:
I'd like to express my congratulations to the developer who simply
"bolded" those page titles (in watchlist) for watched pages having
unseen changes.
It like that; it's simple and efficient.

Tom
P.S.
My garish-green updated marker has other, further advantages as
explained in [1], but admittedly not everyone liked that; users can
opt-out in EnotifWiki versions.
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Email_notification_%28documentation%29#Update_marker


list: wikien-l

from_name: Laura K Fisher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV

body:
There's been a lot of talk about this at [[Category:Conspiracy
theories]], and although I hate the fact that that label closes
people's minds to thinking about these theories, it is the most concise
and recognizable descriptor for them.

I'm a scientist, so I am totally biased on the pseudoscience issue, but
I think that a well written article that is NPOV should explain both
sides: it should describe the theory, it's history, and the objections
of the scientific community.  In other words, a NPOV article in
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] should already describe exactly what it
means for it to be in that category - that mainstream science doesn't
accept this theory for various reasons. One wouldn't need to read
[[Pseudoscience]] in order to understand why it's been placed in the
category.

The [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag at the bottom is definitely used by
some as a warning label, which I can't really fault because many
theories cloak themselves in scientific language that can easily lure a
non-scientist into thinking its a mainstream scientific theory backed
by the scientific community.  I suppose that the [[Category:Conspiracy
theories]] serves a similar purpose.

So I guess my conclusion is that it might be okay to have something
like [[Category:Satanic lies]] for example if the article text dealt
with who thought it was a satanic lie and why, but inappropriate
otherwise, as the reader wouldn't understand the characterization.  Of
course, I wouldn't use the name satanic lies.  I mean I thought
conspiracy theory was a loaded phrase for a category name, and it's a
commonly used.

Laura

On Jun 26, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Fastfission wrote:

> [[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly
> regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty
> straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always
> either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in
> bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is
> generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming
> these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather
> that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as
> "pseudoscience".
>
> And the text of the category page and the [[Pseudoscience]] article
> spell this out pretty clearly, in my mind. The article itself goes to
> much length to talk about how the notion itself is seen as somewhat
> dubious even in circles of people not labeled as such -- philosophers
> and historians of science, for example, have at times gone to lengths
> to argue that the boundaries between what is a "science" and what is
> not are exceedingly difficult to lay down. Feyerabend, for example,
> made a large point out of showing that many things today considered
> canonical distinctions between "science" and other modes of thought
> did not apply to many of the "fathers" of science (i.e. Galileo,
> Newton, etc.) and others have made similar observations both in
> historical and current science. After a century of thought on it, the
> demarcation problem has still not been convincingly solved.
>
> Okay. So we have a nice NPOV article on the subject itself. But what
> about the category? Does that nuance and care get lost when articles
> just say "Pseudoscience" at the bottom of the page? Can we trust the
> user to click it and read our little explanation/disclaimer?
>
> Let's assume that we can, for a moment.
>
> What if we had an article on [[Satanic lies]], which explains that
> followers of certain religion sects view a number of modern practices
> and beliefs as lies of the Devil. It also notes that quite a few other
> religion sects don't believe in this, and that mainstream philosophers
> and scientists find this a pretty poor model of thought. After ten
> centuries of thought, the problem of knowing what is a Satanic lie or
> not has still not been convincingly solved. A nice, NPOV article.
>
> Would we accept a placement of [[Category:Satanic lie]] onto pages
> about Evolution? Sure, the category page itself would not, "Now, this
> is only believed by a certain group."
>
> Would we allow it? If not, why not? Do we accept it if we lean towards
> the mainstream opinion in categorization efforts, or do we see this as
> a NPOV problem?
>
> I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for
> some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today
> that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would
> seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could
> include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]]
> or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual
> articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does
> the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to
> think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be
> converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic
> lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included
> [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic
> lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
>
> Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Het leven is goed in het brabantse land

body:
Dag Walter!
Ja dat klopt (waarover je geschreven hebt).  Toch, soms is het heel moeilijk tussen wat talen om te verschil maken.  Maar misschien hebben ze gelijk.
Het beste en tot ziens!
pippu d'angelo, canberra

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
Gramsbergen??

Of course, this must be so, since the man from Lars speaks "German Low
Saxon" and the man from Gramsbergen speaks "Dutch Low Saxon"... since
of course languages always follow exactly political divisions.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >As I noted before, it is a dialect continuum.
> All of the continental West Germanic language variants form a dialect
> continuum, with the possible exception of the Frisian tongues.
> >Stellingwarfs and Middel-pommersch are surely not mutually
> >intelligible, but Grunnegers and Oostfreesk very well should be.
> Yes, so are Berlinic and High German. And East-Veluws and Dutch. But
> Grunnegers and Oostfreesk are not or barely mutually intelligible when
> written down, because of the different spellings.
>
> >You are foolishly dividing Platt by nations. This is illogical. If we
> >had an Oostfreesk Wikipedia, Grunnegers-speakers would surely
> >understand it and vice-versa, even though Grunnegers is in the
> >Netherlands and Oostfreesk is mostly in Germany.
>
> "Foolishly"... Mr. I-owe-all-the-world's-languages'-wisdom.... May I point
> at the difference in spelling once more? And don't you think that the bulk
> of the Dutch Low-Saxon dialects share some features most German dialects
> don't?
> >The problem of dialect continuum is a very difficult one.
> Yes, so it can't be solved by one such disregarding message.
> >HOWEVER, given the community reaction to a request for a Baseldytsch
> >Wikipedia, I think the same is logical for a request for a "Dutch Low
> >Saxon" Wikipedia
> Is it? Is Servien requesting a Wikipedia for just one town, or region? No,
> she obviously realises that, though the speaking communities hardly link
> dialects on any higher level than their own region (they will never say they
> speak Low Saxon, but always either the dialect of their own village or
> region, Twents, Sallands, Drents etc.), we should group some of them
> together. This is very different from what the proposer of the Baseldytsch
> Wikipedia did: he simply said: "I have no affinity with the other Alemannic
> dialects, so I want to open one for my dialect only".
> >-- your language may be different to whatever degree
> >than what many people on X Wikipedia use, but there is no rule
> >forbidding its use. There is no rule against writing pages and pages
> >and pages of content on nds.wiki in Stellingwarfs or Achterhooks. When
> >I suggested doing this, I got a cold response that Dutch Low Saxon and
> >German Low Saxon aren't mutually intelligible. Before whinging to us
> >about that, can you at least actually try to use your dialect on
> >nds.wiki to prove to us that it really doesn't work?
> Some users of nds: made clear that they only use one spelling: the Sass one.
> Dutch Low Saxon dialects are /never/ written in German spellings, except
> with some German-initiated projects.
>
> >Mark
> >
> Imo, the combined facts of mutual confusion in both speach and spelling
> makes this idea a valuable one.
>
> Wouter
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
> http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: foundation-l

from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Distribution of information from the Board in Quarto

body:
After Ruth suggested Quarto be held from publication until it was proofread,
Anthere wrote:
> I frankly do not know what to do. I just know I am all
> for the board giving more information to the community
> and making it available widely.

Perhaps this needs to be done in a less time-intensive way. Couldn't a
large glossy Quarto be published every 6 months instead of every 3,
with simple text based reports from the Board given monthly in
addition to the reports I already make at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings ? When I say simple, I
mean the report would be on one page, not split across various wikis
and various templates. These reports could be limited to what actually
happened, rather than opinions on that, meaning it could be much
shorter than it would be in Quarto, and therefore much quicker and
easier to translate.

If the aim of the newsletter is to get Board information out to people
in a timely way, then I don't think Quarto is meeting that goal, and I
don't think it should try to. I see Quarto as something less
time-urgent, and something which ought to be developed by the
community, not the Board.

I'm copying this to Foundation-l since the the distribution of
information from the Board needs to be discussed by more people than
the very small group on the Quarto list.

Angela.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Upgrade status

body:
The upgrade process can be monitored at
http://wikimedia.org/conversion15done.txt


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] What Yahoo is providing

body:
>From our contact at Yahoo.  These are HP boxes.  If for some reason we
prefer FC over RHEL, I should tell him quickly.

These have been ordered.  I will ask about the eta.

---------
3x DL385, dual CPU, 8GB RAM and 6 x 146GB 15k RAID 10. These have capacity
for external shelves, can be added if needed.

20x DL140, dual CPU, 4GB RAM and 1 x 80GB HDD

My plan is to set these up with some linux image, probably RHEL4, and
then your folks can re-jump them into whatever you like. I'll be
available to help with that process, if need be.

These machines will have boot boxes and serial consoles.


body:
Also, the difference in spelling is easily solved.

Differences, as far as I know:

(German spelling -> Dutch spelling)
Final nn -> n
s -> z
i -> ie
o -> ao
au -> aau
ei -> aai
u -> oe/o
f -> v
? -> u
mm -> m
a -> aa
ee -> eei
ou -> oe
? -> ae / e
? -> eu/ui
ll -> l
ou -> oou
w -> v/w
oo -> o
gg -> g
chC -> gC
uhi -> oei

Spelling can easily be converted, see
http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=Nds-test&variant=ks-de
(obviously there are some shortcomings, but these can be fixed with a
little programming).

Mark

On 26/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
> Gramsbergen??
>
> Of course, this must be so, since the man from Lars speaks "German Low
> Saxon" and the man from Gramsbergen speaks "Dutch Low Saxon"... since
> of course languages always follow exactly political divisions.
>
> Mark
>
> On 26/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >As I noted before, it is a dialect continuum.
> > All of the continental West Germanic language variants form a dialect
> > continuum, with the possible exception of the Frisian tongues.
> > >Stellingwarfs and Middel-pommersch are surely not mutually
> > >intelligible, but Grunnegers and Oostfreesk very well should be.
> > Yes, so are Berlinic and High German. And East-Veluws and Dutch. But
> > Grunnegers and Oostfreesk are not or barely mutually intelligible when
> > written down, because of the different spellings.
> >
> > >You are foolishly dividing Platt by nations. This is illogical. If we
> > >had an Oostfreesk Wikipedia, Grunnegers-speakers would surely
> > >understand it and vice-versa, even though Grunnegers is in the
> > >Netherlands and Oostfreesk is mostly in Germany.
> >
> > "Foolishly"... Mr. I-owe-all-the-world's-languages'-wisdom.... May I point
> > at the difference in spelling once more? And don't you think that the bulk
> > of the Dutch Low-Saxon dialects share some features most German dialects
> > don't?
> > >The problem of dialect continuum is a very difficult one.
> > Yes, so it can't be solved by one such disregarding message.
> > >HOWEVER, given the community reaction to a request for a Baseldytsch
> > >Wikipedia, I think the same is logical for a request for a "Dutch Low
> > >Saxon" Wikipedia
> > Is it? Is Servien requesting a Wikipedia for just one town, or region? No,
> > she obviously realises that, though the speaking communities hardly link
> > dialects on any higher level than their own region (they will never say they
> > speak Low Saxon, but always either the dialect of their own village or
> > region, Twents, Sallands, Drents etc.), we should group some of them
> > together. This is very different from what the proposer of the Baseldytsch
> > Wikipedia did: he simply said: "I have no affinity with the other Alemannic
> > dialects, so I want to open one for my dialect only".
> > >-- your language may be different to whatever degree
> > >than what many people on X Wikipedia use, but there is no rule
> > >forbidding its use. There is no rule against writing pages and pages
> > >and pages of content on nds.wiki in Stellingwarfs or Achterhooks. When
> > >I suggested doing this, I got a cold response that Dutch Low Saxon and
> > >German Low Saxon aren't mutually intelligible. Before whinging to us
> > >about that, can you at least actually try to use your dialect on
> > >nds.wiki to prove to us that it really doesn't work?
> > Some users of nds: made clear that they only use one spelling: the Sass one.
> > Dutch Low Saxon dialects are /never/ written in German spellings, except
> > with some German-initiated projects.
> >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > Imo, the combined facts of mutual confusion in both speach and spelling
> > makes this idea a valuable one.
> >
> > Wouter
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
> > http://messenger.msn.nl/
> >
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
Quite possibly not.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Guaka <guaka at no-log.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 20:25 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Re Papiamentu and Sranan Tongo (NOT "Surinamese"), they have indeed
> > gotten plenty of support votes but have any native speakers showed up
> > yet? No. People have said "I have a friend..." or "My dad's business
> > partner is a native speaker..."  or things like that, but as of yet
> > not a single native speaker has showed up to express their support for
> > these Wikipedias. If they had, they would've been created with
> > Cebuano, Kapampangan, Scots, and V?ro.
>
> Which is a pity. Would the Bambara and the Fulfulde Wikipedia have been
> created if I had asked for it?
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Henry Kissinger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV

body:
Some looney tunes old kook hears strange voices that he understands and
will respond to immediately when he gets time. The old buzzard hears the
call of distant relatives that live in his imagination. But he thinks he
has and understands his priorities.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Andrew Gray"
  To: "English Wikipedia"
  Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV
  Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:12:18 +0100

  >
  > On 26/06/05, Fastfission wrote:
  >
  > > I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]]
  for
  > > some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me
  today
  > > that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it
  would
  > > seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one
  could
  > > include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or
  [[Category:Conspiracies]]
  > > or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their
  actual
  > > articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV.
  Does
  > > the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm
  beginning to
  > > think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be
  > > converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic
  > > lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included
  > > [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having
  [[Category:Satanic
  > > lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
  > >
  > > Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.
  >
  > I'm not sure how much use this is, but it strikes me as an
  > interesting example.
  >
  > A large number of people consider the Apollo landings to be a hoax
  -
  > I'm sure you've encountered them. We have many, many pages on the
  > Apollo program, the individual flights and associated topics. None
  of
  > these contain any significant discussion of the hoax theories - at
  > least, I haven't seen any.
  >
  > We also have [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]], which
  discusses
  > the various hoax theories, counterarguments, all that sort of
  thing.
  > *It* is categorised under "Conspiracy theories" & "Hoaxes" (so,
  yeah,
  > we have both)...
  >
  > --
  > - Andrew Gray
  > andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
  > _______________________________________________
  > WikiEN-l mailing list
  > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
  > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Language and Log in

body: No.


body:
That's exactly my point. These two men speak the same language -- they
live 4km apart.

Yet you're telling them they don't. That's crazy.

With these two men, the only issue would be spelling, which is very
easy to remedy as has been proven with zh, sr, ks, and (attempted) en.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
> >Gramsbergen??
> >
> >Of course, this must be so, since the man from Lars speaks "German Low
> >Saxon" and the man from Gramsbergen speaks "Dutch Low Saxon"... since
> >of course languages always follow exactly political divisions.
> >
> >
> >
> Mark we will not forbid a man from Lars to work on NDS-NL just like we
> wont forbid the man from Gramsbergen to work on NDS.
>
> Only on NDS-NL he will have to use the Dutch variant
> On NDS he will have to use the SASS German variant
>
> It is so bloody simple!
>
> Waerth/Walter
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV

body:
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] is one which gets objections at fairly
regular intervals. The reasons for the objections are pretty
straightforward -- the users making such objections are almost always
either Creationists or Eugenicists or other people who believe in
bodies of thought labeled as "pseudoscience" -- and the response is
generally pretty straightforward as well: Wikipedia is not claiming
these so-labeled articles are actually "pseudoscience", but rather
that they are labeled *by the mainstream scientific community* as
"pseudoscience".

And the text of the category page and the [[Pseudoscience]] article
spell this out pretty clearly, in my mind. The article itself goes to
much length to talk about how the notion itself is seen as somewhat
dubious even in circles of people not labeled as such -- philosophers
and historians of science, for example, have at times gone to lengths
to argue that the boundaries between what is a "science" and what is
not are exceedingly difficult to lay down. Feyerabend, for example,
made a large point out of showing that many things today considered
canonical distinctions between "science" and other modes of thought
did not apply to many of the "fathers" of science (i.e. Galileo,
Newton, etc.) and others have made similar observations both in
historical and current science. After a century of thought on it, the
demarcation problem has still not been convincingly solved.

Okay. So we have a nice NPOV article on the subject itself. But what
about the category? Does that nuance and care get lost when articles
just say "Pseudoscience" at the bottom of the page? Can we trust the
user to click it and read our little explanation/disclaimer?

Let's assume that we can, for a moment.

What if we had an article on [[Satanic lies]], which explains that
followers of certain religion sects view a number of modern practices
and beliefs as lies of the Devil. It also notes that quite a few other
religion sects don't believe in this, and that mainstream philosophers
and scientists find this a pretty poor model of thought. After ten
centuries of thought, the problem of knowing what is a Satanic lie or
not has still not been convincingly solved. A nice, NPOV article.

Would we accept a placement of [[Category:Satanic lie]] onto pages
about Evolution? Sure, the category page itself would not, "Now, this
is only believed by a certain group."

Would we allow it? If not, why not? Do we accept it if we lean towards
the mainstream opinion in categorization efforts, or do we see this as
a NPOV problem?

I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for
some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today
that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would
seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could
include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]]
or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual
articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does
the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to
think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be
converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic
lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included
[[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic
lie]] put onto the Evolution page.

Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.

FF


subject: [Wikitech-l] EnotifWiki3.29 for MediaWiki1.5 beta1 -- now available

body:
To whom it may concern (lovers of Enotif):

I have successfully updated my version, which is now fully based on
beta1, see [1] for download.

Remarks for Tim only:

Witt this you have now a fully working reference version based of
today's Mediawiki including an improved updaters.inc with a new function
ChangeFields (for database fields which needs to be changed or dropped;
this streamlines the code therein).

[1] has everything in, including enotif patchlet #1, which obsoletes
UserTalkUpdate.php, reestablishes newtalk (what you also did, fine) as
mentioned yesterday.

Both together make the recently introduced $wgUseEnotif redundant, so
you will not find your recent changes in my version. I point you to this
version as a reference only, not to ask for anything else. I also like
your clever "late" watchlist notification-timestamp updating in one go;
however, I commented this for a while in the 3.29 version, until I have
adapted my other routines to make use of "oldid" instead of timestamp
compares.

[1]
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=138202&package_id=155401
[2] http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif docu + screenshots

Tom


body:
Um, don't we have an "incoherent" filter which should be kicking in
about a dozen e-mails from this guy ago?

FF

On 6/26/05, Henry Kissinger <hkissinger at diplomats.com> wrote:
> Why most certainly we always expect balanced journalism. The world needs
> and expects lady killer lounge lizards, and even gay JJs ;).
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "JAY JG"
>   To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>   Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conflict arising - what to do?
>   Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:38:48 -0400
>
>   >
>   > In articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't
>   > most edits consist of POV editors from both sides repeatedly
>   > reverting each other? ;-)
>   >
>   > Jay.
>   >
>   > > From: Fred Bauder
>   > >
>   > > That's true, but in at least one area, articles which concern
>   > > the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is not unlikely that one
>   > > editor may be repeatedly reverted by a group of POV editors.
>   > > Perhaps other instances exist.
>   > >
>   > > Fred
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:17 PM, JAY JG wrote:
>   > >
>   > >>> From: Jack Lynch
>   > >>>
>   > >>> I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this,
>   and
>   > >>> where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a
>   single
>   > >>> user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious
>   topic,
>   > >>> chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
>   > >>>
>   > >>> Jack (Sam Spade)
>   > >>>
>   > >>
>   > >> Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large
>   > >> number of other editors reject his POV edits?
>   > >>
>   > >> Jay.
>   > >>
>   > >>
>   > >> _______________________________________________
>   > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>   > >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>   > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   > >>
>   > >
>   > > _______________________________________________
>   > > WikiEN-l mailing list
>   > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>   > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   >
>   >
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > WikiEN-l mailing list
>   > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>   > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] [Election] 5th candidate

body:
Hello all,

Right now we acceted our 5th candidate,
his statement is need to translate as soon as possible; the vote will
begin within one and a half day. It is written in English and on the
page below.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2005/En#Jussi-Ville_Heiskanen

Strongly needed translation (for equality of oppotunity for all candidates) are:
Ca, De, Eo, Es, Fr, It, Ja, Nl, Pl, Uk, Zh

Your cooperation will be very appreciated.
--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


subject: [Foundation-l] [Election] 5th candidate


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Continued issues with Commons:
	unilateralinterpretations of po

body:
>Hi,
>
>I would like to complain about vipuser's actions on Commons. He has
>been reverting my edits, for example
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:DeletionMenu-zh&action=history
>, giving no reason.
>
>The version he reverts to are Simplified-only.
>He has not discussed it with anyone else first, and is interpreting
>policy unilaterally. It is my view that he is abusing his rollback
>button.
>
>I think it's high time he stop harassing me in this manner and let
>Traditional Chinese coexist peacefully on meta, commons, and
>foundation-wiki.
>
Sounds like a highly political act. Should be stopped imo.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why do we have them??

body:
>Hi all,
>I have a question: why do we have separate Wikipedias for Malay and
>Indonesian?
>
>According to
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_Malay_and_Indonesian
>, "The differences between Malay (Bahasa Melayu) and Indonesian
>(Bahasa Indonesia) are comparable to the those between British English
>and American English."
>
>If this is the case, then why does our policy on English differ so
>sharply than our policy with Malay/Indonesian?
>
>Don't people realise that we're dividing labour? If they had
>col-laborated on a single Wikipedia from the very beginning, the
>Malay/Indonesian Wikipedia would probably have at least 15k articles
>by now.
>
>Mark

Just for the same reason that we have seperate Serbian, Croatic and Bosniak
Wikipedias. They consider their languages as being separate, and Indonesian
is from above considered "the" Indonesian language, even though it is
relatively unprominent in terms of numbers of speakers. You should be
familiar with that issue, working on the Moldovan Wikipedia and now mingling
in the discussion on Serbocroatian. Don't tell the Indonesians they speak
Malayan, that will insult them, though (or just because) in the Dutch
colonial era everyone called it so.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/


body:
No, YOU don't understand.

It's not two languages, one based on Dutch and one based on German;
it's one language, just two different ways of spelling it.

As I said before these two villages are 4km apart, both men can
understand each others' speech very clearly because it is IDENTICAL.

The only difference is the way they spell their languages, which can
easily be converted.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >That's exactly my point. These two men speak the same language -- they
> >live 4km apart.
> >
> >Yet you're telling them they don't. That's crazy.
> >
> >With these two men, the only issue would be spelling, which is very
> >easy to remedy as has been proven with zh, sr, ks, and (attempted) en.
> >
> >
> >
> Here you prove yet again that you do not understand it. Spelling between
> a language based on Dutch and a language based on German differ for miles.
>
> Walter/Waerth
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] World66

body:
http://www.world66.com/northamerica/mexico

Honestly, when I saw "[edit this]", I thought it was Yet Another Illegal
Mirror, but they actually seem to have gathered their own contents,
under cc-by-sa-1.0

I see competition to WikiTravel...

Magnus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20050626/657e78d8/attachment.pgp


body:
>As I noted before, it is a dialect continuum.
All of the continental West Germanic language variants form a dialect
continuum, with the possible exception of the Frisian tongues.
>Stellingwarfs and Middel-pommersch are surely not mutually
>intelligible, but Grunnegers and Oostfreesk very well should be.
Yes, so are Berlinic and High German. And East-Veluws and Dutch. But
Grunnegers and Oostfreesk are not or barely mutually intelligible when
written down, because of the different spellings.

>You are foolishly dividing Platt by nations. This is illogical. If we
>had an Oostfreesk Wikipedia, Grunnegers-speakers would surely
>understand it and vice-versa, even though Grunnegers is in the
>Netherlands and Oostfreesk is mostly in Germany.

"Foolishly"... Mr. I-owe-all-the-world's-languages'-wisdom.... May I point
at the difference in spelling once more? And don't you think that the bulk
of the Dutch Low-Saxon dialects share some features most German dialects
don't?
>The problem of dialect continuum is a very difficult one.
Yes, so it can't be solved by one such disregarding message.
>HOWEVER, given the community reaction to a request for a Baseldytsch
>Wikipedia, I think the same is logical for a request for a "Dutch Low
>Saxon" Wikipedia
Is it? Is Servien requesting a Wikipedia for just one town, or region? No,
she obviously realises that, though the speaking communities hardly link
dialects on any higher level than their own region (they will never say they
speak Low Saxon, but always either the dialect of their own village or
region, Twents, Sallands, Drents etc.), we should group some of them
together. This is very different from what the proposer of the Baseldytsch
Wikipedia did: he simply said: "I have no affinity with the other Alemannic
dialects, so I want to open one for my dialect only".
>-- your language may be different to whatever degree
>than what many people on X Wikipedia use, but there is no rule
>forbidding its use. There is no rule against writing pages and pages
>and pages of content on nds.wiki in Stellingwarfs or Achterhooks. When
>I suggested doing this, I got a cold response that Dutch Low Saxon and
>German Low Saxon aren't mutually intelligible. Before whinging to us
>about that, can you at least actually try to use your dialect on
>nds.wiki to prove to us that it really doesn't work?
Some users of nds: made clear that they only use one spelling: the Sass one.
Dutch Low Saxon dialects are /never/ written in German spellings, except
with some German-initiated projects.

>Mark
>
Imo, the combined facts of mutual confusion in both speach and spelling
makes this idea a valuable one.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Language and Log in

body:
On 6/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes it is. This is being done at http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/Main_Page
>
> I think Gangleri is the person to contact for details about this:
> http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/User:Gangleri

To clarify: No[t in the main distribution]

Of course you can hack it in if you like.


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Copyright and Britannica Article List

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

Martin Richards wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote;
>>
>> It would depend on how Safeway created the list. If Safeway sends
>> employees to WalMart stores to write down every item they can find
>> that Safeway doesn't offer, that's entirely legitimate because
>> there's no copying (in the copyright sense) involved. If Safeway
>> somehow obtains WalMart master internal list of merchandise and
>> takes information from it, then they are copying.
>
> I am 90% sure these lists were not copied, but generated. So it would
> be more akin to writing down every item as opposed to copying an
> internal master list. This would would of course have to be confirmed
> with user:Bogdangiusca who first uploaded the lists.
>
> thanks Martin (User:Bluemoose)
>

I don't there there would be an electronic "list of Britannica articles"
anywhere, unless someone generated it; if a Wikipedian generated it and
placed it on Wikipedia, that is clearly a creative work covered by the
GFDL. And even more creative work would have gone into subtracting the
articles which already exist. Hence I don't think Britannica has
anything on us; but if they copied our list and said "here is a list of
articles we have that Wikipedia doesn't", and didn't will out the
correct paperwork, we could do them for GFDL violation :)

- --
Alphax
OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCvlxq/RxM5Ph0xhMRAuOHAJ9/G0ibSdCWDOoZq00ZeGflGXkErACfVDiS
3Fz3ORZzrH5+POMm85LdY30=
=reBR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: admin Yellowikis

subject: [Wikitech-l] Language and Log in

body:
I'd like to allow users to change the UI Language without having to log in.

Is that possible?

Paul


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of ... the surinamese thread

body:
>>No, it is NOT an acceptable name to use because other languages are
>>also spoken widely in Surinam such as
>>
> >Saramaccan,
>Is an inland language not commonly used outside the jungle areas that
>Saramaccaners live in. Not a nationally widely spoken language
>
> >Aukan,
>Aucaners same situation as Saramacaners.
>
> >Guyanese,
>Definately not spoken in most of Surinam and as the name suggest it is not
>a Surinamese language.
>
>>Javanese,
>>
>Only spoken by people of Indonesian background and as the name suggest it
>is not a Surinamese language.
>
>>Chinese,
>>
>Only spoken by people of  Chinese background and as the name suggest it is
>not a Surinamese language.
>
>>and Native American languages.
>>
>There are about 10.000 of those, they are not even acknowledged in the
>Surinamese flag with its five points which stand for the five most
>important  ethniticities.
>
>>These are just as much "Surinamese" as Sranan.
>>
>No they are not. Sranan is what binds most of the population together with
>Dutch .... so what is next you are going to call  Moroccan a Dutch language
>because people in the Netherlands speak Moroccan? Or Dutch a Thai language
>because there are Dutch people in Thailand? All of these languages are not
>Surinamese. They happen to be spoken in the country of Surinam yes. There
>is but one Surinamese and that is Sranan Tongo.
>
>>So while "Sranan" does indeed mean "Surinamese", the name "Sranan" is also
>>used in English to distinguish it from other languages of Surinam.
>>
>>
>Well I am not a native Oxford-English or American-English or whatever
>English speaker but I still have my doubts about that.
>
I must say Walter is right in saying all of these languages do not qualify
for the name "surinamese", and Sranan may. There is one other language that
might, namely Sarnami (also meaning "Surinamese"), but that's an abbrevation
of "Sarnami Hindi". However, we could better be as cautious as not to call
Sranantongo Surinamese, for it could insult speakers of other languages.
Just like "Filipino" or "Indonesian".

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


body:
> >From Rohn.
>
>And he *is* a native speaker.
>
>Mark
>
Having supported border-croosing projects for Low Saxon for years. How
surprising.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Language and Log in

body:
On 6/26/05, admin Yellowikis <yellowikis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to allow users to change the UI Language without having to log in.
>
> Is that possible?

Yes it is. This is being done at http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/Main_Page

I think Gangleri is the person to contact for details about this:
http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/User:Gangleri

Angela.


body:
So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
Gramsbergen??

Where are you getting this?! As I said before these men live 4km apart
and speak the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >No, YOU don't understand.
> >
> >It's not two languages, one based on Dutch and one based on German;
> >it's one language, just two different ways of spelling it.
> >
> >As I said before these two villages are 4km apart, both men can
> >understand each others' speech very clearly because it is IDENTICAL.
> >
> >The only difference is the way they spell their languages, which can
> >easily be converted.
> >
> >
> >
> No it is not read what the others said. A personn from one side of the
> area it is spoken in cannot understand someone from the other side.
>
> Walter/Waerth
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
Oh, by the way, nobody except YOU said that Larspeople and
Gramsbergenpeople can't understand each other. YOU are the only one
who said that.

Mark

On 26/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
> Gramsbergen??
>
> Where are you getting this?! As I said before these men live 4km apart
> and speak the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE.
>
> Mark
>
> On 26/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > Mark Williamson wrote:
> >
> > >No, YOU don't understand.
> > >
> > >It's not two languages, one based on Dutch and one based on German;
> > >it's one language, just two different ways of spelling it.
> > >
> > >As I said before these two villages are 4km apart, both men can
> > >understand each others' speech very clearly because it is IDENTICAL.
> > >
> > >The only difference is the way they spell their languages, which can
> > >easily be converted.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > No it is not read what the others said. A personn from one side of the
> > area it is spoken in cannot understand someone from the other side.
> >
> > Walter/Waerth
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland

body:
One could say we're starting serious work on the Polish local chapter.
Therefore, I wanted to ask the foundation a couple of things.

1. From what I understand, Wikimedia Poland could either be a part of
Foundation Wikimedia, or it could be a partner of it. What are the
differences between the two, and what would be better for the
foundation in the end?
2. Some of the Polish Wikipedia users had plan to gain money for
Wikipedia by selling custom t-shirts (just like on CafePress), etc.
Would it be possible for us to make an agreement by which we could
gain money for our chapter in this way?
3. Again a question related with money - we'll forward a part of our
income to the Foundation for the servers and any other administrative
tasks, but the question is - should we forward a specified amount
monthly/yearly (like 10.000 Euro per year) or a percentage of our
total income?
4. One of the Wikimedia Chapter pages mentions that the local chapter
should have at least 20 members on start. The Polish law states we
need 15 members. Would it be okay if we'd start the chapter with 15
members (as probably that much will come to the founding meeting) and
then apply the other members as for membership?

I think that's all for now. We should have a draft of the bylaws soon
posted in Polish, and we'll be ready to send them to the foundation in
the third week of July. If there won't be any objections, we'll start
Wikimedia Poland in the middle of August.

If the Foundation has any questions or comments, I'll be happy to
listen to them and forward them to our community.

--
Best regards,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Peng

subject: [Wiktionary-l] hello

body:
On 6/26/05, cookfire <cookfire at softhome.net> wrote:
> Wytukaze wrote:
> >Hello James, welcome to the list. I'm sure you'll have plenty to contribute.
> >
> >Congratulations on achieving that milestone! I've not worked on the
> >Eald Englisc one, though I do love the language. I spend almost all my
> >time on the English Wiktionary, though I have spent a small amount of
> >time on both the Latin Victionarium and the Tok Pisin Wikseneri. I
> >hope to one day have enough time to register an account on a number of
> >Wiktionaries, but that will have to come later. :)
> >
> >Now, I've rambled quite enough about my own affairs, so welcome again,
> >and do make yourself at home.
> >
> >Wytukaze
>
> Wytukaze,
>
> There is nothing stopping you from making accounts on all the Wikimedia
> sites. That way your name will be 'reserved'. One day there will be one
> user account across all the Wikimedia projects, but we aren't there yet.
>
> Polyglot

One user account for all Wikimedia projects? How could that work?
There are already name clashes, what could they do about that? Or
could you just make one user account and have it automatically put on
certain other projects, too? I don't get it.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland

body:
> 1. From what I understand, Wikimedia Poland could either be a part of
> Foundation Wikimedia, or it could be a partner of it. What are the
> differences between the two, and what would be better for the
> foundation in the end?

I'm not sure what this option means. I believe that Wikimedia Poland
should be a local chapter, which means it would be affiliated with the
Wikimedia Foundation, but not legally responsible for anything within
the Foundation.

> 2. Some of the Polish Wikipedia users had plan to gain money for
> Wikipedia by selling custom t-shirts (just like on CafePress), etc.
> Would it be possible for us to make an agreement by which we could
> gain money for our chapter in this way?

Yes, you'll need to create a contract for use of the trademarks.

> 3. Again a question related with money - we'll forward a part of our
> income to the Foundation for the servers and any other administrative
> tasks, but the question is - should we forward a specified amount
> monthly/yearly (like 10.000 Euro per year) or a percentage of our
> total income?

Assuming both are legal in Poland, this is up to your chapter to decide.

> 4. One of the Wikimedia Chapter pages mentions that the local chapter
> should have at least 20 members on start. The Polish law states we
> need 15 members. Would it be okay if we'd start the chapter with 15
> members (as probably that much will come to the founding meeting) and
> then apply the other members as for membership?

20 was just a suggestion since that would assure there is enough
interest, but if you think you have 15 people all very willing to work
on this, then that should be enough.

> I think that's all for now. We should have a draft of the bylaws soon
> posted in Polish, and we'll be ready to send them to the foundation in
> the third week of July. If there won't be any objections, we'll start
> Wikimedia Poland in the middle of August.

That sounds great.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland


from_name: Robin Shannon

subject: [Foundation-l] Colourblindness (clarification)

body:
2005/6/26, rose.parks at att.net <rose.parks at att.net>:
<snip />
> "Sure this isnt really important..."
>
> I don't agree with this remark in any way. I think that the "accessibility" of our site is quite important. By Section 508 of our accessibility laws, the U.S. government is not allowed to use non-accessible computer software, applications, etc. Further, I believe it is morally right that our site be accessible.
<snip />

i only meant this in the sense that being able to tell visited from
not visited isnt very important (to me at least), not that
accessibility for the colourblind isnt important.

2005/6/26, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>:
> Our links are blue and red. Can you confirm that these really are
> indistinguishable to someone with red-green colorblindness?
>
> I would really like to know if this is based on actual experience (eg,
> you are colorblind or a colorblind person has reported to you that they
> are in fact not distinguishable) or if it's speculation. Without hard
> data it's going to be very difficult to just come up with a change.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

brion, i based my first post on what was reported to me by one of the
most active wikinewsies who happens to be colourblind. He didnt know
that they were different colours untill someone told him. I have also
been told by another person on wikinews who simply has poor vision
rather than colourblindness that they have trouble telling visited and
non-visited links apart.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

--
hit me: <robin.shannon.id.au>
jab me: <robin.shannon at jabber.org.au>

upgrade to ubuntu linux: <http://www.spreadubuntu.org/>


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Switch to MediaWiki 1.5

body:
Has anyone got a clue for how long the database will be locked for this update?
--Mgm


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories and NPOV

body:
On 26/06/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been defending the presence of [[Category:Pseudoscience]] for
> some time now as a sociological category, but it occurred to me today
> that one could imagine all sorts of circumstances in which it would
> seem hopelessly POV to have category labels of this sort (one could
> include things like [[Category:Hoaxes]] or [[Category:Conspiracies]]
> or whatever in this, if those categories exist), even if their actual
> articles (and even category pages) were written in perfect NPOV. Does
> the brevity of category labels make this impossible? I'm beginning to
> think they might, and that these sorts of categories should be
> converted wholly into lists. I wouldn't mind a [[List of Satanic
> lies]] which clearly noted who thought they were and included
> [[Evolution]] on the list. But I would mind having [[Category:Satanic
> lie]] put onto the Evolution page.
>
> Any input on this would be appreciated as I mull this over.

I'm not sure how much use this is, but it strikes me as an interesting example.

A large number of people consider the Apollo landings to be a hoax -
I'm sure you've encountered them. We have many, many pages on the
Apollo program, the individual flights and associated topics. None of
these contain any significant discussion of the hoax theories - at
least, I haven't seen any.

We also have [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]], which discusses
the various hoax theories, counterarguments, all that sort of thing.
*It* is categorised under "Conspiracy theories" & "Hoaxes" (so, yeah,
we have both)...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: cookfire

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Licenses

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> I use it loosely as both Open and Free software applications make use
> of this resource. The NTG is really not interested in licenses, they
> want the resource to be used. In a way I sympathise even agree, once
> information is truly Free there is no purpose in making a proprietary
> resource that does the same.

The problem is not that they cannot make the information itself non
free, but if a commercially interested party improves on it using our
information as a base, it would be nice that the
improvements/corrections remain free as well. This is especially
important for software. I'm not sure how important it is for dictionary
or encyclopedia entries.

Jo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Export Dictionary?

body:
Brian Suda wrote:

>I have been on this list awhile, when i originally joined i was
>interesting in the possibility of exporting the wiktionary data as
>.dict format. Now that the newest version of OSX 10.4 has a built-in
>dictionary that uses the dict:// to look-up words i was interested to
>see if anyone on the technicaly side would like to explore the
>possibility of either exporting the Wiktionary database as .dict
>format, or run a dictionary daemon that would access the wiktionary
>database server and return dict entries. It would be read-only, but it
>would be another interesting way to access the wiktionary besides the
>web interface.
>
>Does anyone on the tech list know if this is even possible? I'm not
>asking you to do it (i can write the export), i was wondering if there
>is some sort of database schema available to extract the data into
>dict format, or are the entries too fragmented to even attempt an
>export?
>
>-brian
>
>
In fact exporting the Wiktionaries is almost impossible right now. I
once tried to write a script in Python to convert an English Wiktionary
entry in some common, logical format. There are too many different
possible ways an entry can be built up. Maybe I'll try it again one day,
but my time has become very limited lately. I'm not saying it's entirely
impossible, but any solution will need to have some manual input. It's
very hard to automate it all the way.
Another thing is that the Wiktionary content is mostly not ready yet.
We've done an amazing amount of work already and some entries are
already quite good, but most of the content needs a few (maybe 10 or 20)
more years of work to be able to say before it will be usable by the public.
We should be thinking about making it possible to export to various
formats right now though. If  all you want to to is look up a word and
keep whatever is currently on its page and simply present that to the
user. (or only grab the part describing the English word) That should be
possible and would be very easy to do. Maybe I should look into this
dict format, to know whether that would work. I'll go do that right now...

Jo


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Export Dictionary?


from_name: Matthew Rosson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Yahoo donation

body:
	Pardon the question, but whom can I email at Yahoo to thank them for the
server donations to Wikipedia? I can't find contact info on Yahoo's site.
Thank you.


body:
Brian Suda wrote:

>I have been on this list awhile, when i originally joined i was
>interesting in the possibility of exporting the wiktionary data as
>.dict format. Now that the newest version of OSX 10.4 has a built-in
>dictionary that uses the dict:// to look-up words i was interested to
>see if anyone on the technicaly side would like to explore the
>possibility of either exporting the Wiktionary database as .dict
>format, or run a dictionary daemon that would access the wiktionary
>database server and return dict entries. It would be read-only, but it
>would be another interesting way to access the wiktionary besides the
>web interface.
>
>Does anyone on the tech list know if this is even possible? I'm not
>asking you to do it (i can write the export), i was wondering if there
>is some sort of database schema available to extract the data into
>dict format, or are the entries too fragmented to even attempt an
>export?
>
>
Hi Brian,

I went over and read the dict RFC document. It only explains the
protocol to talk with a dict server. It says nothing about what the
contents should look like. Pure html would be OK and it would be
possible to indicate that it is html by indicating the mime type.

So, this answers your question in a positive way. It would be almost
trivial to provide the contents of the various wiktionaries through the
dict protocol. All of Wiktionary is stored in MySQL databases. One for
each project. It is possible to download dump files of these and load
them in your own local MySQL server or it would be possible to set up a
dict server that relays requests immediately to the Wikimedia servers.
It is possible to retrieve the entries through xml rather than html
(this means there is less overhead for the Wikimedia servers). For a way
how to to that I suggest you have a look at PyWikipediaBot. They have
module that does exacly that (and more, but that's not important for a
read-only dict server)

Good luck and I hope you feel like implementing this.

Polyglot


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Export Dictionary?


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
In Gmail (and most mail systems, of course) you can create filters to
cut out mail from people you're not interested in hearing from.

I have several operating now :-)

Dan

On 26/06/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um, don't we have an "incoherent" filter which should be kicking in
> about a dozen e-mails from this guy ago?
>
> FF
>
> On 6/26/05, Henry Kissinger <hkissinger at diplomats.com> wrote:
> > Why most certainly we always expect balanced journalism. The world needs
> > and expects lady killer lounge lizards, and even gay JJs ;).
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: "JAY JG"
> >   To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> >   Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conflict arising - what to do?
> >   Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:38:48 -0400
> >
> >   >
> >   > In articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't
> >   > most edits consist of POV editors from both sides repeatedly
> >   > reverting each other? ;-)
> >   >
> >   > Jay.
> >   >
> >   > > From: Fred Bauder
> >   > >
> >   > > That's true, but in at least one area, articles which concern
> >   > > the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is not unlikely that one
> >   > > editor may be repeatedly reverted by a group of POV editors.
> >   > > Perhaps other instances exist.
> >   > >
> >   > > Fred
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > > On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:17 PM, JAY JG wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > >>> From: Jack Lynch
> >   > >>>
> >   > >>> I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this,
> >   and
> >   > >>> where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a
> >   single
> >   > >>> user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious
> >   topic,
> >   > >>> chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
> >   > >>>
> >   > >>> Jack (Sam Spade)
> >   > >>>
> >   > >>
> >   > >> Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large
> >   > >> number of other editors reject his POV edits?
> >   > >>
> >   > >> Jay.
> >   > >>
> >   > >>
> >   > >> _______________________________________________
> >   > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >   > >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >   > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >   > >>
> >   > >
> >   > > _______________________________________________
> >   > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >   > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >   > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > _______________________________________________
> >   > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >   > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >   > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > --
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wiktionary-l] hello

body:
Wytukaze wrote:

>Hello James, welcome to the list. I'm sure you'll have plenty to contribute.
>
>Congratulations on achieving that milestone! I've not worked on the
>Eald Englisc one, though I do love the language. I spend almost all my
>time on the English Wiktionary, though I have spent a small amount of
>time on both the Latin Victionarium and the Tok Pisin Wikseneri. I
>hope to one day have enough time to register an account on a number of
>Wiktionaries, but that will have to come later. :)
>
>Now, I've rambled quite enough about my own affairs, so welcome again,
>and do make yourself at home.
>
>Wytukaze
>_______________________________________________
>Wiktionary-l mailing list
>Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>
Wytukaze,

There is nothing stopping you from making accounts on all the Wikimedia
sites. That way your name will be 'reserved'. One day there will be one
user account across all the Wikimedia projects, but we aren't there yet.

Polyglot


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: What Yahoo is providing

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales <at> wikia.com> writes:
>
> 3x DL385, dual CPU, 8GB RAM and 6 x 146GB 15k RAID 10. These have capacity
> for external shelves, can be added if needed.
>

An "out of curiosity" question: Those look like db servers to me. Does
that mean wikimedia is moving to distributed servers? I was vaguely under the
impression the dbs were going to be kept in Florida, and just Squids
distributed.

Dan


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Switch to MediaWiki 1.5

body:
> "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
>
>>Has anyone got a clue for how long the database will be locked for this
>>update?

Some hours, don't know how long exactly. Probably less than a full day,
but no guarantee. :)

All our other wikis remain open for editing in the meantime, so feel
free to slake your wiki-thirst in Commons, Wiktionary, Wikinews, etc or
Wikipedia in another language while en.wikipedia.org is locked.

Phil Boswell wrote:
> Is this causing the strange doubling effect wherein the last edit is
> appearing twice at the top of each history page, and single-diffs are
> failing?

Yes. The old database schema stored the current revision and older
revisions in separate databases. The new schema rearranges things so
revision data is stored in one place more consistently.

The conversion works by first copying the current data in to where we
had the old revisions, then breaking that off into the new text-storage,
revision-metadata, and page tables.

So in the meantime if you look at history, you will see two copies of
the current revision -- one in each table.

> ...and is it possible to make the notice announcing the upgrade a little
> larger?
>
> I sailed into a correct without noticing the Site-Notice and was somewhat
> startled to face the "locked-out" version of the edit page.

I'll poke at it a bit...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: edward molasses

subject: [Wikitech-l] Limiting amount of content per wiki page

body:
Hello,

I am installing MediaWiki to be used to hold a dictionary and I would
like to be able to give an administrator the ability to control how long
dictionary entries (i.e. wiki pages) should be. I have not been able to
find reference to this functionality in MediaWiki's documentation so I
am assuming it is not implemented. Could anyone suggest where in the
MediaWiki source code I would look to go about implementing this type of
functionality?

Thanks!
Andrew.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland

body:
Dariusz Siedlecki wrote:
> 1. From what I understand, Wikimedia Poland could either be a part of
> Foundation Wikimedia, or it could be a partner of it. What are the
> differences between the two, and what would be better for the
> foundation in the end?

Local chapters are independent organizations, at least so far, and I
expect it to be so in the future.

There are two basic choices here:

1. The German model -- the organization is totally independent, and is
not the legal representative for the foundation in Germany

2.  The French model -- the organization is totally independent, but the
Wikimedia Foundation has a sufficient vote (33%) to prevent bylaw
changes that the Foundation does not approve of, and the organization
*is* the legal representative of the foundation in France.

There are some advantages and disadvantages to either model.  I prefer
the German model slightly, as I believe it simplifies some issues
related to legal liability of the foundation with respect to things like
libel and copyright violations and so on.

In both models, the organization should acknowledge in the bylaws that
the right to use the name "Wikimedia" comes only at the permission of
the foundation.

The reason for these rules is to prevent a civil war with a rogue
chapter someday.  If a local chapter wants to move in a different
direction, away from Wikimedia, they can do so of course -- but under a
different name.  This is better in terms of enabling people to leave
peacefully than if the foundation somehow "owned" the local chapter.  :-)

> 2. Some of the Polish Wikipedia users had plan to gain money for
> Wikipedia by selling custom t-shirts (just like on CafePress), etc.
> Would it be possible for us to make an agreement by which we could
> gain money for our chapter in this way?

Yes.  We should soon have a standard trademark agreement for this sort
of activity.

> 3. Again a question related with money - we'll forward a part of our
> income to the Foundation for the servers and any other administrative
> tasks, but the question is - should we forward a specified amount
> monthly/yearly (like 10.000 Euro per year) or a percentage of our
> total income?

This is a complicated matter and I better not talk about it unless I'm
well rested. :-)  Someone else can explain how we've done this with the
German and French associations.

> 4. One of the Wikimedia Chapter pages mentions that the local chapter
> should have at least 20 members on start. The Polish law states we
> need 15 members. Would it be okay if we'd start the chapter with 15
> members (as probably that much will come to the founding meeting) and
> then apply the other members as for membership?

As Angela said, 15 sounds fine.  20 is just a recommendation.  I don't
know who made that recommendation, but it sounds sensible.  But if
you've got 15 excited people, that sounds great.

> I think that's all for now. We should have a draft of the bylaws soon
> posted in Polish, and we'll be ready to send them to the foundation in
> the third week of July. If there won't be any objections, we'll start
> Wikimedia Poland in the middle of August.

We will want to put some agreements in place for the trademark usage, etc.

You're on juriwiki-l, right?  Hopefully someone there will volunteer to
help with this.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Poland


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Fastfission (fastfission at gmail.com) [050626 13:04]:

> Even more alternative solution: move it off of Wikipedia altogether,
> to the webspace of some brave soul who would be happy to post a list
> of "articles EB has that Wikipedia does not" (they could even pretend
> it was an anti-Wikipedia page!).
> One could easily imagine a script which would cycle through the
> articles once every few days and check if they are still red-linked,
> and move the filled in ones to a different section of the page. Hell,
> I'll *write* that script if nobody else will. Then we can forget the
> whole question. If someone will host it.
> (I'd host it myself if I had any webspace of my own which could support it)

I really don't see why this can't be hosted on Wikipedia, for the reasons
you state. The fact that it's in Wikipedia: space as well makes it clear
this is a working document, not product. If it's decided it can't be
hosted on Wikipedia, I have plenty of places to put it, thatn can run cron
jobs to run scripts to update it and so forth. (Though I'd have a hard time
pretending to be anti-Wikipedia ;-) But I do think it belongs on Wikipedia
if at all possible.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Switch to MediaWiki 1.5

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
>>>...and is it possible to make the notice announcing the upgrade a little
>>>larger?
>>>I sailed into a correct without noticing the Site-Notice and was somewhat
>>>startled to face the "locked-out" version of the edit page.
>>
>>I'll poke at it a bit...
>
> Aaahh, that's better :-)
>
> BTW you're obviously posting from somewhere unusual, because OE was able to
> read your message directly without having to open it as an attachment !?!?!

I'm reading this list through a newsreader on the gmane link, and
postings didn't default to PGP-signed.

See what happens to this one though. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050627/82229065/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Language and Log in

body:
Perfecto - Yellowikis en Espa?ol llegar? muy pronto!

Gracias Angela y ?var

Paul

On 6/26/05, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes it is. This is being done at http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > I think Gangleri is the person to contact for details about this:
> > http://www.wikipage.de/en/index.php/User:Gangleri
>
> To clarify: No[t in the main distribution]
>
> Of course you can hack it in if you like.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright and Britannica Article List

body:
DF wrote:

>Either we need to accept that such a list, though
>potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern
>to keep around.
>
>OR
>
>We need to come to some agreement that such lists will
>be maintained despite the potential liability.  In
>which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is
>ultimately the one who is liable.
>
It is interesting to follow some of the links in our Feist v. Rural
article. I was just reading through the decision in Assessment
Technologies v. Wiredata (ooops I almost typed Wikidata. :-) )
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/JX03YB6O.pdf where it was ruled that the
copyright owner could not use copyright law to prevent access to
non-copyright information. Cited in that case also was the case of Sega
Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520-28 (9th Cir.
1992). There the court ruled that it was fair use for Accolade to make a
copy of and reverse engineer Sega's console software in order to make
its own games playable on Sega's system. The court said, "For technical
reasons, Accolade had to make a copy of the source code in order to be
able to obtain this information. It didn?t want to sell the source code,
produce a game-console operating system, or make any other use of the
copyrighted code except to be able to sell a noninfringing product,
namely a computer game. The court held that this ?intermediate copying?
of the operating system was a fair use, since the only effect of
enjoining it would be to give Sega control over noninfringing products,
namely Accolade?s games."

It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was
awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because
there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in
copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often
at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by
definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in
favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp.
v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of
such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or
deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.

AFAIK The discussion so far on this point has been an internal one, with
no intervention by anyone representing EB. I don't believe that we are
infringing their copyrights, but even if we were there are steps which
they must take if they wish to enforce that right. The first such step
would be to issue a take-down order. That would give us an opportunity
to comply without further problems. In a clear case of copyright
violation we would indeed be required to take things down when we become
aware of the problem even without such a notice. Where there is serious
doubt about the copyrightability of the material we do better by giving
ourselves the benefit of the doubt.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Why do we have them??

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>I think we can put the blame on our use of language code lists which are
>biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
>
>
An important observation.  In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back the
argument that a wide assortment of  conlangs are acceptable because they
have been granted a code.

Ec


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wiktionary-l] hello

body:
> One user account for all Wikimedia projects? How could that work?
> There are already name clashes, what could they do about that? Or
> could you just make one user account and have it automatically put on
> certain other projects, too? I don't get it.

There would be clashes, and the difficulties over how to resolve those
are the main reason single login hasn't happened yet. For more
details, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login which
lists a number of proposals and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login_specifications which has
the most recently discussed proposal. The Research Team are actively
looking into this issue, and the results of their last meeting on it
can be seen at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-06-18#Single_login>

Angela.


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> DF wrote:
>>>
>>>> there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a
>>>> copyright in the list of articles itself.
>>>
>>> I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a
>>> response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just
>>> ask them if they're okay with it?
>>
>> I was about to ask the same thing in my post, but I somehow forgot.
>
> And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
> Given their regular habit of bad-mouthing us in the press, I'm not
> keen on handing them an opportunity they can spin into "Look,
> Wikipedia is blatantly copying all of our articles." With Brockhaus,
> where we have established contacts and a more amicable relationship, I
> might view it differently.

There is always the principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than
to get permission.  Let's say we ask them, and they say "no."  What
then?  How do we tell the difference between a "No because it's
illegal." and "No because we don't like your competition"?  There is no
requirement for us to be naive.

Ec


body:
Timwi wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a
>>> response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just
>>> ask them if they're okay with it?
>>
>>   And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
>
> Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.

In that case their best tactic would be to stonewall, whether they are
right or not.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] For those with fear of Ultimate Wiktionary

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:

> According to GerardM today on IRC it is already a fait accompli that
> wiktionary will be replaced by ultimate wiktionary.

He has a credibility problem.

Ec


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Since those who care about my message obviously can't read Krey?l,
I'll rewrite it in English.

I'm still unsure of your ideas. I think that most people agree. The
structure of Wikipedia can change a bit even though it's sort of a
"fait accompli", thus I would hope that UW would be similarly
flexible.

Mark

On 25/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> M se toujou pa s?ten d ou ide. M panse ki anpil moun se dak?. Menm
> estrikti d Ouikip?di kapab chanje k?k enpe byenke sa se deja yon "fait
> accompli", donk m espere ki UW se d menm ki branlan.
>
> Je suis toujours incertain de vos id?es. Je pense que la plupart des
> personnes sont d'accord. M?me la structure de Wikipedia peut ?tre
> chang?e quelque peu bien que ce soit d?j? un "fait accompli", donc
> j'esp?rerais qu'UW est de m?me que flexible.
>
> Mark
>
> On 25/06/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Walter van Kalken wrote:
> >
> > > According to GerardM today on IRC it is already a fait accompli that
> > > wiktionary will be replaced by ultimate wiktionary.
> > >
> > > Waerth/Walter
> >
> > Hoi,
> > It is a pity that Waerth does not do justice to what I said. What I said
> > was that this is the time when people should discuss the functionality
> > of what the Ultimate Wiktionary will become. People that wait until the
> > implementation is there will find a fait accompli. This is a message
> > that I have been saying for quite some time so there is nothing special
> > about it. As to UW replacing the Wiktionaries, I have said and I say so
> > again, it is up to the people and the communities to do what they want.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Mark:

>> and Native American languages.
>> There are about 10.000 of those, they are not even acknowledged in the
>>Surinamese flag with its five points which stand for the five most important
>> ethniticities.
>>
>> 3385 speakers total. In addition, the speakers of these languages have
>>a much much much longer history in Surinam than any of the other
>>people, they are more "Surinamese" than Indians, Chinese, Javanese,
>>Blacks, Europeans, or mixed-race.
>>
>> 3385? did you count them?
>>
>>
>
>No, this is approximate (margin of error is small though, about
>50~75). This is not a count of native americans in surinam, it is of
>people speaking Native American languages, which is a different number
>as many Native Americans are monolingual in Sranan, Saramaccan, or
>Aukan nowadays.
>
>
There is not a single native american that will be monlingual in
Saramaccan or Aucan or any of the other creole languages. These are
languages of the bushnegroes (deregatory term I know but that is what
the group is called) the tw groups absolutely do not mix. Also your
certainty of the number is absurd.

Ethnologue may have a field office there but it doesn't mean theyare per
definition right they can also be totally wrong when classifying languages.

I am not even going into the other parts of your mail. To waistfull of time.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Why do we have them??

body:
I can't imagine a relatively sensible bloke like Ray trying to get
Esperanto out of Wiktionary. I'm guessing more like... Klingon,
Lojban...?

Mark

On 27/06/05, Patrick Hall <pathall at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Tim Starling wrote:
> >
> > >I think we can put the blame on our use of language code lists which are
> > >biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
> > >
> > >
> > An important observation.  In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back the
> > argument that a wide assortment of  conlangs are acceptable because they
> > have been granted a code.
> >
> > Ec
>
> Which are those, just out of curiosity? (I imagine the list includes
> Esperanto and Volap?k?)
>
> -Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
Fastfission wrote:

>2. If so, however, our fair use claims are something like:
>
>    C. Amount of work to be used: Minimum amount possible -- strictly
>logical information, minus a lot of it which we have pruned away.
>
Given the wide but uneven range of Wikipedian interests, the remaining
lists would be so incoherent as to be useless to anybody but us.

>3. Copyright law is, more than anything else, built upon lawsuits and
>the threat of lawsuits. It seems unlikely to me that EB would:
>    A. Care much about this
>    B. Think they had much of a case on this
>    C. Want to waste their resources finding out
>    D. Even consider this an issue if we didn't raise it with them first
>
In other words, don't scratch your tonsils with your toenails.

>It does raise the question of whether Wikimedia has their own lawyers
>or not, though. If there was at least one person paid part-time to do
>these sort of consultations, we wouldn't have to rely on
>back-of-the-envelope approaches like this. Law is not something which
>functions well by consensus of non-experts, obviously.
>
The consensus of experts is not much better.  50% of lawyers' cases are
lost.  We have an endless stream of difficult copyright questions, and
not just in US law.  Many of the issues that come up have not been
properly tested in the courts, so most legal opinions will be nothing
more than a best guess.

>I don't think there's any easy answer with this sort of thing
>-- there never is with most copyright law questions. It'll always be
>something in terms of "probabilities," and I think it is far enough on
>the "likely not a problem" end of the scale to not worry about or see
>any need to take down the page.
>
>
Yes.  A lot of it is a matter of business sense, and of knowing when to
push an issue and how much.  Knowing when to take risks.

Much of what happens in law is not a simple matter of the black and
white that is written in the statutes.   Having black and white rules
gives an illusion of simplicity.  Our 3RR rule seems simple and
straightforward, but the arguments about it are endless.

Ec


body:
More importantly, since you seem to know Platt so well, why not check
out http://s87257573.onlinehome.us/ks/index.php?title=Nds-test&variant=ks-de
??

Mark

On 26/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, by the way, nobody except YOU said that Larspeople and
> Gramsbergenpeople can't understand each other. YOU are the only one
> who said that.
>
> Mark
>
> On 26/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, are you saying that a man from Lars cannot understand a man from
> > Gramsbergen??
> >
> > Where are you getting this?! As I said before these men live 4km apart
> > and speak the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 26/06/05, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > > Mark Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > >No, YOU don't understand.
> > > >
> > > >It's not two languages, one based on Dutch and one based on German;
> > > >it's one language, just two different ways of spelling it.
> > > >
> > > >As I said before these two villages are 4km apart, both men can
> > > >understand each others' speech very clearly because it is IDENTICAL.
> > > >
> > > >The only difference is the way they spell their languages, which can
> > > >easily be converted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No it is not read what the others said. A personn from one side of the
> > > area it is spoken in cannot understand someone from the other side.
> > >
> > > Walter/Waerth
> > >
> >
> > --
> > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE