subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia, Part 2

body:
Sorry, I forgot. I hereby put my script under GNU licence.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Mark Christensen
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 9:20 PM
> To: 'wikipedia-l at nupedia.com'
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia, Part 2
>
>
> Magnus's PHP version of the Wikipedia is now available at:
>
> Http://php.wikipedia.com/
>
> You can also find another PHP and MySQL version of the WikiWiki
> software in
> use at:
>
> http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/
>
> Perhaps we might be able to get some ideas and/or code from these guys.  I
> don't know what license Magnus's version has, but the phpwiki at the above
> link is GPLed, and has some useful features which we might want
> to implement
> on our own PHP wiki.  One such feature, which has been very
> useful to me on
> the current UseModWiki based version of WikiPedia is DIFF.
>
> Anyway, I now see that the code for Magnus's version is up, so I can look
> more closely at the differences...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsanger at ross.bomis.com [mailto:lsanger at ross.bomis.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 3:05 PM
> To: 'wikipedia-l at nupedia.com'
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia, Part 2
>
>
> If anyone ever uploads an Internet-accessible version of the wiki, I'd
> sure like to see it.
>
> Larry
>
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mark Christensen wrote:
>
> > I've been tooling around on the php wikipedia, and it is very nice!
> > Congratulations.
> >
> > Great job with the statistics page, it'll be very useful.
> >
> > The parser works well with the couple pages I imported,
> generally I'm very
> > impressed.
> >
> > Are you planning to post the code for this on one of the
> php.wikipedia.com
> > pages as you mentioned in a previous e-mail.  I'd be very interested in
> > seeing it.
> >
> > The one problem I see thus far is that UseModWiki allows
> subpage links on
> a
> > subpage to other subpages of the main page.  I know that's not the best
> > description, but in the original wikipedia software a
> [[/subtalk]] link on
> > [[MainPage/talk]] would lead to [[MainPage/subtalk]].  We may
> not want to
> > emulate this, as it is certainly not intuitive, but there are a lot of
> > pages, like poker, with subpages that link to other subpages --
> either our
> > parser needs to automatically translate these links or the PHP wikipedia
> > should deal with them in the same way as UseModWiki.
> >
> > Yours
> > Mark Christensen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Manske [mailto:Magnus.Manske at epost.de]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 3:30 AM
> > To: Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com
> > Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia, Part 2
> >
> >
> > Jason is activating php.wikipedia.com for the script to test,
> which should
> > be working later today. So, soon you can flood me with bug reports ;)
> >
> > Some points that were mentioned on the list while I was asleep:
> > - Larry, I don't oppose CVS as such, I just thought why bother...
> >   So, I wouldn't mind a CVS at all.
> >
> > - Edit locks : I thought they'd protect a page that is edited for a
> certain
> > time, e.g., 5 minutes, so there won't be two edits of the same
> text at the
> > same time. Now that I know it's only for writing, I am glad to not have
> > wasted time in implementing such a thing in my script ;)
> >   The MySQL server will take care of the write-at-the-same-time problem,
> for
> > sure.
> >
> > - /Talk pages : Changing the standard text for new documents so they'd
> have
> > a /Talk page should do it, right? I could also have the parser look for
> > "/Talk" and append it if necessary in a "top-level" article.
> >
> > - Conversion to SQL format : The easiest way I can think of is a script
> that
> > goes through all articles in the current wikipedia and generates a
> complete
> > article text in chronoligical order (oldest first). After each "version"
> is
> > generated, a variant of my script can store it in the DB. That would
> ensure
> > identical data. Anyone to write a "generation" script?
> >
> > - Lame names : How about "Aide-Pikiw" (wikipedia spelled
> backwards)? That
> > must be the lamest, for sure? ;)
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] name change?

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010826/e2abd590/attachment.diff


from_name: mikedill at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP Wikipedia... and other thoughts

body:
1)Magnus's PHP version of the Wikipedia is now available at:
 Http://php.wikipedia.com/
I added additional links to other MySQL PHP wiki's to that page.

2) I think the name should not change. it would wreck all my external
links.

3) What advantages or disadvantages might accrue if we
(wikipedia/Nupedia) were listed at sorceforge?

4) I just want to say thanks to Magnus for the work, and Larry for
keeping the rest of us in line.

Mike Dill
mikedill at nupedia.com


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit locks

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
[BTW, your article was hard to read due to lines longer than 80 chars]

> Here's my understanding of the edit lock problem...

I've written [[Wikipedia/Edit lock]] now. If the monastery metaphors
are two cheesy, feel free to delete ... as always.

> There are several possible solutions. My own personal solution is
> wild. I just wouldn't use a lock at all. You run the risk of
> collisions, but these are so rare *in my experience* as to be worth
> ignoring.

Hmm, I don't think I'd risk that. My understanding is that this could
damage not only the current version/html cache, but also the revision
history. I'm not even sure the software could reliably detect this
condition (humans could of course).

> Another solution is to have 'per-file' edit locks.

Sounds good.

> CGI scripts do in fact die for no apparent reason sometimes, and
> it's very hard to trap/debug/etc.

It's perl, right? So you could hang a handler onto various hooks that
removed the evil lock.

  if (create_lock()) {
    $SIG{__DIE__} = $SIG{TERM} = ... = \&release_lock;
    ...
    release_lock();
  }

Perl itself could die, but that's probably less often.

Also, instead of creating a directory, why not create a file that
holds the PID? This way stale locks can be removed with some
certainity.

  until (sysopen(F, $lockName, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_EXCL)) {
    if ($! != EEXIST) {
      die("can't make $LockDir: $!\n") if $errorDie;
      return 0;
    }
    if ($n++ >= $tries){
	print STDERR "failing lock for $name, $tries, $wait, $errorDie\n";
	return 0;
    }
    if (open(F, "<$lockName")) {
      my $pid = <F>;
      close(F);
      chomp($pid);
      unless (kill(0, $pid)) {
        # the lock holder no longer exists, remove it and respin immediately
        unlink($lockName) or die("couldn't remove $lockName: $!");
        next;
      }
    }
    sleep($wait);
  }
  print F "$$\n";
  close(F) or die("couldn't write to $lockName: $!");
  return 1;

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010826/3991bd68/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Restricted speech (was: Wikipedia teamwork and 501c3 status)

body:
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com writes:

> >There are plans afoot to spin off Nupedia and Wikipedia into a non-profit
> >organization.  This is by no means certain, [...]
>
> [...] Even
> some of the comments on various /Talk pages might be enough to cause a
> challenge to the 501c3 tax exemption; [...]

In my mind, tax exemption is not the only reason for a non-profit
organisation. It's nice to have, of course.

But you're poking something that I've mulled over for some days: what
about, hmm, "restricted" speech in general?

Say that someone describes how Adobe e-books work so exactly, that it
is trivial for a programmer to circumvent the puny "encryption". Or
the same for DVD content protection. There are also classics like
descriptions of the production process of cocain or semtex[1].

I find all these interesting from a theoretical point of view. Normal
encyclopedias get by with not going into too much detail, but of
course WikiIsNotPaper, so if some more-or-less-anonymous contributor
created a neutral article, we have no such excuse.

On the other hand, Bomis, Jimbo, or whoever can be reasonably
connected with the site, would take some risk of prosecution. Is this
something we just accept? Should we censor ourselves? Our peers? Leave
it to the risk-takers to censor?

Footnotes:
[1] BTW, I've now searched for all four terms, and found nothing
    concrete.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010827/ccdeb030/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia search engine

body:
I've installed my new faster wikipedia search engine.

This searches only the titles of the articles, not the body.  You can still search
the body by clicking onward to use the original search engine.

It's marginally clever.  Search for 'jargon file' and 'poker jargon' and the
results are sort of good.

If I had a perl function with the following specifications, I could easily turn this
into a much better full-text search engine...

$PageText = &GetPageText("Computer_Jargon");

This ought to be simple, but for the life of me I have been unable to figure out how
to parse Cliff's *.db files.

I suppose I could key off of the html cache files, but it sure would be nice to be
able to update the database straight from the horse's mouth.

My code is or will be released under the GPL by, oh, Friday let's say.  In the
meantime, I'm too embarassed to let anyone see it.  I took a search engine program
or two from some other site or sites that I run and hacked them mercilessly.  There's
all kinds of useless variables and stuff.

I'll clean it all up and release it on Friday, but it's nothing very special.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Code to get text of page

body:
        $FS  = "\xb3";
        $FS1 = $FS . "1";
        $FS2 = $FS . "2";
        $FS3 = $FS . "3";
  # read full contents of .db file into $dbfile
        %Page = split(/$FS1/, $dbfile, -1);
        %Section = split(/$FS2/, $Page{'text_default'}, -1);
        %Text = split(/$FS3/, $Section{'data'}, -1);
       $pagetext = $Text{'text'};   # text of the page

I got this from Clifford Adam's UseMod website.  It's highly
useful.  I'm using it to provide a snippet of each page in the
search engine output.

Tomorrow I will use it to fulltext index the entire site.  This
will be mondo cool.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia search engine

in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:14:21 -0500"

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> I've installed my new faster wikipedia search engine.

When you said "faster" you weren't kidding were you.  Nice job.

--
Gareth Owen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia images for chemesitry - bonding convention

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010831/e1ab8d70/attachment.diff


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
Chemical structure diagrams seems like something there ought to be a
specialized free program to generate.  If we standardized on such a
program, the article source should contain whatever input file to
that program was used and we can use its output (in PNG, or EPS
rendered in PNG) in the articles themselves.  I don't think HTML is
adequate for the task.  We'll need something similar for mathematical
equations as well at some point (though complex HTML with special
characters is a possible alternative there).

You Wrote:
>posted to the Wikipedia-l mailing list at:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>>> I was trying to show a triple bond on the
>>> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Acetylene page. How is
>>> in normally
>>> shown using ascii text to html markup?
>>
>>There might be something in  extended (ISO) character
>>set that would work,
>>but I'm not terribly familiar with those so far.
>>
>>A broader question revolves around support for images
>>on Wikipedia--many of
>>us could probably draw diagrams that would enrich the
>>content of pages, like
>>the chemistry-related pages, dramatically.  We could
>>develop them and
>>release them under GDFL terms, and it would seem a
>>shame to limit their
>>availability and redistribution to off-Wiki linking.
>>
>>I mean, after all, dead-tree encyclopedias and even
>>some dictionaries have
>>illustrations.  It's an interesting challenge, working
>>within the confines
>>of a primarily-text medium (Lynx is my primary
>>browser, after all), but at
>>some point, the *pedias should support pictures.0


from_name: wojtek pobratyn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

body:
hi all.
the search works great this morning! nice one! any news on releasing the code Jimbo???

wojpob

----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob

--

OnetKomunikator - porozumiesz sie
z innymi [ http://ok.onet.pl/instaluj.html ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

body:
Friday morning is my goal.  I have to go through and edit it to not be so yucky.
:-)

wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> hi all.
> the search works great this morning! nice one! any news on releasing the code Jimbo???
>
> wojpob
>
> ----
> wojtek lukasz pobratyn
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob
>
>
> --
>
> OnetKomunikator - porozumiesz sie
> z innymi [ http://ok.onet.pl/instaluj.html ]
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia errors this morning

body:
Basically, the machine had too many files open and choked and died.  The problem
has been fixed now, and we'll be monitoring to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We upped the number of permissible open files, and I'm looking into it to see
whether some runaway process did something stupid.  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Where've you gone?

body:
Fri Aug 31 14:55:40 BST 2001

Wikipedia.com has just vanished, given a "server misconfiguration" error

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to
complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, bomis-coders-l at bomis.com and inform
them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may
have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache/1.3.19 Server at wikipedia.com Port 80
--
Gareth Owen


from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Irish session project and its implications

body:
As part of my extracurricular activities, I play Irish fiddle.  I
suggested on Irtrad-L, a music mailing list, that somebody set up a wiki
devoted to listing Irish traditional music sessions.  (Nobody is
maintaining a complete, definitive list these days, and I thought a wiki
would be the perfect solution.)  I gave Wikipedia as an example of a wiki
so people could understand what wikis are all about.

Well, wouldn't you know it but somebody decides to start the list *on
Wikipedia*.  At first I said (on Irtrad-L) that this was a bad idea, for a
variety of reasons--that the wiki should be located somewhere else.  Then
I thought again: hey, we can always *copy* the information that gets
started on Wikipedia to wherever the information will eventually live.  So
why not let people get *started*, working on Wikipedia?

THEN the thought occurs to me that the net result of this will be a few
more cheerfully addicted Wikipedians--particularly if there is indeed a
successful Irish session wiki started up, they will learn the wiki system
and remember that Wikipedia is what got them into it originally.  Warm
fuzzies!

It occurs to me now that this is actually probably a very good way to get
people into Wikipedia who might otherwise not know or care at all about
it.  We all have hobbies and academic interests that, in various ways,
might be very well-served by the collaborative treatment that wikis allow.
So that's my thought--we could start encouraging the creation of wikis
about our interests, and offer to host an initial page about it, and then
encourage people to take the wiki info elsewhere.

(Unless it's actually encyclopedic info--in which case, encourage them to
keep it on Wikipedia.  :-) )

Someone's already done this, too, with AmbientCalculiOnline.  That
actually brings Wikipedia quite a few hits.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Funny thing from access logs

body:
Someone searched at Yahoo for 'tld code' and fell through to Yahoo's google results.
A fairly prominent listing there is 'Wikipedia: CountryCodes'.

To a programmer or heavy net user 'tld code' is perfectly meaningful, and that
search result is accurate.  We might suppose that this person was looking for
technical information of some kind.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

in_reply_to: <r5iofownlk1.fsf@orr.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 07:14:54PM +0100

body:
Yes. This is slightly tricky to do well, but yes.

Gareth Owen wrote:

> Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
>
> > Friday morning is my goal.  I have to go through and edit it to not be so
> > yucky.  :-)
>
> When you click the title of a page, it does a search on that heading, but it
> is the old pulling-a-Volkswagen-through-treacle variety.  Would it make sense
> to change this link to use the all-singing-and-dancing-all-hail-Jimbo search?
>
> --
> Gareth Owen
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

body:
Nevermind, it was easy.  There might be some weirdness, please report if you see any.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Yes. This is slightly tricky to do well, but yes.
>
> Gareth Owen wrote:
>
> > Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
> >
> > > Friday morning is my goal.  I have to go through and edit it to not be so
> > > yucky.  :-)
> >
> > When you click the title of a page, it does a search on that heading, but it
> > is the old pulling-a-Volkswagen-through-treacle variety.  Would it make sense
> > to change this link to use the all-singing-and-dancing-all-hail-Jimbo search?
> >
> > --
> > Gareth Owen
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> --
> *************************************************
> *            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
> *      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:08:53 -0500"

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> Friday morning is my goal.  I have to go through and edit it to not be so
> yucky.  :-)

When you click the title of a page, it does a search on that heading, but it
is the old pulling-a-Volkswagen-through-treacle variety.  Would it make sense
to change this link to use the all-singing-and-dancing-all-hail-Jimbo search?

--
Gareth Owen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> napisa?:

>Nevermind, it was easy.  There might be some weirdness, please report if you see any.

hmm, yes, hmm, I still get the old _wiki.cgi?search=blahblah_ search. hmm .....

wojpob
----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob

--

OnetKomunikator - porozumiesz sie
z innymi [ http://ok.onet.pl/instaluj.html ]


from_name: D Anderson

body:
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> Chemical structure diagrams seems like something
there ought to be a
> specialized free program to generate.  If we
standardized on such a
> program,

There are several

  http://www.openscience.org/links.php?section=56

> the article source should contain whatever input
file to that program was
> used

I'm not sure I follow what you mean here.  The "input"
for the non-free
programs I've used is interactive input, via keyboard
and mouse.  I expect
that any free program one might use would work
similarly.

There is a format called SMILES for depicting
molecules in a supposedly
platform-independent fashion (in ASCII), but support
for that is uneven.
Worth pursuing though, maybe.

> and we can use its output (in PNG, or EPS rendered
in PNG) in the articles
> themselves.

While promoting free software is laudable, I don't
think any of the
commercial programs capable of producing rasterized
molecular image output
restrict the use of that output in a way that would
conflict with the
Wikipedia's content licensing.  Ie, just because I
generate, say, a BMP with
a commercial version does not restrict me from making
a PNG and posting that
to wikipedia.

I wouldn't see a problem, for instance, with me
generating image in ChemDraw
and then posting them.  Is there something about this
I'm missing?

The only restrictions we have to watch out for are
directly lifting an image
from a non-free source (ie, scanning from textbooks,
copying files from
websites, etc).

--Joe

> I don't think HTML is adequate for the task.  We'll
need something similar
> for mathematical equations as well at some point
(though complex HTML with
> special characters is a possible alternative there).

>
> You Wrote:
> >posted to the Wikipedia-l mailing list at:
> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >>> I was trying to show a triple bond on the
> >>> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Acetylene page.
> How is
> >>> in normally
> >>> shown using ascii text to html markup?
> >>
> >>There might be something in  extended (ISO)
> character
> >>set that would work,
> >>but I'm not terribly familiar with those so far.
> >>
> >>A broader question revolves around support for
> images
> >>on Wikipedia--many of
> >>us could probably draw diagrams that would enrich
> the
> >>content of pages, like
> >>the chemistry-related pages, dramatically.  We
> could
> >>develop them and
> >>release them under GDFL terms, and it would seem a
> >>shame to limit their
> >>availability and redistribution to off-Wiki
> linking.
> >>
> >>I mean, after all, dead-tree encyclopedias and
> even
> >>some dictionaries have
> >>illustrations.  It's an interesting challenge,
> working
> >>within the confines
> >>of a primarily-text medium (Lynx is my primary
> >>browser, after all), but at
> >>some point, the *pedias should support pictures.0
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Helga and other Internet kooks

body:
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 04:57 am, you wrote:
> The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all
> deserve legitimacy?
>
> Danny

Of course not -- both you and I have deleted or moved to the meta much of
this type of hopelessly POV or idiosyncratic material (and have edited the
hell out of less POV or idiosyncratic material).

The question here is if one particular kook is reformable or is irrevocably
stuck in her own POV world and therefore will be a continued drain on user
resources. I still haven't seen any evidence other than her joining the list
that she can reform. But joining the list is a major first step.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Welcome messages

body:
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:38 am, Helga wrote:
> Hello, I am a little swamped with all the wiki list reading material and it
> seems my limited email is getting overloaded.

You might want to create an email filter to sort any emails with the string
"Helga" in the subject into a special folder (just use the help menu of
whatever email program you use and look up "filter").

Otherwise you may miss some emails that concern you.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Restricted speech (was: Wikipedia teamwork and
    501c3 status)

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010905/3bee97bf/attachment.diff


from_name: Jason Richey

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: heim090401

body:
I have set up a wiki for Arabic and Hungarian now.  They exist as
"http://ar.wikipedia.com", "http://ara.wikipedia.com", "http://oar.wikipedia.com"
"http://arabic.wikipedia.com", "http://hu.wikipedia.com",
"http://hun.wikipedia.com", and "http://hungarian.wikipedia.com".  Let
me know if there is anything else needed.

Jason

Larry Sanger wrote:

> Also, Hungarian and Arabic wikis have been requested (see
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?International_Wikipedia ).  I would say
> Arabic is higher priority.
>
> --Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010907/650ce7db/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010907/49b1a416/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:

body:
I haven't gotten any such blank e-mails from wikipedia-l.  Very strange.
There also isn't anything in the archives:

http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-September/date.html

--Larry

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:

> there's something afoot; now loh has supposedly sent a blank message.
>
> You Wrote:
> >0


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010907/abb040d4/attachment.diff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 23398 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010907/abb040d4/attachment.png


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
[I am writing this as a "letter-to-the-editor," if you actually have such
a feature.  If not, feel free to ignore this.]

Dear editor,

I'm writing in response to your article about Wikipedia published a few
days ago.  I'm Wikipedia's main organizer.  I simply wanted to comment on
one remark reported in the article, which was as follows: "Walter Bender,
executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes
Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and
free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able
to compete with that."

Of course, right now Britannica has a greater scope and depth than
Wikipedia--but that's not surprising, because Wikipedia got its start just
eight months ago.  But in the interim we have created over 10,000
articles--the best of which are easily comparable to Britannica's
articles--and are now adding nearly 2,000 articles per month, according to
one resident statistician.  These articles are all constantly improving,
as well.  Many of our active participants have Ph.D.'s or other advanced
degrees, and are college professors and graduate students or are
highly-trained professionals.  Significantly, Wikipedia's *rate* of growth
has been steadily increasing--in terms of article numbers and quality,
traffic to the website, and attracting more highly-qualified contributors.
So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project
will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth.  There's nothing
stopping us.

Best regards,
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D.


from_name: Larry Olin Horn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:

body:
> there's something afoot; now loh has supposedly sent a blank message.

Huh?  I've been off on another project, so I've not sent any email or even
made any edits on Wikipedia for days.  I just happened to catch this
message in passing....

loh


from_name: Timothy Shell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
I think the relevent point is, scope and depth is where Wikipedia will
easily outstrip Britannica.  This is because we have a powerful method of
content generation.  It is the ease of use of the wiki model, and the open
content license that encourages participation, that will give us more
scope and depth.

One could plausibly argue that Britannica will always have an advantage in
quality and reliability, but I don't think this is the case.  For one
thing, the Wikipedia process results in a high level of quality.  And for
another thing, if the free alternative is 'good enough' then the premium
alternative will never generate enough revenue to pay for higher costs
associated with higher quality.

Tim

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> [I am writing this as a "letter-to-the-editor," if you actually have such
> a feature.  If not, feel free to ignore this.]
>
> Dear editor,
>
> I'm writing in response to your article about Wikipedia published a few
> days ago.  I'm Wikipedia's main organizer.  I simply wanted to comment on
> one remark reported in the article, which was as follows: "Walter Bender,
> executive director of MIT's Media Laboratory, believes that what makes
> Britannica a valuable resource is the scope and depth of its editing, and
> free Web-based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will probably never be able
> to compete with that."
>
> Of course, right now Britannica has a greater scope and depth than
> Wikipedia--but that's not surprising, because Wikipedia got its start just
> eight months ago.  But in the interim we have created over 10,000
> articles--the best of which are easily comparable to Britannica's
> articles--and are now adding nearly 2,000 articles per month, according to
> one resident statistician.  These articles are all constantly improving,
> as well.  Many of our active participants have Ph.D.'s or other advanced
> degrees, and are college professors and graduate students or are
> highly-trained professionals.  Significantly, Wikipedia's *rate* of growth
> has been steadily increasing--in terms of article numbers and quality,
> traffic to the website, and attracting more highly-qualified contributors.
> So it seems very reasonable to think that within a few years the project
> will surpass Britannica in both breadth and depth.  There's nothing
> stopping us.
>
> Best regards,
> Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D.
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia: Bill_Watterson

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010910/fdf1a32c/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Hot e-zines?

body:
That Kuro5hin article I wrote got us a bunch of traffic.

What are some other e-zines that I could write for?  I'm not sure where to
start looking.  Any URLs will be gladly explored...

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another question

body:
I think it would be a great idea to try to get Wikipedia linked to from
some really popular websites that don't already link to us.

Where is a handy list of URLs (not companies, but URLs) that point to,
say, the top 500 Media Metrix sites?  Somebody on this list must know.
:-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another question

body:
OK, I found it.

http://www.mediametrix.com/data/top500.jsp?language=us

But now I need recommendations for realistic websites to go after.  :-)

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> I think it would be a great idea to try to get Wikipedia linked to from
> some really popular websites that don't already link to us.
>
> Where is a handy list of URLs (not companies, but URLs) that point to,
> say, the top 500 Media Metrix sites?  Somebody on this list must know.
> :-)
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another question

body:
Maybe, http://www.mediametrix.com/?

lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> I think it would be a great idea to try to get Wikipedia linked to from
> some really popular websites that don't already link to us.
>
> Where is a handy list of URLs (not companies, but URLs) that point to,
> say, the top 500 Media Metrix sites?  Somebody on this list must know.
> :-)
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] friends of wikipedia

body:
Yes, this would be great!

Larry

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> hi all.
>
> I like the FoW page. Wouldn't it be quite handy to have web based
> statistics page of wikipedia's server so we could track the referrers
> and know who is linking to us???
>
> greetings
>
> wojpob
> ----
> wojtek lukasz pobratyn
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob
>
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] friends of wikipedia

body:
hi all.

I like the FoW page. Wouldn't it be quite handy to have web based statistics page of wikipedia's server so we could track the referrers and know who is linking to us???

greetings

wojpob
----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob

--

Mmm czesc to ja. Chcesz mnie ... rozebrac?
OK, zagraj ze mna w ruletke [ http://miss.onet.pl/start.html ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New York City attack

body:
I just want to express my condolences to anyone who has lost any loved
ones in the recent tragedies in New York City and Washington, D.C.

We are keeping tabs on the events on
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack

Personally, I found it very hard to get any work done today.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is acting screwy

body:
I've already sent this to Jimbo and Jason, but Wikipedia is acting very
screwy.  When I go to edit [[emoticon]] I arrive at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=Emoticon
which is as it should be, but what is at the top of the page is the
(lower-cased) word "action".

Moreover, the link to [[Ronald Reagan]] from that page is properly coded
("[[Ronald Reagan]]") but brings you to a nonexistent [[Ronald]] page,
which resides at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
!!!

But
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Ronald_Reagan
still works for me.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
This is a very interesting discussion--the issue has been raised before,
but you state it very articulately.

On 12 Sep 2001, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:

> Timothy Shell <tshell at bomis.com> writes:
>
> > One could plausibly argue that Britannica will always have an advantage in
> > quality and reliability, but I don't think this is the case.  For one
> > thing, the Wikipedia process results in a high level of quality.
>
> With quality I agree. Reliability is another thing: sometimes I'd want
> to link with a resource that explains a concept, which *won't*
> suddenly change from under my hands. Even if we believe that changes to
> Wikipedia generally go to the better, more detailed, more balanced,
> etc. that can be detrimental sometimes.
>
> Suppose I write a paper about something that references an Wikipedia
> article. Now someone broadens the article with much information that
> is also in my paper, i.e. the papers is rendered a bit useless. Or
> worse, someone puts information that refute my theory on the page.
> Oops.
>
> On the other hand, as we can all see now, up-to-dateness is a virtue
> in which Wikipedia can beat all printed encylopedias hands down.
> britannica.com also has something by now; I can't judge details from
> here, though.

This raises issues about the future that I think are very interesting to
think about (even if they are in the somewhat distant future).

Basically, I think the occasional temporary degradation of articles is an
acceptable disadvantage of our present system, given that the what causes
that disadvantage, namely our completely open system, creates huge (and
ever more rapidly increasing) amounts of generally reliable content.

The other disadvantage mentioned, that references might lead to personal
embarrassment, doesn't strike me as a terribly huge disadvantage.  Who,
after all, is going to *cite* a Wikipedia article?  Nobody, or at least,
nobody before we have "stable versions" of articles (if we *ever* do) that
are given a stamp of approval (perhaps by Nupedia review groups).

But I think we probably will, in the distant (how distant, who knows)
future, have an official approval process (that is kept carefully separate
from the article-generation process).  It would make sense to save copies
of the exact article that was approved, for citation purposes, or to
populate a database of "approved articles."

The way I see it, pretty soon, Wikipedia is going to have 100,000
articles, and Wikipedia will be a household name.  Even those who have
scoffed at the idea of a wiki-based collaborative project will see value
in the result, and a natural movement will be afoot to certify or approve
certain articles, so that the public can trust that the information in
those articles is reliable.  I think at that time we probably won't have
any trouble at all getting suitable experts interested in serving on
approval committees.  Again, we might try to tap Nupedia for this
purpose--if they're willing, which they might not be, but who knows.

Anyway, Wikipedia can't be *completely* up-to-date unless we've got a
*lot* of people working on it in many different areas.  And, at this stage
anyway, the best way to keep a lot of people working on it is by keeping
it completely free.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
Timothy Shell <tshell at bomis.com> writes:

> One could plausibly argue that Britannica will always have an advantage in
> quality and reliability, but I don't think this is the case.  For one
> thing, the Wikipedia process results in a high level of quality.

With quality I agree. Reliability is another thing: sometimes I'd want
to link with a resource that explains a concept, which *won't*
suddenly change from under my hands. Even if we believe that changes to
Wikipedia generally go to the better, more detailed, more balanced,
etc. that can be detrimental sometimes.

Suppose I write a paper about something that references an Wikipedia
article. Now someone broadens the article with much information that
is also in my paper, i.e. the papers is rendered a bit useless. Or
worse, someone puts information that refute my theory on the page.
Oops.

On the other hand, as we can all see now, up-to-dateness is a virtue
in which Wikipedia can beat all printed encylopedias hands down.
britannica.com also has something by now; I can't judge details from
here, though.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010912/02838f76/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tim Chambers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
See my column for the formatted version:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Tim_Chambers/Wikipedia_configuration_management

There was [a thread on the Wikipedia list] that got me thinking about
configuration management for Wikipedia.

I agree with the need to accommodate Wikipedia in citations. I also
agree with the need to somehow "freeze" articles.

So here's an outline of my proposal:

1. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a perpetual work in progress. I
think the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack article is evidence of
the value in this principle. Wikipedia contributes to the universal
body of human knowledge, offering the unique benefits of Wiki
technology: global participation, hypertext, up-to-date information,
etc. Others may want to flesh out this mission statement. We must
never compromise this key contribution of Wikipedia.

2. Wikipedia also strives to be academically relevant by enabling
periodic releases of encyclopedia versions. The period may be much
shorter than a conventional encyclopedia, but most information
providers seem to be settling on annual updates. This also builds on
the strong tradition of hardcopy almanac?s. The 2001 edition of the
Wikipedia needs to get out soon if we go this route.

3. Wikipedia articles can be versioned even more often than the whole
Wikipedia. We already do this thanks to UseModWiki, but the calls for
"freezing" articles are begging for a baselining system where an
article can, to some degree, be called "ready." They'll never be
"finished," but many are "ready" for "release."

So that brings me to my overall vision. [I work] in the field of
software process engineering, and from my perspective Wikipedia needs
a [configuration management system]?. We have a [revision control
system]? for individual articles, but the 10,000 article mark seems a
good point to release our first version of the Wikipedia. Eventually
(maybe very soon?), Wikipedia will need a supervised release process.

This model is analagous to other open source projects. For instance,
Debian released version 2.2r3 on April 17th, 2001. To be a part of
that release, developers of all parts of Linux had to "get on the
release train," as it's sometimes called.

Here's a start to get discussion of Wikipedia's configuration
management system going. Current URLs at www.wikipedia.com would
continue to reflect the current understanding of the "wild and wooly
world." Articles are "live." But some new links can be added to each
article. Every "released" article could have a link to view diffs
compared with older released versions of the article, not just the
"older revisions." We still show visitors the live copy, but we have a
link to "release 2001" or release "September 2001" and so on. These
named releases are frozen for all time. So the world will know what
Wikipedia in 2001 had to say about the universe. There isn't an "edit"
link on released pages, but there's a "visit the live, ongoing
work-in-progress version of this article," which still has the edit
link.

I still have a lot of vocational work done today, so enough
avocational time for today. Talk amongst yourselves...

<>< Tim

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
<lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> The other disadvantage mentioned, that references might lead to personal
> embarrassment, doesn't strike me as a terribly huge disadvantage.  Who,
> after all, is going to *cite* a Wikipedia article?  Nobody, or at least,
> nobody before we have "stable versions" of articles (if we *ever* do) that
> are given a stamp of approval (perhaps by Nupedia review groups).

That's what I meant.

But the reliability problem, if it is one, can creep up inside
Wikipedia as well. Just now, I wrote on [[i386]]:

  See [[Intel]] for a comprehensive list of all CPUs produced by that company.

This is correct now, but actually I find the big list on [[Intel]] a
bit too much information without proper presentation. I'll not do
anything about that yet, but other Wikipedians may have the same
feeling, and, say, put the list on one or more other pages.

One feature missing is finding all reference to a page. I don't think
the new search supports that yet.

> But I think we probably will, in the distant (how distant, who knows)
> future, have an official approval process (that is kept carefully separate
> from the article-generation process).  It would make sense to save copies
> of the exact article that was approved, for citation purposes, or to
> populate a database of "approved articles."

I don't know whether you imply that, but I am against keeping the
approved pages separate from the "main" Wikipedia.

One can already link to stable version like
  <URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Pentagon&revision=3>
the only problem being that older revisions are cleaned out. The
easiest solution is keeping all revisions, or keeping them longer. But
I don't know how this would influence disk space requirements, and,
more important, I'm not the one shelling out $$ for it ...

Approval comes to the rescue: Why not a few weeks worth of revisions,
as we do now, AND approved revisions going back 5 years?

I.e. what I'm proposing is that when some approval authority decides
that revision X is good, nothing more than a "approved" bit is
flipped. All approved revisions are marked in the "View other
revisions" page of an article, they have a longer expire period, and
one is able to instruct the wiki.cgi to hand out the latest approved
version. Nothing more changes.

It should also be possible to get a diff between the last approved and
any newer revision. That makes re-approval easier as well.

That is largely similar to the "stable" and "development" branches
used in many software products.

> And, at this stage anyway, the best way to keep a lot of people
> working on it is by keeping it completely free.

If you meant free-from-restrictions, "at this stage anyway" is
misleading. I don't know of a feasible legal way to change the
Wikipedia license apart from starting from scratch.

If you meant for-free, that can certainly change. But I suspect that
there will always be parties willing to sponsor the costs for hosting
Wikipedia.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010913/5463762d/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
> - Enable article names that have a namespace at the beginning, separated by
> a ':'
> - A blank namespace, like ':HomePage', leads to the "normal", current
> wikipedia
> - If no namespace is given ('HomePage'), the link is within the current
> namespace. So, once you view an article with a namespace, it will link to
> destinations within that namespace unless stated otherwise.

Sounds good to me--this is a way to make it relatively easy to distinguish
user pages, talk pages, etc.

Essentially, we need three namespaces, or four: the encyclopedia; talk
pages; user/member pages; and perhaps "Wikipedia" pages, i.e., pages about
Wikipedia.  The big question is, do we really need to have links between
these different namespaces?  The answer seems to be "Yes, of course."
We'd link from about-Wikipedia pages to encyclopedia pages to give
examples; etc.

For purposes of searching and counting, this would make it easy to search
*just* through the encyclopedia (or any other namespace).

Then--maybe--we want an "approved" namespace.

> - The current namespace is displayed at the top of the page.
> - Other namespaces that have an article with the same name are displayed as
> links to these articles.

I'm not sure I understand the latter...?

> That would enable the following scenario:
> - Article "xyz" is developed as usual
> - Some authorized person decides that this article is great, and cpoies it
> to "stable:xyz"
> - The article "xyz" can be developed further as usual

This part is *extremely* important.  This talk of "freezing" pages is
naturally interpreted as meaning that one cannot make any further edits to
a page.  I'm sure very few if any people intended that, though.

> - The article "stable:xyz" is for view only, unless you have special
> authorization, and can be linked to or cited
> - Links in "stable:xyz" would, without changes, automatically go to other
> "stable:" articles, while the same article in the ":" namespace would link
> to normal wikipedia articles
> - A link within the "stable:" namespace that leads to a blank page could
> automatically lead to the normal wikipedia, or display a page "no stable
> version, see the normal one", or something similar.

Maybe, and maybe we'd just want those to be different color links.  We
should cross that bridge when we come to it.

> There could also be a "talk" namespace, for example, to get rid of these
> ugly "/Talk" pages ;)
> Or a "data" namespace, to store, say, famous texts that are in the PD now.

This is actually a great idea, I think.  It *would* be good to have texts
and other non-encyclopedic data in a different namespace from the
encyclopedia.

> I don't see a problem implementing such a mechanism, and it won't hinder
> wikipedians in any way, it just adds an option.

I agree 100%.  This is an excellent compromise.

Larry

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> > [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Robert Bihlmeyer
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:36 AM
> > To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
> >
> >
> > <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:
> >
> > > The other disadvantage mentioned, that references might lead to personal
> > > embarrassment, doesn't strike me as a terribly huge disadvantage.  Who,
> > > after all, is going to *cite* a Wikipedia article?  Nobody, or at least,
> > > nobody before we have "stable versions" of articles (if we
> > *ever* do) that
> > > are given a stamp of approval (perhaps by Nupedia review groups).
> >
> > That's what I meant.
> >
> > But the reliability problem, if it is one, can creep up inside
> > Wikipedia as well. Just now, I wrote on [[i386]]:
> >
> >   See [[Intel]] for a comprehensive list of all CPUs produced by
> > that company.
> >
> > This is correct now, but actually I find the big list on [[Intel]] a
> > bit too much information without proper presentation. I'll not do
> > anything about that yet, but other Wikipedians may have the same
> > feeling, and, say, put the list on one or more other pages.
> >
> > One feature missing is finding all reference to a page. I don't think
> > the new search supports that yet.
> >
> > > But I think we probably will, in the distant (how distant, who knows)
> > > future, have an official approval process (that is kept
> > carefully separate
> > > from the article-generation process).  It would make sense to
> > save copies
> > > of the exact article that was approved, for citation purposes, or to
> > > populate a database of "approved articles."
> >
> > I don't know whether you imply that, but I am against keeping the
> > approved pages separate from the "main" Wikipedia.
> >
> > One can already link to stable version like
> >
> > <URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Pentagon&r
> > evision=3>
> > the only problem being that older revisions are cleaned out. The
> > easiest solution is keeping all revisions, or keeping them longer. But
> > I don't know how this would influence disk space requirements, and,
> > more important, I'm not the one shelling out $$ for it ...
> >
> > Approval comes to the rescue: Why not a few weeks worth of revisions,
> > as we do now, AND approved revisions going back 5 years?
> >
> > I.e. what I'm proposing is that when some approval authority decides
> > that revision X is good, nothing more than a "approved" bit is
> > flipped. All approved revisions are marked in the "View other
> > revisions" page of an article, they have a longer expire period, and
> > one is able to instruct the wiki.cgi to hand out the latest approved
> > version. Nothing more changes.
> >
> > It should also be possible to get a diff between the last approved and
> > any newer revision. That makes re-approval easier as well.
> >
> > That is largely similar to the "stable" and "development" branches
> > used in many software products.
> >
> > > And, at this stage anyway, the best way to keep a lot of people
> > > working on it is by keeping it completely free.
> >
> > If you meant free-from-restrictions, "at this stage anyway" is
> > misleading. I don't know of a feasible legal way to change the
> > Wikipedia license apart from starting from scratch.
> >
> > If you meant for-free, that can certainly change. But I suspect that
> > there will always be parties willing to sponsor the costs for hosting
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > --
> > Robbe
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
Having "stable" versions of articles requires the ability to "lock" pages,
which requires new or adapted software. If the wiki software is changed
anyway, I'd suggest a "namespace" mechanism. I already mentioned that
somewhere, I just forgot where;). So, here again, my proposal:

- Enable article names that have a namespace at the beginning, separated by
a ':'
- A blank namespace, like ':HomePage', leads to the "normal", current
wikipedia
- If no namespace is given ('HomePage'), the link is within the current
namespace. So, once you view an article with a namespace, it will link to
destinations within that namespace unless stated otherwise.
- The current namespace is displayed at the top of the page.
- Other namespaces that have an article with the same name are displayed as
links to these articles.

That would enable the following scenario:
- Article "xyz" is developed as usual
- Some authorized person decides that this article is great, and cpoies it
to "stable:xyz"
- The article "xyz" can be developed further as usual
- The article "stable:xyz" is for view only, unless you have special
authorization, and can be linked to or cited
- Links in "stable:xyz" would, without changes, automatically go to other
"stable:" articles, while the same article in the ":" namespace would link
to normal wikipedia articles
- A link within the "stable:" namespace that leads to a blank page could
automatically lead to the normal wikipedia, or display a page "no stable
version, see the normal one", or something similar.

There could also be a "talk" namespace, for example, to get rid of these
ugly "/Talk" pages ;)
Or a "data" namespace, to store, say, famous texts that are in the PD now.

I don't see a problem implementing such a mechanism, and it won't hinder
wikipedians in any way, it just adds an option.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Robert Bihlmeyer
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:36 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
>
>
> <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:
>
> > The other disadvantage mentioned, that references might lead to personal
> > embarrassment, doesn't strike me as a terribly huge disadvantage.  Who,
> > after all, is going to *cite* a Wikipedia article?  Nobody, or at least,
> > nobody before we have "stable versions" of articles (if we
> *ever* do) that
> > are given a stamp of approval (perhaps by Nupedia review groups).
>
> That's what I meant.
>
> But the reliability problem, if it is one, can creep up inside
> Wikipedia as well. Just now, I wrote on [[i386]]:
>
>   See [[Intel]] for a comprehensive list of all CPUs produced by
> that company.
>
> This is correct now, but actually I find the big list on [[Intel]] a
> bit too much information without proper presentation. I'll not do
> anything about that yet, but other Wikipedians may have the same
> feeling, and, say, put the list on one or more other pages.
>
> One feature missing is finding all reference to a page. I don't think
> the new search supports that yet.
>
> > But I think we probably will, in the distant (how distant, who knows)
> > future, have an official approval process (that is kept
> carefully separate
> > from the article-generation process).  It would make sense to
> save copies
> > of the exact article that was approved, for citation purposes, or to
> > populate a database of "approved articles."
>
> I don't know whether you imply that, but I am against keeping the
> approved pages separate from the "main" Wikipedia.
>
> One can already link to stable version like
>
> <URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Pentagon&r
> evision=3>
> the only problem being that older revisions are cleaned out. The
> easiest solution is keeping all revisions, or keeping them longer. But
> I don't know how this would influence disk space requirements, and,
> more important, I'm not the one shelling out $$ for it ...
>
> Approval comes to the rescue: Why not a few weeks worth of revisions,
> as we do now, AND approved revisions going back 5 years?
>
> I.e. what I'm proposing is that when some approval authority decides
> that revision X is good, nothing more than a "approved" bit is
> flipped. All approved revisions are marked in the "View other
> revisions" page of an article, they have a longer expire period, and
> one is able to instruct the wiki.cgi to hand out the latest approved
> version. Nothing more changes.
>
> It should also be possible to get a diff between the last approved and
> any newer revision. That makes re-approval easier as well.
>
> That is largely similar to the "stable" and "development" branches
> used in many software products.
>
> > And, at this stage anyway, the best way to keep a lot of people
> > working on it is by keeping it completely free.
>
> If you meant free-from-restrictions, "at this stage anyway" is
> misleading. I don't know of a feasible legal way to change the
> Wikipedia license apart from starting from scratch.
>
> If you meant for-free, that can certainly change. But I suspect that
> there will always be parties willing to sponsor the costs for hosting
> Wikipedia.
>
> --
> Robbe
>


from_name: Michael Tinkler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia as a reference tool

body:
As a currently practicing professor who receives papers with web citations
I'd like to note that the *date of viewing* is included in all standard
citation forms for internet information.

Wikipedia may be unusual in changing frequently, but it is quite common to
find pages cited by students that have disappeared.  After all, I have to
check all my links off of my homepage every semester before recommending
them for student use!

Michael Tinkler.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
I'm omitting responses to issues that are addressed by Magnus' post...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:
> 2. Wikipedia also strives to be academically relevant by enabling
> periodic releases of encyclopedia versions. The period may be much
> shorter than a conventional encyclopedia, but most information
> providers seem to be settling on annual updates. This also builds on
> the strong tradition of hardcopy almanac?s. The 2001 edition of the
> Wikipedia needs to get out soon if we go this route.

This would be a *great* benefit of having an "approved" namespace.  If we
make the standard for inclusion in the "approved" namespace roughly
equivalent to the standard for inclusion in Nupedia, we essentially
guarantee that the articles will be of publishable quality.  It's
fantastic that Wikipedia is so easy to edit, too, because it means that
any issues that reviewers might have can be *immediately* rectified (by
the reviewers themselves).  This might be a way to get a lot of the
(thousands!) of idle Nupedia hands involved in Wikipedia.

Anyway, yes, it would be fantastic to have an approved body of content to
be able to release in cheap newsprint editions, for places that lack
computers, and in CD versions.  As soon as we get enough approved content,
you can bet that Jimbo will be very interested in producing such
materials.

> 3. Wikipedia articles can be versioned even more often than the whole
> Wikipedia. We already do this thanks to UseModWiki, but the calls for
> "freezing" articles are begging for a baselining system where an
> article can, to some degree, be called "ready." They'll never be
> "finished," but many are "ready" for "release."

I agree 100%.  (Actually, I think even our very best articles might be
subject to some further revision by expert reviewers.)

> Here's a start to get discussion of Wikipedia's configuration
> management system going. Current URLs at www.wikipedia.com would
> continue to reflect the current understanding of the "wild and wooly
> world." Articles are "live." But some new links can be added to each
> article. Every "released" article could have a link to view diffs
> compared with older released versions of the article, not just the
> "older revisions." We still show visitors the live copy, but we have a
> link to "release 2001" or release "September 2001" and so on. These
> named releases are frozen for all time. So the world will know what
> Wikipedia in 2001 had to say about the universe. There isn't an "edit"
> link on released pages, but there's a "visit the live, ongoing
> work-in-progress version of this article," which still has the edit
> link.

Sounds reasonable.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Strongest areas of Wikipedia?

body:
What are the strongest areas of Wikipedia, do you suppose?  We can solicit
links from those areas of About.com.  I've done Philosophy (not to say
it's a strong area :-) ).  It would be great if you could do the area(s)
of your choice, looking at these pages:

http://www.about.com/science/index.htm?PM=59_0240_T
http://www.about.com/arts/index.htm?PM=59_0201_T
http://www.about.com/musicperform/index.htm?PM=59_0237_T
and generally
http://www.about.com/

and then record who you've written, on:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Building_Wikipedia_membership/About.com

I think doing this will get us a lot of good people (over the long haul).

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP-wikipedia CVS repository

body:
I just uploaded the current version of my PHP script to the Nupedia CVS
repository. Jason is currently a little busy, so I though it can't do any
harm. It's at the "php.wikipedia" directory. It's not working, Jason will
have to copy it to the "real" site and set some password for database
access.

This version already includes full namespace support as I described it. Some
security has been added :
- Users without special privileges ("normal" users) can edit only pages in
the namespaces ":" (blank; the normal wikipedia space), "user:", "talk:",
and "wiki:"
- Operators can edit articles in any EXISTING namespace
- Sysops can also add new namespaces

So, we can have a "stable:" or "current:" namespace, or a "2001:", "2002:"
and "2003:", or "2001-09", or "2002-May", or all together, for our annual
versions. Simple as that :)

Just for clarification :
- Sysops can give users sysop and/or operator rights
- Operators can give users operator rights
- As initial sysops, I'd suggest Larry and Jimbo for the contents part, as
well as Jason, Toan and myself for the technical part...

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New York Times article

body:
The author of the NYT article told me that it will be coming out next
Thursday, Sept. 20, though this isn't absolutely certain.

You can bet we are going to be *very* busy when that happens.  I hope
you'll participate then to help keep the newbies in line.  :-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010914/8ed57f85/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
Mike, I'm extremely sympathetic to the concern about letting the wiki
process at Wikipedia continue unimpeded.  But do you understand that the
proposal on the table is to save, to a separate "namespace," approved
versions of articles--letting Wikipedia continuing on pretty much the same
way it did before?  There wouldn't be any (or very few) links from the
regular namespace and the "approved" namespace.  It's just that, if one
wanted to see approved articles, one could go to the "approved" namespace.

There are numerous complications associated with simply sending articles
to be approved to Nupedia--the main one being that, despite our already
having encouraged that greatly, either directly or via the Chalkboard, it
ain't happening.  There just isn't a significant payoff for Wikipedians to
get their articles in Nupedia.  The other significant consideration is
that it takes forever and a day for an article to get through Nupedia.
If we had a relatively simple approval process (two or three relevant area
reviewer approvals, and it's in), the Wikipedia approval process might be
much simpler.

What we might do, though, is make all Nupedia reviewers and editors
automatically Wikipedia reviewers, and ask them to do the honors.  This,
too, might not work very well, because many, probably most, Nupedia
reviewers think Wikipedia is a joke.  Farther down the road, however--when
Wikipedia has left Nupedia in the dust in terms of the amount of approved
high-quality content--I think more Nupedians will be amenable to the idea.

Before we set up any approval process, Magnus (and people who would like
to help him!!!) is going to have to finish the new software.  I imagine
this is going to take awhile...but not too long, I hope.

Larry

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 mikedill at nupedia.com wrote:

> I dont agree that wikipedia should have frozen pages. My thought is
> that all of the 'approved' articles be copied to Nupedia, where you
> can have a fixed reference.
>
> At Nupedia, they can then undergo peer review, and then published
> as 'qualified' articles. I know that the current review cycle would
> have some problems with the amount of change that wikipedia
> generates, but Nupedia is the place where stable, if not the greatest
> in the world articles should be referenced.
>
> A suggestion: Perhaps it means that nupedia will have to change a bit
> and show 'non-reviewed' articles, but it would let the wiki process
> at wikipedia continue.
>
>
> mike dill0


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cleanup before NYT article

body:
I agree with essentially all of this--but it's something I can't do (well,
I could try, but you might not like the results).  Jimbo right now is on
the road (picking his wife and baby from Chicago!) and he won't be able to
do anything like this until probably Monday at the earliest, I imagine.

The only part I disagree with is having the "Receive an article a day"
link on every page.  It gets people coming back, which is important at
this stage in the game.  Many people don't even see the front page,
because they arrive at particular pages which are linked to by search
engines and other pages.  I say I disagree with this, but I don't disagree
strongly.  I really don't care that much about it.

I think it would be great to rename HomePage and RecentChanges, but only
if we can "redirect" traffic from those pages to "Wikipedia: ..." and
"Recent Changes."

Larry

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:

> I have a couple of purely cosmetic suggestions for the general layout
> of Wikipedia:
>
> * The red alert text after the search box should be removed; there
> should be a second search box at the top of every page.
>   Often, if you have the wrong page, you are not going to scroll all
> the way down through the uninteresting text, to find
>   the search box.
>
> * While the "receive an article a day" feature is nice, I don't think
> it deserves a link on every page of Wikipedia. It is an extremely
>   rare action to take: everybody goes to that page only once. Link on
> home page and on announcements should be sufficient.
>   The less links, the less overwhelming the initial experience.
>
> * The home page should be titled "Wikipedia - free, collaborative
> encyclopedia" or similar, and not "HomePage". The first
>   two words on the home page are "HomePage", and this word is
> information free, and worse, looks like a typo to most people.
>   A web site that calls its home page "HomePage"?? People must think
> we are idiots.
>
> * "RecentChanges" should be "Recent Changes"
>
> * At the bottom of every page, all links having to do with editing and
> viewing previous versions should be visually separated
>   from those relevant to surfers. The search box should be in the same
> line as RecentChanges. Two links for "edit this text"
>   is overkill and confusing: everybody has to try out whether they do
> the same thing.
>
> * The problems identified on Wikipedia commentary/Search Engine should
> be fixed before next Thursday.
>
> Cheers,
>   Axel
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Axel Boldt

body:
I have a couple of purely cosmetic suggestions for the general layout of Wikipedia:

* The red alert text after the search box should be removed; there should be a second search box at the top of every page.
  Often, if you have the wrong page, you are not going to scroll all the way down through the uninteresting text, to find
  the search box.

* While the "receive an article a day" feature is nice, I don't think it deserves a link on every page of Wikipedia. It is an extremely
  rare action to take: everybody goes to that page only once. Link on home page and on announcements should be sufficient.
  The less links, the less overwhelming the initial experience.

* The home page should be titled "Wikipedia - free, collaborative encyclopedia" or similar, and not "HomePage". The first
  two words on the home page are "HomePage", and this word is information free, and worse, looks like a typo to most people.
  A web site that calls its home page "HomePage"?? People must think we are idiots.

* "RecentChanges" should be "Recent Changes"

* At the bottom of every page, all links having to do with editing and viewing previous versions should be visually separated
  from those relevant to surfers. The search box should be in the same line as RecentChanges. Two links for "edit this text"
  is overkill and confusing: everybody has to try out whether they do the same thing.

* The problems identified on Wikipedia commentary/Search Engine should be fixed before next Thursday.

Cheers,
  Axel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope

body:
Hi Mike,

as a chalkboard buddy (I'm currently dumping my chalkboard articles into
wikipedia, they were too much work to remain unseen there :( ) I assure you
the wikipedia as we know it will be untouched by the namespaces. The
namespaces just add locked copies of wikipedia articles. I guess we'll only
have a single page with a link into the secure namespace, although my
current script (still not online yet) displays links to all the copies in
other namespaces at the bottom of the page.
You will see it once the new script goes online.

So far I agree with Larry. One point, however, is the phrase "two or three
relevant area reviewer approvals". Even in my enhanced version, I don't
support specialized area editors, just an "editor class". You are an editor,
or you are not. Editors can edit (and soon, delete?) articles in namespaces.
That's it. Wikipedia is based on trust (to some degree), and I think editors
there should be trusted not to move rubbish to the "stable" namespaces. If
they do anyway, other editors can undo the change, of a sysop can come and
lock the page even for editors.

I'm back to moving articles into wikipedia now...

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of mikedill at nupedia.com
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia's scope
>
>
> I dont agree that wikipedia should have frozen pages. My thought is
> that all of the 'approved' articles be copied to Nupedia, where you
> can have a fixed reference.
>
> At Nupedia, they can then undergo peer review, and then published
> as 'qualified' articles. I know that the current review cycle would
> have some problems with the amount of change that wikipedia
> generates, but Nupedia is the place where stable, if not the greatest
> in the world articles should be referenced.
>
> A suggestion: Perhaps it means that nupedia will have to change a bit
> and show 'non-reviewed' articles, but it would let the wiki process
> at wikipedia continue.
>
>
> mike dill0


body:
<lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> [...] but it's something I can't do (well, I could try, but you
> might not like the results).
[...]
> I think it would be great to rename HomePage and RecentChanges,

This you can do (if you are able to edit the script). In wiki.cgi,
around line 65 there are a couple of definitions. If you replace the
quoted "RecentChanges" with "Recent_Changes" that will work (or
"Recent_changes"). Same for "HomePage".

If all goes well, it should take only two minutes. If problems
develop, just undo the change. (I.e. keep a backup of wiki.cgi around
and copy that back in case of desaster.)

> but only if we can "redirect" traffic from those pages to
> "Wikipedia: ..." and "Recent Changes."

Once RecentChanges and HomePages are no longer special, everybody can
put a #REDIRECT there.

The search changes are more tricky. If I had a current copy of the
script, I could tell you which lines to replace by what, but I'm not
going to download the 60MB tarball for that.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010915/89d76c6a/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia-L is acting screwier

body:
<lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> I've already sent this to Jimbo and Jason, but Wikipedia is acting very
> screwy.

It works now. Alas, mails like this that take 3 days to arrive a
somewhat useless. ross.bomis.com seems to be the culprit:

Received: from ross.bomis.com (ross.bomis.com [64.78.205.6])
	by relay8.austria.eu.net (8.12.0.Beta10/8.12.0.Beta10) with ESMTP id f8F9qKNf013352
	for <robbe+wiki at orcus.priv.at>; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:52:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from ross.bomis.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by ross.bomis.com (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id f8CImM326139;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:48:22 -0700

Note the dates.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010915/045ccfb3/attachment.pgp


in_reply_to: <sba22b8c.066@mail.metrostate.edu>; from Axel.Boldt@metrostate.edu on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:08:19PM -0500

body:
I am in Chicago now.  I have computer access.  I'll be leaving on
Monday to drive back -- but it will take longer, since Kira
(http://www.kirawales.com) will be with us, and she's probably not
keen on 14 hour driving days.  :-)

So, I will implement these purely cosmetic suggestions, as well as a
few others that I have in mind, and *possibly* I can fix *some* of the
things noted in the search engine comments page.  The easy stuff I
will do for sure.  :-)

Axel Boldt wrote:

> I have a couple of purely cosmetic suggestions for the general layout of Wikipedia:
>
> * The red alert text after the search box should be removed; there should be a second search box at the top of every page.
>   Often, if you have the wrong page, you are not going to scroll all the way down through the uninteresting text, to find
>   the search box.
>
> * While the "receive an article a day" feature is nice, I don't think it deserves a link on every page of Wikipedia. It is an extremely
>   rare action to take: everybody goes to that page only once. Link on home page and on announcements should be sufficient.
>   The less links, the less overwhelming the initial experience.
>
> * The home page should be titled "Wikipedia - free, collaborative encyclopedia" or similar, and not "HomePage". The first
>   two words on the home page are "HomePage", and this word is information free, and worse, looks like a typo to most people.
>   A web site that calls its home page "HomePage"?? People must think we are idiots.
>
> * "RecentChanges" should be "Recent Changes"
>
> * At the bottom of every page, all links having to do with editing and viewing previous versions should be visually separated
>   from those relevant to surfers. The search box should be in the same line as RecentChanges. Two links for "edit this text"
>   is overkill and confusing: everybody has to try out whether they do the same thing.
>
> * The problems identified on Wikipedia commentary/Search Engine should be fixed before next Thursday.
>
> Cheers,
>   Axel
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal

body:
I might not be understanding what you've done very well, Magnus.  A "PD
word list" is a public domain word list?

I would say it's not the case that each word in a list of (English?) words
corresponds to a potential Wikipedia article.  Usually, article titles are
combinations of words, for one thing; and very many ordinary words (e.g.,
"wasn't") do not correspond to encyclopedia article topics.

So, unless again I'm not understanding (which is entirely possible), I
really don't see what the point would be of including such a list.  This
isn't to say there *isn't* a point, just that I don't understand what it
is.

There's one disadvantage I can think of though--it might encourage too
many people to think of Wikipedia as a dictionary.  (Such a list would be
a great resource for a Wiki dictionary, if anyone ever wanted to make one.

Larry

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> I downloaded several PD word lists from the web and had them unified and
> converted into 26 (A-Z) files, containing a total of 304.946 words in more
> than 5 MB. The words are already formatted in [[Wiki style]].
>
> Even though wikipedia will never be finished, basically this list should be
> our ultimate goal, right? So, I'd like to know
> - Is there a list of all (or many) words already somewhere on wikipedia? I
> couldn't find one.
> - Should I upload these files to, say, [[List of all words/A]] to [[List of
> all words/Z]]? Or is it just a waste of memory?
>
> Magnus
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal

body:
I'm not sure we should have any "dictionary:" namespace on Wikipedia.  I
don't think we should encourage the development of a dictionary on
Wikipedia; that would distract from our main mission.

Just speaking for myself, editing a long list that has huge numbers of
words that will never have encyclopedia articles doesn't strike me as a
good use of time.  I'd get tired of deleting the likes of "yumping" and
"yuckiest." ;-)  If others would like to do so, though, who am I to stop
them?

I *do* see considerable value in getting a list of encyclopedia article
titles from other encyclopedias.  By golly, that's a brilliant idea.  I
*really* think we should do this.

Jimbo has compiled such a list, in fact, from dmoz.  It's out of date,
though.  He'd probably really appreciate help with that...

Larry

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> To see what it looks like, I posted the "words starting with Y" at
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Magnus_Manske/Y
>
> Yes, there are lots of words I never saw before, and there are several
> plurals, but as you can see, we already covered a few of these. Maybe we'd
> have to manually edit these lists.
> My idea was that everyone could go through the "real" encyclopedia entires,
> so we could mark them off one by one. Maybe we coud do an "Y-week"? (there
> goes my mind;)
>
> Maybe I should save this for the "dictionary:" namespace on the coming PHP
> wikipedia...
>
> Magnus
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> > [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 6:53 PM
> > To: Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal
> >
> >
> > I might not be understanding what you've done very well, Magnus.  A "PD
> > word list" is a public domain word list?
> >
> > I would say it's not the case that each word in a list of (English?) words
> > corresponds to a potential Wikipedia article.  Usually, article titles are
> > combinations of words, for one thing; and very many ordinary words (e.g.,
> > "wasn't") do not correspond to encyclopedia article topics.
> >
> > So, unless again I'm not understanding (which is entirely possible), I
> > really don't see what the point would be of including such a list.  This
> > isn't to say there *isn't* a point, just that I don't understand what it
> > is.
> >
> > There's one disadvantage I can think of though--it might encourage too
> > many people to think of Wikipedia as a dictionary.  (Such a list would be
> > a great resource for a Wiki dictionary, if anyone ever wanted to make one.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
> >
> > > I downloaded several PD word lists from the web and had them unified and
> > > converted into 26 (A-Z) files, containing a total of 304.946
> > words in more
> > > than 5 MB. The words are already formatted in [[Wiki style]].
> > >
> > > Even though wikipedia will never be finished, basically this
> > list should be
> > > our ultimate goal, right? So, I'd like to know
> > > - Is there a list of all (or many) words already somewhere on
> > wikipedia? I
> > > couldn't find one.
> > > - Should I upload these files to, say, [[List of all words/A]]
> > to [[List of
> > > all words/Z]]? Or is it just a waste of memory?
> > >
> > > Magnus
> > >
> > > [Wikipedia-l]
> > > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal

body:
I downloaded several PD word lists from the web and had them unified and
converted into 26 (A-Z) files, containing a total of 304.946 words in more
than 5 MB. The words are already formatted in [[Wiki style]].

Even though wikipedia will never be finished, basically this list should be
our ultimate goal, right? So, I'd like to know
- Is there a list of all (or many) words already somewhere on wikipedia? I
couldn't find one.
- Should I upload these files to, say, [[List of all words/A]] to [[List of
all words/Z]]? Or is it just a waste of memory?

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal

body:
To see what it looks like, I posted the "words starting with Y" at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Magnus_Manske/Y

Yes, there are lots of words I never saw before, and there are several
plurals, but as you can see, we already covered a few of these. Maybe we'd
have to manually edit these lists.
My idea was that everyone could go through the "real" encyclopedia entires,
so we could mark them off one by one. Maybe we coud do an "Y-week"? (there
goes my mind;)

Maybe I should save this for the "dictionary:" namespace on the coming PHP
wikipedia...

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 6:53 PM
> To: Wikipedia-L at Nupedia. Com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Ultimate goal
>
>
> I might not be understanding what you've done very well, Magnus.  A "PD
> word list" is a public domain word list?
>
> I would say it's not the case that each word in a list of (English?) words
> corresponds to a potential Wikipedia article.  Usually, article titles are
> combinations of words, for one thing; and very many ordinary words (e.g.,
> "wasn't") do not correspond to encyclopedia article topics.
>
> So, unless again I'm not understanding (which is entirely possible), I
> really don't see what the point would be of including such a list.  This
> isn't to say there *isn't* a point, just that I don't understand what it
> is.
>
> There's one disadvantage I can think of though--it might encourage too
> many people to think of Wikipedia as a dictionary.  (Such a list would be
> a great resource for a Wiki dictionary, if anyone ever wanted to make one.
>
> Larry
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > I downloaded several PD word lists from the web and had them unified and
> > converted into 26 (A-Z) files, containing a total of 304.946
> words in more
> > than 5 MB. The words are already formatted in [[Wiki style]].
> >
> > Even though wikipedia will never be finished, basically this
> list should be
> > our ultimate goal, right? So, I'd like to know
> > - Is there a list of all (or many) words already somewhere on
> wikipedia? I
> > couldn't find one.
> > - Should I upload these files to, say, [[List of all words/A]]
> to [[List of
> > all words/Z]]? Or is it just a waste of memory?
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oliver Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] sysop

body:
I would like to be a sysop to assist in the general maintenance and welfare
of wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Oliver King Turtle


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 9-11 In Memoriam

body:
Hello to the list. I've known about Wikipedia for a while, but started
contributing after the Slashdot article reminded me of the site.

If you haven't noticed, I've been helping to build the September 11, 2001
Terrorist Attack entry. Many other Wikipedians have put in immense effort
(just look at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=history&id=September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack
for one page of edits). My initial
effort, and my continuing focus, is on the thousands of victims of
this tragedy--as exemplified by
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam

Wikipedia can be the perfect environment for the growth of a memorial
to the victims, which will strengthen and grow the general Wikipedia
effort at the same time.

As I discuss in
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_commentary/Please_help_build_911_Attack_memorial

this will take a mass effort. While continuing to edit specific pages,
I've been trying to spend my time on figuring out how to make it
more likely that lots of people will contribute--which is why I'm writing
this.

Can we get each Wikipedian to choose a casualty or missing person
and create their entry?

How can we get more people to help?

Have I been doing the right things?

Thanks again to all that have contributed and shared in this effort.
The people of New York need the support and caring of the entire world
if they are to be able to continue on.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New York Times article--tomorrow!

body:
Woo-hoo, OK folks, get ready!  ''The New York Times'' article on Wikipedia
''should'' be coming out tomorrow.  (We're not absolutely sure of this,
but that's what we were told.)  Hopefully, we'll get huge amounts of
traffic and all hell's will break loose--moreover, this is actually pretty
likely.  So, please, if you can spare the time, be on hand to help guide
the new folks into the process!

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] cnet search not returning Wikipedia results?

body:
[Tried sending this Tuesday, but "it was in the queue too long,"
according to the daemon. Tried searching on "poker" today with same
result. - Tim]

At http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia there's a link to
C|Net's encyclopedia metasearch page. I tried it on a few entries and
kept getting no results from Wikipedia. Perhaps something is broken?

<>< Tim

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/


body:
Yep, something's broken.  I e-mailed them about this a few weeks ago, and
some time before that.  Would you please e-mail them again?  It would help
a lot!

--Larry

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> [Tried sending this Tuesday, but "it was in the queue too long,"
> according to the daemon. Tried searching on "poker" today with same
> result. - Tim]
>
> At http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia there's a link to
> C|Net's encyclopedia metasearch page. I tried it on a few entries and
> kept getting no results from Wikipedia. Perhaps something is broken?
>
> <>< Tim
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
> Donate cash, emergency relief information
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
--- lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> Yep, something's broken... Would you please e-mail them again?

OK.

I sent the following today via their Web site:

I tried C|Net's encyclopedia metasearch page, but I'm not getting any
results from the Wikipedia.

I inquired at the Wikpedia mailing list [1], and Larry Sanger
suggested I contact you about fixing this problem, which seems to be
at your end.

[1]
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-September/000473.html

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 9-11 In Memoriam

body:
>Wikipedia can be the perfect environment for the growth of a memorial
>to the victims, which will strengthen and grow the general Wikipedia
>effort at the same time.

A Wiki of some kind certainly is ideal for this purpose, but frankly,
I'm not sure Wikipedia is it.  Certainly there should be extensive
coverage of the event, taking advantage of the fact that Wiki lets us
update the descriptions of the events as more news comes out, leaving
us with an historical record of unique accuracy.  I certainly think a
list of victims is not out of place either.  But I'm really not sure
that a "memorial" per se is an appropriate thing to put in an
encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias describe people, they don't eulogize
them.  Sure, we should have an article on, say, David Angell, and it
should list the shows he produced and mention how he died, but it
shouldn't be just ABOUT how he died, and it shouldn't be different
from a page on any other television producer--neutral and factual,
not reverent.

A memorial should also allow friends and family to say anything, and
have those comments left intact.  See, for example, the memorial to a
friend I put on my own site at http://www.piclab.com/sasha/.  It is
not at all neutral reportage, because it's not meant to be.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Yahoo now has "Britannica concise"

body:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/

It seems Britannica has licensed its free content to Yahoo.

This makes it all the more important that we set up a review mechanism for
Wikipedia.  If we could boast 25,000 peer reviewed *complete* articles,
Yahoo would very likely use our content for free rather than pay for
Britannica's.  (Or, at least, they would list both--and we'd get loads of
traffic.)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia approval mechanism


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Our officially anonymous software

body:
On Friday 20 September 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> I would be very careful about using any words beginning with "pedia-" or
> anything similar. ?The Greek root for this relates to children, and even
> the slightest inadvertant suggestion that the name could have anything
> at all to do with kiddy-porn may bring a whole lot of unwanted traffic.
>
> Ec

I thought the root was ped from the Latin pedis which means foot. I'm not
sure where "pedophila" came from. "Ped" is the root of many other words.
Shall we not use those either? Boy I thought I was paranoid about ultra minor
things. I vote for PediaWiki because it has a certain ring to it -- this
would just be the name of the software and any ref to it will be a couple
levels in from the main page.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Germans willing to speak on an academic panel Nupedia and/or Wikipedia?

body:
Hello,

Apparently, there's a conference going on in Berlin sometime soon and I
was asked to see if there's someone in Germany who could represent Nupedia
and, hopefully, also Wikipedia.  Expenses are paid.

If you're interested, please let me know.  It could be fun!

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Search database not updated?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] RMS's encyclopedia announcement

body:
Short item: Richard Stallman has learned about Wikipedia and calls it
"exciting news."

--Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Can you translate this from Danish?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia (fwd)

body:
I suppose he wouldn't mind.  Here it is.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:16:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org>
To: lsanger at nupedia.com
Cc: lsanger at nupedia.com, webmasters at gnu.org, jwales at bomis.com
Subject: Re: Wikipedia

This is really exciting news.

Would you like to make have a link to my article that proposed the
free encyclopedia?  It is in www.gnu.org/encyclopedia.


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: RMS's encyclopedia announcement

body:
Got a copy of the email (or whatever it is) for us to see?

- Stephen

>Short item: Richard Stallman has learned about Wikipedia and calls it
>"exciting news."
>
>--Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kuro5hin article

body:
If you're on Kuro5hin, go give my article your thumbs-up!  :-)

http://www.kuro5hin.org/modsub

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kuro5hin article

body:
I am going to bed.  I expect the Kuro5hin article will be posted within a
few hours.  Could someone attempt to have it Slashdotted?

Larry

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> If you're on Kuro5hin, go give my article your thumbs-up!  :-)
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/modsub
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Yes. Could the bomis/wikipedia techies take care of this. It would be great help.

regards
WojPob

Axel Boldt <Axel.Boldt at metrostate.edu> napisa?:

>>From discussion at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
> it appears that the search database has not been updated in a while. Could someone
> with access to the server please check if there's a working cron script in place to index
> the site daily?
>
> Axel
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob

--

Wygraj 2 dni extra dostepu do Big Brother
nie daj sie innym wyprzedzic [ http://bigbrother.onet.pl/platnosci_info.html ]