from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-18

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19441).
Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...

Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

   2 previously failing test(s) now PASSING! :)
      * TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)
      * TODO: Don't fall for the self-closing div
   3 new PASSING test(s) :)
      * Self-link to numeric title
      * Link to numeric-equivalent title
      * Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'
   1 previously FAILING test(s) removed O_o
      * TODO: Always escape literal '>' in output, not just after '<'
  16 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.
Passed 489 of 505 tests (96.83%)... FAILED!


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: thomasasta at gmx.net

subject:
[Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA (was: wikiseek & wikiwax & ilse
	is out)

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:13:26 +0100
Von: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>

> Hoi,
> Open source means for me software. Software pure and simple. Wikipedia
> is NOT Open Source, MediaWiki is Open Source. Wikipedia is Open Content.

yes and wikimedia needs an open search engine. I do not represent yacy development, but want to suggest to use it to make wikipedia open source engine.

>
> There is a procedure for suggesting new projects.. I suggest you follow
> that one.
>

I will do it in a few days here: Proposal for P2 (peerpedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_P2-search_peerpedia

(peerpedia.net is free atm and I kill the person registering it, if not from wikifoundation or donating it to it!!)

> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> Source:
> http://wikipedia.ilse.nl/

Ise is cool !

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


list: wikimedia-l


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Logo

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Another thing that was really special was that people were told that
> during the vote people were told that the logo would be implemented
> willy nilly. This was a real turn off for me as in someone else will do
> this. Nobody has, apparently nobody cares. It was also my impression was
> that it was not something that was popular among the Wiktionary communities.
>
> I do not think the best logo won so I have yet another reason why I do
> not bother about the implementation of this logo.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

Hmm... I suppose I should've noticed this thread before installing a
customized version of the new logo at the Vietnamese Wiktionary the
other day. [1] As I told Smurrayinchester, the new logo's author, two of
wikt:vi:'s main contributors voted for this logo, and another abstained,
in effect saying "the vote has taken so long that the logo probably
won't ever change". [2] (We only ever have three active contributors at
one time, at most, so that's saying something.) So I didn't think the
change would be controversial at wikt:vi:, and in fact, no one has said
a word about it. :)

As for one of the issues surrounding the new logo: according to
Californiacondor, the Japanese Wiktionary is fine with the Katakana
character being used. [3]

I guess wikt:vi: is now pushing the issue, since, well, it's up there on
all our pages. I'll make sure to keep our copy of the logo updated,
though, in case we get agreement on any of the proposed logo tweaks.

[1] http://vi.wiktionary.org/wiki/H%C3%ACnh:Wiki.png
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4#Blank_vote
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smurrayinchester#Wiktionary_Logo

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
[[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


list: wikien-l

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually spoke at some length about this with the person who called
> me - death notices often do in fact show up on Wikipedia before almost
> anywhere, e.g. the death of [[Andrea Dworkin]], where it went straight
> from a feminist mailing list to her article and only hit the media
> during the following day. Being *current* is one of our really strong
> suits, and the readers know this.

Ok, so what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
laughably (or harmfully?) wrong, and we don't seem to have much
control either way? Tough to implement any policies telling vandals
how to behave when they're up to no good...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> "What people say is true, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can't
> guarantee it. It's a useful source and we try to keep it useful, but
> it's just written by people - read it critically, like you would any
> web page. If you see something really surprising like that, check the
> history tab and see if it was just added ..."

You know what would be great? Any text added less than 24 hours ago
appears in a different colour, with a red background perhaps. No ifs,
no buts. Wouldn't that solve a *lot* of problems?

Steve


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this
 week

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 17/01/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Gray wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full
>>>source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret
>>>this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or
>>>conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
>>>
>>>
>>Requiring this is important to the extent to whatever extent we may
>>allow fair use.  With this in hand a potential downstream user has the
>>tools for determining whether his own use would qualify as fair use.
>>
>>
>Any fair use image without these needs to be marked for immediate
>attention and then deletion if not remedied. "Fair use" is fair use in
>a given context (hence the {{fairusein}} template).
>
>I'm a great fan of fair use images on en:wp when used properly -
>quoting images is as important to being able to discuss things at all
>as quoting text is - but as far as I can tell, really quite a lot of
>the allegedly "fair use" images on en:wp should be taken out and shot.
>
Certainly, whenever I speak of fair use I mean real fair use, and not
fair use as a fufillment of someone's wishful thinking..

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great idea! Go code it ;-p

Yeah. I'd like to. Quite a learning curve to get going though.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I actually spoke at some length about this with the person who called
>>me - death notices often do in fact show up on Wikipedia before almost
>>anywhere, e.g. the death of [[Andrea Dworkin]], where it went straight
>>from a feminist mailing list to her article and only hit the media
>>during the following day. Being *current* is one of our really strong
>>suits, and the readers know this.
>>
>>
>Ok, so what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
>laughably (or harmfully?) wrong, and we don't seem to have much
>control either way? Tough to implement any policies telling vandals
>how to behave when they're up to no good...
>
While vandals are a fact of life, I think that the discussion is best
furthered by assuming that the editors involved in a current events
article are acting in good faith..  In the rush to get things done
errors will crop up, but we are in a better position to openly admit an
error. We can go on with the correction much faster than the more
traditional media.  .An ongoing event warning remains important.

Ec


from_name: para

subject: [WikiEN-l] Searching an article history

body:
zero 0000 wrote:
> If an article is pretty active, it can be quite a chore
> to locate the edit where a particular text was added.
> Is there any sort of tool to help with that?

The [[IBM History Flow tool]] does a good job in visualizing all the
edits. It doesn't tell you directly who did a specific edit, but the
text is colour coded and each contributor has their own colour, so with
a bit of matching it's not too hard to find whodunit, unless of course
you're colour blind.

In 2005 there was a competition for creating such a tool, and a number
of them came up, but none are working anymore. The blog entry with some
links is at http://www.waxy.org/archive/2005/06/27/wikipedi.shtml
Since the IBM tool is for a slightly different purpose, perhaps someone
could try fixing these others?

-- para


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 13/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:10:29 -0800, "K P" <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The overall problem though is that there are guidelines and they're ignored
>>> in favor of deletionists proposing articles for deletion because of their
>>> poor quality regardless of the subject, or for a dozen other reasons not
>>> related to suggested guidelines for deletion (the play only opened a week
>>> ago so the article should be deleted).
>
>> There is no such thing as a deletionist, only different levels of
>> inclusionism.  If you think you are an inclusionist, go and visit
>> [[Special:Newpages]], a.k.a. the Firehose of Crap.
>
>
> Look at the editing history of User:Amarkov. An editor who edits
> NOTHING but deletion debates, apparently in all hard-working
> sincerity.
>

"That's no editor... it's a sockpuppet!"

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070118/4c4f10d0/attachment.pgp


body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 at 15:03, " ? Firefoxman " <enwpmail at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan, your client is breaking the threads in gmail.
>
> An offense almost as bad as top-posting and fullquoting.  But, like
> that other Dan, I think I'm commiting it too; I get this list in
> digest form, and so the "In-reply-to" reference is undoubtedly to the
> digest rather than the specific message in it I'm replying to, to
> which I don't have any access to its full headers.
>

If Pegasus can equate a MIME message to a "real" message, you should
switch to MIME digests. Unfortunately Thunderbird can't (Mozilla bug
204350 for those playing at home), which is why I switched to individual
messages years ago.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070118/bd5461a6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Roberto Alfonso

subject: [WikiEN-l] Little Napoleans

body:
On 1/13/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> 'I've run afoul of the rules lawyers on Wikipedia many times. It's getting
> to the point where you can't even say the sky is blue without one of these
> little Napoleans squawking, "Original research! Need citation!"'
>
> From a gamers forum post at
>
> http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=856122&postcount=3
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Wait... I kind of remember those words... hey, I said them! Dang, wish I
could remember when and to who... sigh, I will have to keep a list at
[[User:ReyBrujo/Wikipedians who had left because of me]]. Well, I can start
adding 1ne to it right now...


subject: [Foundation-l] wikiseek & wikiwax is out

body:
thomasasta at gmx.net wrote:
<snip>
> and what about the second clone:  http://www.wikiwax.com/
>

That's been around a LONG time - it was first reported on wikien-l back
in March 2005.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070118/8338519d/attachment.pgp


body:
thomasasta at gmx.net wrote:
<snip>
> and what about the second clone:  http://www.wikiwax.com/
>

That's been around a LONG time - it was first reported on wikien-l back
in March 2005.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/8338519d/attachment.pgp>


body:
thomasasta at gmx.net wrote:
<snip>
> and what about the second clone:  http://www.wikiwax.com/
>

That's been around a LONG time - it was first reported on wikien-l back
in March 2005.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070118/8338519d/attachment-0001.pgp>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
On 18/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure
> about the universe. -- Albert Einstein

:D

Rob Church


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I eagerly await acceptance from those in the "don't move it" camp that
> it is in fact in the wrong namespace. Certainly, it's causing very
> little harm there. And moving it might cause more harm. But the only
> reason it is where it is is entirely historical.

If it solves this issue, I'm quite willing to write and commit a patch
to MediaWiki that puts "Main Page" in a special little namespace of its
own, all by itself.  Need to clear it with Brion first, I suppose, but
it does sound like a neat and simple solution to this problem. :-)

Seriously, namespaces are, except for some minor technical details and a
few truly special cases like "Image:" and "Category:", merely arbitrary
technical divisions of the flat, unstructured space of all possible page
titles.  Sure, it's convenient to have all non-article pages at titles
that begin with something odd like "Wikipedia:", since that makes it
less likely that they'll collide with the titles of actual articles.
Note, however, that I wrote "less likely", not "impossible", as the
category I mentioned elsewhere in this thread shows.  And do also note
that all those convenient little redirect pages we've been putting up at
titles like "WP:WHATEVER" are equally conveniently out of the way, even
though they're not technically in a separate namespace at all.  If we
did, in fact, some day decide to make "WP:" a real namespace, the only
major thing that would change would be the names of the talk pages of
those titles.

Anyway, my point is that, just like it's reasonably unlikely that we'll
get too many articles about things whose name starts with "Wikipedia:"
or "Template:", it's also reasonably unlikely that we'll end up with an
article that ought to be titled "Main Page".  Both are possible, of
course, but we really shouldn't be bending over backwards trying to
accommodate all the possible ways in which such a thing might happen
before it has in fact actually happened.

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
PeruvianLlama wrote:
>
> Things pop up in the "real world" that need new articles with new
> titles. Nothing pops up in the project spaces except what the community
> wants there, so something will have precedence over "<prefix>:Main Page"
> if and only if the community really wants it to have precedence.

Really?  And what happens when D***** B***** publishes his best-selling
book titled "Wikipedia: The True Story"?

Or perhaps he'll be a bit more creative, and calls it, say, "Wikipedia:
Reliable sources".  Or maybe "Wikipedia: Ignore all rules".  :-)

Naming a book "Wikipedia: Main Page" might be a bit of a stretch, but I
guess if the publisher thinks it'll sell...

--
Ilmari Karonen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 1/17/07, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>> So we move it to, what, "Wikipedia:Main Page"?  "Portal:Main Page"?  But
>> what shall we do when something comes along that deserves _that_ title?
>>
>> See also:
>> [[Category:Articles whose titles conflict with an existing namespace]].
>
> Duh. Rename all namespaces.

Certainly, but it rather begs the question: to _what_?

Of course, we don't really need to rename _all_ namespaces.  All we need
to do is rename {{ns 0}} and all these problems will be solved for good.
  :-)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
>
> There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues
> ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is
> a collision.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure
about the universe. -- Albert Einstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
Royalguard11 wrote:
>
> I don't think the process wonks are getting the idea. Moving the page
> for the sake of moving it is not a good reason. Especially some of the
> semi-stupid proposals, like "putting" the main page at
> http://en.wikipedia.org (which Brion said is not possible). In this
> case, IAR and let it stay. Trying to enforse the "rules" on the main
> page is nothing short of distruption to make a point (WP:POINT).

http://en.wikipedia.org may be out, but I'm pretty sure it would be
possible to put it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (or, in wikilink
notation, [[]]).  Not easy, mind you, but with enough hard work,
stubborn determination and a big hammer, I'm sure it could be done.

As a convenient side effect, we'd also gain the ability to have, say, a
project page named [[Wikipedia:]].  Perhaps we could move the Community
Portal there..?

(I can just hear the screams now...)

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Harish TM

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
I was trying to parse the Wikipedia dumps but unfortunately I find the XML
file that can be downloaded a little hard to parse. I was wondering if there
is a neat way to extract:
                         1. The article title
                         2. The article content ( without links to articles
in other languages, external links and so on )
                         3. The category.

Also I find that there are a large number of tools that allow one to convert
plain text to media wiki text. What if I want to go the other way and
extract information exactly the way it appears on the wikipedia site.

Harish


from_name: Nina Stratton

body:
On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
> >
> > +!
> >
> > On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Phil Sandifer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
> >>> work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
> >>> if he's going to dismiss the experts.
> >>>
> >> There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
> >> expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer
> >> diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
> >> knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
> >> less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
> >> stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
> >> careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
> >> Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
> >> evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering
> >> editors on WP.
> >>
> >> Stan
>
> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and
> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>
> Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
> something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you
> needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>
> Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now!
> Those
> marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who
> make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
>
> Ease up!
>
> Marc Riddell
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Fair enough. As long as my intelligence, experience, and ability to learn
aren't discounted. I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by
"experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's all
good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me
because it's pretty much the opposite of my past.

People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my
confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic), I'm
planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and
masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among other
things - my job plays a big part in it too).

Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are not
only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been
extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could
find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say teenagers,
I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and
insight more than any "expert".

> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Nina
> > "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us
> and
> > conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
> Kalam
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>
> Steve Summit schreef:
> > What I was wondering is, what's "IAWTC"?  ("I Agree With This
> > Comment, maybe, but d. usually has much droller observations.)
>
> According Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia), it's either that or "I Am
> the World Trade Center".
>
> Eugene
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

A) That's funny. B) Thanks for the info!

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium

body:
On 1/18/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the first scenario would still be a major breakthrough;
> > requiring graduate students to write their literature papers for
> > Wikipedia is a whole different beast from (a few idealistic) graduate
> > students writing on top of their other duties.
>
> Wikipedia is written for the layman, a graduate student's papers are
> written for the expert. Writing for Wikipedia requires different
> skills than the ones graduate students are being tested on with their
> papers, and the skills currently being tested are required, so writing
> for Wikipedia would have to be in addition to, it can't be instead of,
> academic papers.
>
> Excellent point. I mainly copy edit for clarity and readability. An
encyclopedia just isn't any good if the average reader (or a learning child,
perhaps) can't or won't read it.

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


from_name: "Thomas Müller"

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:25:36 -0600
Von: David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com>

> You probably shouldn't have told everyone on this mailing list not to
> buy peerpedia.net. Someone registered it, and it's active now.
>
> http://peerpedia.net/
>
> The registration was today, so it might take 48 hours or so until it's
> active Internet-wide.
>
> It's a private registration:
> http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=peerpedia.net&prog_id=godaddy
>

peerpedia.net is forwaded to this

http://wikiseek.com/results.php?q=really+stupid+idea

So you know who, you know the battle now
and you know the view on wikifoundation open source intention.

I posted the idea here on the list to index wikipedia plus external wiki-web-urls and it was my idea for this domain.

I wrote in a mail, that google is reading here as well and that we need not only open code and open database, but as well an open strategy to enter the market.

But that?s building the comunity: Monopolistic strategies never can stop community movement.

So we know, wikiseek is evel, as google and advertisements are behind it,

We do not need the name PEERPEDIA to get more yacy peers for the wikimediafoundation to have a really open search project.

Stay tuned and just set up one yacy node more....

Besides that the foundation can claim to get this domain back, as the mail has documentated the indetest. This is a question for the foundation to get the KK-Change.

> thomasasta at gmx.net wrote:
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:13:26 +0100
> > Von: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Open source means for me software. Software pure and simple. Wikipedia
> >> is NOT Open Source, MediaWiki is Open Source. Wikipedia is Open
> Content.
> >
> > yes and wikimedia needs an open search engine. I do not represent yacy
> development, but want to suggest to use it to make wikipedia open source
> engine.
> >
> >> There is a procedure for suggesting new projects.. I suggest you follow
> >> that one.
> >>
> >
> > I will do it in a few days here: Proposal for P2 (peerpedia)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_P2-search_peerpedia
> >
> > (peerpedia.net is free atm and I kill the person registering it, if not
> from wikifoundation or donating it to it!!)
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>      GerardM
> >>
> >> Source:
> >> http://wikipedia.ilse.nl/
> >
> > Ise is cool !
> >
>

--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal f?r Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
On 1/17/07, Harish TM <harish.tmh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to further clarify what it is that I am looking for - Lets say I
> want to PRINT out a copy of wikipedia ( I know thats insane - but I
> need text to be as clean as if I were printing it out ), with the
> articles indexed as per Title and category, how would I get that
> data??
>
The easiest way would probably be:
1) download the dumps
2) install mediawiki
3) have a bot scrape from *your own* mediawiki installation (printable version)
4) use the categorylinks table to sort by category (or scrape the
categories at the bottom of each article)

On the other hand, you could always write your own parser :).

Anthony


from_name: Alai

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at ...> writes:
> The legal title characters, by default, are "
> %!\"$&'()*,\\-.\\/0-9:;=? <at> A-Z\\\\^_`a-z~\\x80-\\xFF+".  Therefore, a
> reasonable PCRE regex (with no string escaping of backslashes et al)
> might be:
>
> /\[\[Category:([ %!"$&'()*,\-.\/0-9:;=? <at> A-Z\\^_`a-z~\x80-\xFF+]+)\]\]/i

Note that one also needs to cope with leading and trailing spaces, and the
"Category" is case-insensitive.  So probably something more like:

\[\[ *[Cc][Aa][Tt][Ee][Gg][Oo][Rr][Yy] *: * ...

> Which would give you the category name.  Hopefully.  In most cases.
> Because other things can make a title invalid.  Basically, it's a
> mess, and the only surefire way around it is using MediaWiki itself to
> do the parsing.

Or, to download categorylink.sql file from the same dump, and use the entries
from that.  A bit redundant if one needs to parse the markup anyway, though...

A good first step is probably to use an XML toolkit/parser library of some kind
for whatever PL one might be using for the task.  Unless one happens to be using
Haskell, I can't offer any specific advice on that...  (Did the original querant
specify?)  Not a complete solution, since the markup is something of an XML/HTML
mish-mash, but it'll still cope with much of the structure.

Slan,
Alai.


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] WELCOME LOG RIDES AGAIN!

body:
Hello all!

I am pleased to announce that the welcome log, and automatic
{{welcome}}ing of new contributors, is back in action!

This means that Welcome log fairies (or helpers) are once again
needed. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE AN ADMIN FOR THIS! You only need to have
a decent grasp on how Commons works.
How do Welcome log helpers work? SieBot records which users it has
welcomed, along with some handy links to the user's gallery and talk
page etc.You, as a helper, quickly check that they are following
Commons' rules. The tools you may need are: NSD/NLD, {{please link
images}} ("please categorise your files"), {{please describe
images}}... that's about it.

Because this data is RECENT, the user is still likely to be around, so
please, if they have uploaded five copyvios, write them a personal
note rather than five standard warning templates. :/

Also! If it is apparent that the user speaks a language other than
English, change their welcome message to that message. Hints for this
are: image summaries in other languages, images used in projects other
than en:.

If a user doesn't need to be told about anything, then great! Remove
them from the list (the welcome log). After you've given your user
their advice, remove them from the list. Got a case that seems  a bit
tricky? Leave it and check someone else.

Kudos to Siebrand for getting this going again!

cheers,

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Commons-l] WELCOME LOG RIDES AGAIN!

body:
oh BTW it's all at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome_log . Damn, I knew I
forgot something! :)

On 18/01/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I am pleased to announce that the welcome log, and automatic
> {{welcome}}ing of new contributors, is back in action!
>
> This means that Welcome log fairies (or helpers) are once again
> needed. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE AN ADMIN FOR THIS! You only need to have
> a decent grasp on how Commons works.
> How do Welcome log helpers work? SieBot records which users it has
> welcomed, along with some handy links to the user's gallery and talk
> page etc.You, as a helper, quickly check that they are following
> Commons' rules. The tools you may need are: NSD/NLD, {{please link
> images}} ("please categorise your files"), {{please describe
> images}}... that's about it.
>
> Because this data is RECENT, the user is still likely to be around, so
> please, if they have uploaded five copyvios, write them a personal
> note rather than five standard warning templates. :/
>
> Also! If it is apparent that the user speaks a language other than
> English, change their welcome message to that message. Hints for this
> are: image summaries in other languages, images used in projects other
> than en:.
>
> If a user doesn't need to be told about anything, then great! Remove
> them from the list (the welcome log). After you've given your user
> their advice, remove them from the list. Got a case that seems  a bit
> tricky? Leave it and check someone else.
>
> Kudos to Siebrand for getting this going again!
>
> cheers,
>
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam and advertising dilemma

body:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:03:10 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>I agree with Thomas, link internally rather than externally on lists.

Yes.  WP:NOT a link farm and all that.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fans of the Wet Wet Wet frontman Marti Pellow were left stunned
> yesterday
> > > after the online encyclopedia Wikipedia reported that he had died last
>
> > The word "reported" is very telling of how we are still misperceived.
> > We're not a news site. Why do people think we are?
>
>
> I actually spoke at some length about this with the person who called
> me - death notices often do in fact show up on Wikipedia before almost
> anywhere, e.g. the death of [[Andrea Dworkin]], where it went straight
> from a feminist mailing list to her article and only hit the media
> during the following day. Being *current* is one of our really strong
> suits, and the readers know this.

Andrea  Dworkin's dead? Nobody tells me anything...

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
On 1/17/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> You probably shouldn't have told everyone on this mailing list not to
> buy peerpedia.net. Someone registered it, and it's active now.
>
> http://peerpedia.net/
>
If you're truly peer to peer, then you don't need a domain name.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources

body:
geni wrote:
>
> If I wrote an article about say cyanobiphenyls I would not view it as
> an unreasonable request to be asked to produce sources showing that
> they notable.

I don't think I've ever heard of an article about a chemical compound
being deleted as non-notable, and I don't expect I ever will.  Yes,
there are bazillions of organic compounds, but they really are all
encyclopedic, if only someone takes the time to write something about them.

I suppose the exception to that would be compounds that no-one has ever
written anything at all about, however briefly or speculatively, in any
academic source.  But for such articles, a better reason for deletion
would be that they must then, necessarily, be original research.

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Nicholas Moreau

body:
Yes, I was talking about the Swiss list.

Wikimedia Canada will try to promote the usage of Wikipedias and other
Wikimedia Foundation projects that exist in indigenous languages, as
well as any of the most prominent mother tongues in Canada (the
Chinese languages, Italian, German, Punjabi, and Spanish).

However, we will likely never have the need to operate the mailing
list in any Native language... most Aboriginal Canadians that have
access to the Internet know how to speak English or French as well.

I also must note that that list of languages is highly outdated.

While you list "Beaver", the language is known as
"Babine-Witsuwit'en". The "Ojibwe" languages are actually that of the
"Anishinaabe", and go under names like "Anih?in?p?mowin" and
"Anishinaabemowin", not "Eastern" and "Western".

Nick

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:45:39 +0100
From: "Alfio Puglisi" <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Canada mailing list now exists
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
       <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
       <4902d9990701161245k3d39b22ak2d61183e3187784d at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 1/16/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Western Abnaki <http://www.omegawiki.org/Portal:abe> -  Algonquin
> <http://www.omegawiki.org/Portal:alq> -  American Sign Language
>[...]
>
> These are the languages still spoken in Canada according to Ethnologue..
> There is more then English French Italian and Rhaeto Romanic to this
> wonderful country.

I think he was talking about the Swiss list...

Alfio


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Canada mailing list now exists


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
"Alai" <AlaiWiki at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:loom.20070118T080426-624 at post.gmane.org...
> Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at ...> writes:
> > The legal title characters, by default, are "
> > %!\"$&'()*,\\-.\\/0-9:;=? <at> A-Z\\\\^_`a-z~\\x80-\\xFF+".  Therefore,
a
> > reasonable PCRE regex (with no string escaping of backslashes et al)
> > might be:
> >
> > /\[\[Category:([ %!"$&'()*,\-.\/0-9:;=? <at>
A-Z\\^_`a-z~\x80-\xFF+]+)\]\]/i
>
> Note that one also needs to cope with leading and trailing spaces, and the
> "Category" is case-insensitive.  So probably something more like:
>
> \[\[ *[Cc][Aa][Tt][Ee][Gg][Oo][Rr][Yy] *: * ...
>

The /i at the end of the regex makes it case insensitive.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
Thank you for your very kind words, Marc. I will treasure them in the
grueling toil and beauracracy that is  Higher Education in America.:)

Nina

On 1/18/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:20:23 -0800
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
> >
> > On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800
> >>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
> >>>
> >>> +!
> >>>
> >>> On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil Sandifer wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
> >>>>> work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
> >>>>> if he's going to dismiss the experts.
> >>>>>
> >>>> There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
> >>>> expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically
> confer
> >>>> diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
> >>>> knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
> >>>> less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
> >>>> stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
> >>>> careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
> >>>> Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
> >>>> evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was
> angering
> >>>> editors on WP.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stan
> >>
> >> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of,
> and
> >> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
> >>
> >> Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
> >> something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if
> you
> >> needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
> >>
> >> Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now!
> >> Those
> >> marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place
> who
> >> make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the
> ether.
> >>
> >> Ease up!
> >>
> >> Marc Riddell
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fair enough. As long as my intelligence, experience, and ability to
> learn
> > aren't discounted. I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by
> > "experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's
> all
> > good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me
> > because it's pretty much the opposite of my past.
> >
> > People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my
> > confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic),
> I'm
> > planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and
> > masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among
> other
> > things - my job plays a big part in it too).
> >
> > Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are
> not
> > only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been
> > extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could
> > find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say
> teenagers,
> > I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and
> > insight more than any "expert".
> >
> >
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Nina
>
> Nina,
>
> Long before there were university degrees, there was the human being?s
> ability to reason, and, most importantly to empathize. A formal education
> can help you fine tune the first one of these, but no type or amount of
> this
> education can give you the second one. You seem to have it. Nurture it,
> use
> it ? you?re already far ahead of the game.
>
> Whatever formal degrees I may have, I consider them as things I?ve
> accumulated on the way to learning something. And, as necessary keys that
> provide me access to the most important part ? the persons I am trying to
> reach.
>
> If someone is trying to put you down, they must need you to be there, so
> they can be where they are.
>
> Best of luck in your studies and work in Human Services. The field could
> use
> many more like you. You appear to have a particular feel for adolescents.
> I
> don't know what your present work is in now, but perhaps your self is
> trying
> to tell you something about a career change. Consider adolescent
> psychology;
> the teens could use someone like you.
>
> Perspective:  B.S. = Bull.Shit. ? M.S. = More.Shit. - Ph.D. = Piled high.
> &
> Deep. :-)
>
> Be healthy,
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> >>> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to
> us
> >> and
> >>> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
> >> Kalam
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Nina
> > "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us
> and
> > conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
> Kalam
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
Hey Guys,

             Thank you for the responses. My further queries within
individual responses below:

 Jeff V. Merkey:

...

>Look for the beginning tags for each section. Category links are
>embedded in the articles themselves.
This is a big problem for me. Cause when I do a regular expression
match on "Category :", I get those lines within the article that are
references to other categories as well. I Just want the category that
the current article belongs to. Its worse cause sometimes its "
Category :" sometimes "   Category :" and at times "Category :"

>tags are <TAGNAME> start and </TAGNAME> end.
True, but like you mentioned above not everything I want is in a separate tag.

>Jeff

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

From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>

Harish TM wrote:
>> I was trying to parse the Wikipedia dumps but unfortunately I find the XML
>> file that can be downloaded a little hard to parse. I was wondering if there
>> is a neat way to extract:
>>                          1. The article title

>/mediawiki/page/title
Its harder to link article titles to the article content if the
sources are different isn't it?

>>                          2. The article content ( without links to articles
>> in other languages, external links and so on )

>The article content *contains* those links, so I guess you mean you want
>to parse the text and remove certain elements of it?
YES

>>                          3. The category.

>Again, that's part of article text.
True - My problem with extracting this is as described above.

>> Also I find that there are a large number of tools that allow one to convert
>> plain text to media wiki text. What if I want to go the other way and
>> extract information exactly the way it appears on the wikipedia site.

>Run the wiki parser on it.
Cant seem to find it. Searching for it seems to give me wikipeida
articles on parsing!!!

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

From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com>

>This works too, but its slower than mollasses on a cold Utah day ....
>:-)

Working on a reasonably fast machine ( 64bit 3.something GHz processor
with 4 GB RAM ) - Using Ruby to code the parser.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com>

Jeff wrote:
>>You will need at least 16K buffer as many lines
>> read with fgets can exceed 8192 bytes in size.

>Shouldn't be realley needed. You parse < && > tags. The problem is that
>some tags can be splitted. You get "..long long line</te"
>and on next line "xt>" and *if* you're looking for "</text>", you have
>problems.
></text> is tricky, because most tags start on their own line, but
></text> doesn't (unless article ends with its own blank line).

Thanks for that!!! Are there some tags that are never split? That way
I could look for those, merge all the lines between them into a single
line and do a regex.

Just to further clarify what it is that I am looking for - Lets say I
want to PRINT out a copy of wikipedia ( I know thats insane - but I
need text to be as clean as if I were printing it out ), with the
articles indexed as per Title and category, how would I get that
data??

Thanks again
Harish


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia
	for a while

body:
On 1/18/07, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> As per the subject, excerpts from:
>
>
> https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
>
> Larry Sanger writes,
>
>   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
> that
> are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go ahead
> and make the deletion...This experiment represents a reconception of our
> project's basic aim.  If the experiment goes well, no longer will we be
> calling
> ourselves a "fork of Wikipedia."  We will have, exclusively, our own
> identity
> and our own articles.  We will still, to be sure, follow much of the
> Wikipedia
> process--the aspects that work.  But no longer will we have as our central
> aim the cleaning up and approval of Wikipedia articles.  I think it might
> prove easier and more pleasant to build fresh new stables than to clean
> out
> the Augean Stables of Wikipedia."
>
> On the CZ forums, he writes,
>
> "One thing that I think I didn't realize sufficiently, when writing about
> this
> question a few months ago (at embarrassing length, before the pilot
> project was
> well under way), is that the very presence of fair-to-middling articles
> from WP
> is actually a strong disincentive for people to get to work. It's like
> this:
> when you get down to brass tacks, it's no fun to clean up the mediocre
> work of
> Wikipedians.  It might be a hell of a lot more fun to start over from
> scratch."
> (http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,431.0.html)
>
> -- Matt
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>

Well I am just so...he is...well...this just makes me so...hmph, pfft.
--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


from_name: Marc Riddell

body:
> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:20:23 -0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>
> On 1/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>>>
>>> +!
>>>
>>> On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
>>>>> work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
>>>>> if he's going to dismiss the experts.
>>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
>>>> expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer
>>>> diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
>>>> knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
>>>> less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
>>>> stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
>>>> careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
>>>> Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
>>>> evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering
>>>> editors on WP.
>>>>
>>>> Stan
>>
>> Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and
>> seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>>
>> Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
>> something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you
>> needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>>
>> Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now!
>> Those
>> marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who
>> make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
>>
>> Ease up!
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> Fair enough. As long as my intelligence, experience, and ability to learn
> aren't discounted. I've been made to feel small a lot in my life by
> "experts", simply because I didn't have one or two pieces of paper. It's all
> good now and I love my career and life, but Wikipedia is important to me
> because it's pretty much the opposite of my past.
>
> People respect my skills and insight here. It's greatly improved my
> confidence level on all fronts. In fact (why yes, it's quite ironic), I'm
> planning on going back to school and getting my long-lost bachelor's and
> masters in Human Services as a direct result of my time here (among other
> things - my job plays a big part in it too).
>
> Some of the editors that I've come to respect the most on Wikipedia are not
> only non-experts, they're teenagers. My teenage collaborators have been
> extremely active, and have gotten references to things no one else could
> find. They're also knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. When I say teenagers,
> I'm talking 14-15, not 18-19. They've impressed me in their editing and
> insight more than any "expert".
>
>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Nina

Nina,

Long before there were university degrees, there was the human being?s
ability to reason, and, most importantly to empathize. A formal education
can help you fine tune the first one of these, but no type or amount of this
education can give you the second one. You seem to have it. Nurture it, use
it ? you?re already far ahead of the game.

Whatever formal degrees I may have, I consider them as things I?ve
accumulated on the way to learning something. And, as necessary keys that
provide me access to the most important part ? the persons I am trying to
reach.

If someone is trying to put you down, they must need you to be there, so
they can be where they are.

Best of luck in your studies and work in Human Services. The field could use
many more like you. You appear to have a particular feel for adolescents. I
don't know what your present work is in now, but perhaps your self is trying
to tell you something about a career change. Consider adolescent psychology;
the teens could use someone like you.

Perspective:  B.S. = Bull.Shit. ? M.S. = More.Shit. - Ph.D. = Piled high. &
Deep. :-)

Be healthy,

Marc Riddell

>>> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us
>> and
>>> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul
>> Kalam
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Nina
> "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
> conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
Aphaia wrote:
> On 1/18/07, "Thomas M?ller" <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>So you know who, you know the battle now
>>and you know the view on wikifoundation open source intention.
>
>
> Whose battle for what against whom?
>
>
>>So we know, wikiseek is evel, as google and advertisements are behind it,
>
>
> Pardon? And I would like to know who is we in your context...
>

Dunno about you, but I am getting more and more confused.
Between Wikiasari, wikisearch, wikiseek, peerpedia, peerpedia and other
yacy development, I am wondering if this is still Wikimedia Foundation
mailing list...

Which battles ? which intentions ? which registration ? Which
advertisement ? What what what ?

Could we stick to talk about the Foundation here and all others talking
of other projects, other organisations, other business company, stick to
their own mailing lists to avoid confusion ?

Is there someone here trying to launch a troll or what ?

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] special page listing pages with broken links?

body:
We were looking for a special page that listed pages with broken
links, is there currently one available somewhere? I've created one
and didn't want to add a duplicate extension or functionalty to the
extensions.

Thanks,
Travis


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
<cues Ross Mayfield>
It's all about TUBES.  TUBES connecting people with other people and
other tubes.  One you get to the true Tube-to-Tube network, you won't
need the people any more.
</RM>

--SJ, wondering what tubetube videos will look like

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Anthony wrote:

> On 1/17/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>> You probably shouldn't have told everyone on this mailing list not to
>> buy peerpedia.net. Someone registered it, and it's active now.
>>
>> http://peerpedia.net/
>>
> If you're truly peer to peer, then you don't need a domain name.
>
> Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exposure of magic on Wikipedia

body:
Copyright caselaw takes into account the character of the copyrighted
work. If the nature of the work is to describe some sort of process or
activity, it likely falls under patent law and not copyright law. The
standard mantra, misleading as it can be, is that ideas cannot be
copyrighted, only expressions. When we are talking about things like
"how to move your hands around to get the desired effect," that
usually applies (when we are talking about things like "an evil
character with a dark black helmet who makes asthmatic weezing", then
we get into a more murky question about where ideas end and
expressions begin).

Is there any concrete reason to worry about this at the moment or is
this all just hypothetical? We should not overly concern ourselves
with magician etiquette if there is no pressing reason.

FF

On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a
> copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage
> intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to
> summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy
> it still violates the copyright of the text?
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/15/07, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > --- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> > > [[piracy]] then?
> >
> > and
> >
> > > But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for
> > to
> > > start with.
> >
> > What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part
> > of
> > why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing
> > information is
> > not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on
> > Wikipedia is
> > an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy
> > and
> > paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of
> > magicians.
> >
> > -- Matt
> >
> > [1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does
> > transgress IP
> > law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
> >
> > Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> > Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with
> > All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Spam and advertising dilemma

body:
On 1/18/07, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> podcasts.  This is a great example of Wikipedia being
> abused to advertise and promote, if not straight product
> placement and shilling.

Does that harm us?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
On 1/18/07, Violet/Riga <violetriga at gmail.com> wrote:
> My problem with them is when the spoiler message comes at the start of the
> plot synopsis.  Sorry but there should always be a spoiler-less opening
> paragraph explaining the plot as described in the film blurb (or whatever).
> Otherwise they lose their purpose.

Yeah. Those who treat "plot" as synonymous with "spoiler" are missing
the point. For an average novel or movie, perhaps 70-80% of the plot
can be described without really "spoiling" anything. Then the
"spoiler" could be just a paragraph or even a sentence or two.

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Searching an article history

body:
User:AmiDaniel created a tool like that, but I'm unsure of how effective it
is.
I think it was called Whodunit.

Mgm

On 1/18/07, para <wikipara at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> zero 0000 wrote:
> > If an article is pretty active, it can be quite a chore
> > to locate the edit where a particular text was added.
> > Is there any sort of tool to help with that?
>
> The [[IBM History Flow tool]] does a good job in visualizing all the
> edits. It doesn't tell you directly who did a specific edit, but the
> text is colour coded and each contributor has their own colour, so with
> a bit of matching it's not too hard to find whodunit, unless of course
> you're colour blind.
>
> In 2005 there was a competition for creating such a tool, and a number
> of them came up, but none are working anymore. The blog entry with some
> links is at http://www.waxy.org/archive/2005/06/27/wikipedi.shtml
> Since the IBM tool is for a slightly different purpose, perhaps someone
> could try fixing these others?
>
> -- para
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Independent article

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 17/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, so what do we do when mostly we're right, we're occasionally
>>laughably (or harmfully?) wrong, and we don't seem to have much
>>control either way? Tough to implement any policies telling vandals
>>how to behave when they're up to no good...
>>
>>
>I've been trying to turn the phrase "Wikipedia is not a reliable
>source" into a positive thing ;-)
>
>
We could always adopt a slogan like, "Wikipedia, the preferred
unreliable source of journalists." ;-)

Ec


from_name: Luna

body:
On 1/18/07, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "One thing that I think I didn't realize sufficiently, when writing about
> this
> question a few months ago (at embarrassing length, before the pilot
> project was
> well under way), is that the very presence of fair-to-middling articles
> from WP
> is actually a strong disincentive for people to get to work. It's like
> this:
> when you get down to brass tacks, it's no fun to clean up the mediocre
> work of
> Wikipedians.  It might be a hell of a lot more fun to start over from
> scratch."

All ego and cat calls aside, the man's got a point -- people go where
they're interested, and writing brand new articles "in your own image" is
often more interesting than cleanup work. Whatever works for them; it's
their project, after all.

I wouldn't be surprised if they "check in" on Wikipedia, now and then, just
as we're apparently checking in on them. It's useful to see where similar
but distinct projects have strong and weak points, and to see how that
knowledge can help us to improve our own project.

Additionally, I rather doubt it, but this couldn't be the start of some
licensing change on their part? The primary reason they went with GFDL,
assuming I understand their decision correctly, was for the purpose of
forking Wikipedia. By deleting the forked pages, a lot of that need is
gone... although they've put a fair amount of work into it, already, which
would still be GFDL licensed, along with the whole can of worms that such a
decision (and discussion) would open up. Switching licenses would probably
be disruptive, for them, but again, it's their project.

Just a few rambling thoughts.
-Luna


subject: [Commons-l] Image maps

body:
On 18/01/07, Larry Pieniazek <lar at miltontrainworks.com> wrote:
> Image maps work on commons too?

Yes, AFAIK they were enabled on all Wikimedia projects.

cheers,
Brianna


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 17/01/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > Look at the editing history of User:Amarkov. An editor who edits
> > NOTHING but deletion debates, apparently in all hard-working
> > sincerity.

> "That's no editor... it's a sockpuppet!"

Not as far as I can tell, actually. Amarkov appears to be a genuine
individual editor. But if there is such a thing as a "deletionist,"
he'd be a good example.

My disagreement is not with the idea of clearing up utter rubbish -
it's with what gets treated as utter rubbish.

- d.


from_name: Harish TM

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
Thanks a ton.

I will try hacking MediaWiki, will post back if there are issues

Harish

On 1/18/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/07, Harish TM <harish.tmh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a big problem for me. Cause when I do a regular expression
> > match on "Category :", I get those lines within the article that are
> > references to other categories as well. I Just want the category that
> > the current article belongs to. Its worse cause sometimes its "
> > Category :" sometimes "   Category :" and at times "Category :"
>
> Any category link without a leading colon will add the category.  With
> a leading colon, it links.  So [[Category:Foo]] categorizes,
> [[:Category:Foo]] links.  You can use that to your advantage.
>
> You may wish to look over the parser at
>
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/Parser.php?view=markup
> .
> Be aware that the parser is not short, simple, or clean, because (as
> you've discovered) neither is the markup language.
>
> The legal title characters, by default, are "
> %!\"$&'()*,\\-.\\/0-9:;=?@A-Z\\\\^_`a-z~\\x80-\\xFF+".  Therefore, a
> reasonable PCRE regex (with no string escaping of backslashes et al)
> might be:
>
> /\[\[Category:([ %!"$&'()*,\-.\/0-9:;=?@A-Z\\^_`a-z~\x80-\xFF+]+)\]\]/i
>
> Which would give you the category name.  Hopefully.  In most cases.
> Because other things can make a title invalid.  Basically, it's a
> mess, and the only surefire way around it is using MediaWiki itself to
> do the parsing.
>
> > Cant seem to find it. Searching for it seems to give me wikipeida
> > articles on parsing!!!
>
> Basically: install MediaWiki and hack it to do what you want.  The
> parser is not well-defined or application-independent.  You can make
> your own simplified parser, but it *will* fail in corner-cases (unless
> your simplifications consist of hacking out stuff you don't need and
> inlining stuff from other files).
>
> > Just to further clarify what it is that I am looking for - Lets say I
> > want to PRINT out a copy of wikipedia ( I know thats insane - but I
> > need text to be as clean as if I were printing it out ), with the
> > articles indexed as per Title and category, how would I get that
> > data??
>
> Use your own script to parse the XML part of the dumps and reformat
> them how you like.  Then run each article's text through the parser,
> and grab the category list it spits back.  It will not be very easy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 17/01/07, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> Indeed I think this is a general feature.  I was a lot more deferent
> towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the
> sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an
> area where you know your word has no business being accepted
> unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion.

"I am what passes for an expert in field x. This is a frightening concept."

- d.


body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

>On 1/17/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fifth?  I know about Nupedia, Wikipedia, one whose name I can't
>>remember, and Citizendium, but what one am I missing?
>>
>>
>Encyclopedia of Earth and "Digital Universe Encyclopedia".
>
My memory may be faulty, but wasn't he also have something to do with
the Sifter project?

Ec


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>> The people slogging for tenure will do it? The professors won't
>> delegate it to the grad students? The grad students won't be the
>> people who are already writing for us?
>>
>>If Larry gets tenure-track people to believe it will help them, then it really might be a breakthrough.
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>
>I think any of us, if asked, should be willing to write recommendations for contributors. Whether they will have traction will depend on how knowledgeable and intelligent the person considering it is.
>
Hmm.  Maybe if ArbCom took on the task their word on recommendations
might be more authoratative. ;-)

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
On 18/01/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> > There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues
> > ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is
> > a collision.

> Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure
> about the universe. -- Albert Einstein

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_Reactor

- d.


body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>According to Wikipedia (see how easy it is? Why can't the newspapers
>>manage... it's just 3 words... oh well...)
>>
>>
>Because they have rules against useing wikipedia as a source.
>
So which is worse for them: Using a source you can't acknowledge, or
acknowledging a source that you can't use?

Ec


from_name: Sage Ross

body:
On 1/18/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the first scenario would still be a major breakthrough;
> > requiring graduate students to write their literature papers for
> > Wikipedia is a whole different beast from (a few idealistic) graduate
> > students writing on top of their other duties.
>
> Wikipedia is written for the layman, a graduate student's papers are
> written for the expert. Writing for Wikipedia requires different
> skills than the ones graduate students are being tested on with their
> papers, and the skills currently being tested are required, so writing
> for Wikipedia would have to be in addition to, it can't be instead of,
> academic papers.
>

There is huge variation in the way graduate student papers are
written.  It would be relatively easy to assign literature papers
where the for-the-expert material and original analysis strictly
separated from the summary-of-the-literature aspects.  It's true that
the skills emphasized in graduate training are different from the ones
needed to write good Wikipedia articles.  But that's a flaw in
graduate training; they ought to be developing the skills to write for
a general audience.  Keep in mind that I'm only talking about
literature papers, which are intended for developing a feel for what's
been written about a particular topic; these are not academic papers
in the sense of potential publications based on original research
(which graduate students also write plenty of).

-Sage


body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

>Phil Sandifer wrote:
>
>
>>[...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should
>>work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts
>>if he's going to dismiss the experts.
>>
>>
>There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP;
>expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer
>diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great
>knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not
>less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the
>stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's
>careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an
>Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't
>evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering
>editors on WP.
>
Perhaps the difference is reflected in the analogy of WP as a bar-fight
beside CZ as genteel sanctioned combat in a professional wrestling ring.
:-)

Ec


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Undelete title search

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Instead of the full list or the hacked-in hardcoded message, the pointer
> to the deletion log is now localizable/customizable. Additionally,
> there's a search field: type in a page title or title prefix, and it'll
> list out (up to 100) matching titles.

Since no-one else has said it: Thanks, Brion, good idea and good work! :)

Timwi


body:
Marc Riddell wrote:

>Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and
>seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
>
That assumes that all experts know what they are talking about.  Some
do.  Others have merely been credentialized.  We also have Wikipedians
who are incapable of making that distinction..  I don't even know if a
fear properly encompases the situation; there is also a clear rejection
of deference.

>Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on
>something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you
>needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
>
That's one end of the scale.  I think that most of us are willing to
find some level of working arrangement with experts.  This necessarily
involves a rejection of the argument that a difference of opinion is
decided by the fact that one of the participants is an expert.  We are
not generally going to practice heart surgery or violin playing, but we
may enter into discussions about those topics, and we want the experts
to understand that the opinions of others should not be perfunctorily
dismissed.

>Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now! Those
>marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who
>make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
>
True enough, but we can still argue with them.  When they propose
software "improvements" they still need to interact with those of us who
may feel oppressed by improvements.  There was a virtue to keeping
Wikisyntax simple as it used to be.

Ec


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
On 18/01/07, thomasasta at gmx.net <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
> hi anthere
>
> ok, no problem, I was upset, because agreeing on a (open search)
> project (wikiasari) means as well not to lauch third party projets
> with the same ideas and names just in time to disturb the agreement
> (wkiseek is bashing wikisari, if not the same people are running it).
> But that is market.

There is no such "agreement". Wikiasari does not exist, in any real
terms; it's a vague sketch of an idea. Neither 'wikiasari' or wikiseek
are operated by the Foundation, funded by the Foundation, or in any
way our problem. Nor - indeed - are they seeking to do the same thing;
one is a general-purpose search engine and one is tied to a specific
corpus. One has been in development for months; one has just magically
appeared in the last few weeks and is still being debated.

They are not run by the same people; they are not doing the same
thing; and yet you believe they are in conflict. You apparently seem
to believe that when one group of people have decided "we will create
an open search engine" without yet working out how it will work, a
timescale, a plan, anything... that every other search-engine project
in the world should down tools and not do anything until that's
finished. This is just bizzare, and completely at odds with the way
the development world works.

> Here: There was the post about a sub-project of the wikipedia to
> start an open search engine owned by the foundation.

There has never *been* such a project in the community. You fervently
want us to create one using your pet ideas, and you keep telling us
about it; please do not mistake this for support.

> we need no peerpedia domain or a project management, just 10.000
> Dollars for 50 desktop pc?s indexing wikipedia in an open source engine.

The Foundation has better things to spend ten thousand dollars on. We
*have* a freely available search engine, which indexes Wikipedia, and
is working well enough for now. Why should we spend money on something
else just because you shout about it?

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


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


from_name: Dirk Riehle

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia and the search engine wars (was: Re: P2 -
 PEERPEDIA

body:
Hi Anthere,

I think the search engine wars will be important to WMF because
Wikipedia plays a key role in them.

That's because the high quality of Wikipedia pages (as compared with a
random sample of web pages) will basically be used to give computers
"world understanding" which in turn is a critical component of "divining
intent" i.e. figuring out what the user wants from the search engine
when he types in a few words into the text box.

There has been some good progress on using Wikipedia to create models of
the world; a recent IJCAI paper improved significantly (according to the
authors) on a computer's ability to figure out how close in meaning two
texts are (simplifying: how close a search request and a webpage are).
So the pure software is getting there. Next to smart search algorithms,
the other critical component you need in search is raw computing power
like Google's data centers. Non-profits will never match Google here, so
the solution has to be a peer-to-peer community approach (think
SETI at HOME), which is probably why you see the yacy people here pushing
their p2p engine.

Now, I think you are right when you say WMF doesn't have anything to do
with the search wars---in principle. So people with a political
conviction that search is a public utility should go to some other
place. However, what I'm trying to say is that they will be back because
Wikipedia will play a critical role in any attempt of making search a
public utility.

Cheers to the future...

Dirk

----
http://www.riehle.org

Anthere wrote:
> Aphaia wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/07, "Thomas M?ller" <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So you know who, you know the battle now
>>> and you know the view on wikifoundation open source intention.
>>>
>> Whose battle for what against whom?
>>
>>
>>
>>> So we know, wikiseek is evel, as google and advertisements are behind it,
>>>
>> Pardon? And I would like to know who is we in your context...
>>
>>
>
>
> Dunno about you, but I am getting more and more confused.
> Between Wikiasari, wikisearch, wikiseek, peerpedia, peerpedia and other
> yacy development, I am wondering if this is still Wikimedia Foundation
> mailing list...
>
> Which battles ? which intentions ? which registration ? Which
> advertisement ? What what what ?
>
> Could we stick to talk about the Foundation here and all others talking
> of other projects, other organisations, other business company, stick to
> their own mailing lists to avoid confusion ?
>
> Is there someone here trying to launch a troll or what ?
>
> Ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

--
http://www.riehle.org


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 1/18/07, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> We were looking for a special page that listed pages with broken
> links, is there currently one available somewhere? I've created one
> and didn't want to add a duplicate extension or functionalty to the
> extensions.

Well, you could go to Special:Wantedpages and work backwards from
there, I suppose, off the top of my head.


from_name: thomasasta at gmx.net

subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

body:
hi anthere

ok, no problem, I was upset, because agreeing on a (open search) project (wikiasari) means as well not to lauch third party projets with the same ideas and names just in time to disturb the agreement (wkiseek is bashing wikisari, if not the same people are running it). But that is market.
Here: There was the post about a sub-project of the wikipedia to start an open search engine owned by the foundation.

As no one is interested in peerpedia, we can stop this and bundle the power to the brand yacy. Though wikimedia supporting an open search engine would offer a goog synergy effect.
Then we just discuss here normal and not innovative things and just watch wikiasari and third party advertising models.
Though besides  the branding and a project, it would be nice, having some servers - as said - indexing the wikipedia for yacy.net financed by the 1 Mio dollars.

Here a PC (3000 AMD MHz, 40 GB, 512 MB RAM) costs 199 Euro, we have for the term "madonna" 45 languages in wikipedia, so to buy 50 servers this will cost 10.000 euro, linux java yacy software is for free. Bandwidth overhead just 5.000 euro.
This is in US Dollar just about 10.000 Dollar, which I wanted to have you invested in 50 servers indexing with yacy the wikipedia, providing to the p2p search engine.

we need no peerpedia domain or a project management, just 10.000 Dollars for 50 desktop pc?s indexing wikipedia in an open source engine.

Is that too much to request? Who in persona is deciding about this investment and which technician or engineer is able to install the pc?s?

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:00:20 +0100
Von: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
An: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA

> Aphaia wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, "Thomas M?ller" <thomasasta at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >>So you know who, you know the battle now
> >>and you know the view on wikifoundation open source intention.
> >
> >
> > Whose battle for what against whom?
> >
> >
> >>So we know, wikiseek is evel, as google and advertisements are behind
> it,
> >
> >
> > Pardon? And I would like to know who is we in your context...
> >
>
>
> Dunno about you, but I am getting more and more confused.
> Between Wikiasari, wikisearch, wikiseek, peerpedia, peerpedia and other
> yacy development, I am wondering if this is still Wikimedia Foundation
> mailing list...
>
> Which battles ? which intentions ? which registration ? Which
> advertisement ? What what what ?
>
> Could we stick to talk about the Foundation here and all others talking
> of other projects, other organisations, other business company, stick to
> their own mailing lists to avoid confusion ?
>
> Is there someone here trying to launch a troll or what ?
>
> Ant
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
"Feel free" - 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX ProMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail


subject: [Foundation-l] P2 - PEERPEDIA


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 1/18/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> Matt R wrote:
> > As per the subject, excerpts from:
> >
> >
> https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
> >
> > Larry Sanger writes,
> >
> >   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> > that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
> that
> > are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
> ahead
> > and make the deletion...
>
> I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia
> content, or that they have but they're hiding it?  I mean, all the
> articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content?
>   And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL?
>   Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning
> to do?
>
> Steve block

Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in
Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.

Apparently their first "approved" article, Biology, was a complete re-write
- the Wikipedia article was blanked.  Other people have modified existing
articles.  As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are
working on.

Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more
restrictive license.  New material could be - it seems to me that there's a
debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those
who want it to stay GFDL.  It's certainly understandable that people would
want their work to be only available for non-commercial uses - it's hard to
think that people are using your work to make money.  Of course I believe
that there are good arguments for GFDL, otherwise I wouldn't be contributing
to Wikipedia, but NC appeals to me as well.

Ian


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Timwi wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> Instead of the full list or the hacked-in hardcoded message, the pointer
>> to the deletion log is now localizable/customizable. Additionally,
>> there's a search field: type in a page title or title prefix, and it'll
>> list out (up to 100) matching titles.
>
> Since no-one else has said it: Thanks, Brion, good idea and good work! :)

whee thanks :D

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFr/IkwRnhpk1wk44RAncdAKCGbj2k8WSCwn55Rdqm09hSaG2/vgCghtBT
WCPRYrWTkSCth/OAVDJJKAI=
=FTuH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
Jimbo,

Since you haven't responded, I'm assuming you have absolutely no problem
with my chronicling the very real procedural problems Wikipedia faces.

I've started a livejournal: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/

I obviously can't leave these anywhere where you or your minions might want
to change them, after all.

I intend to pull no punches. I've left two Lessons for any newcomers to
wikipedia, and I'll be leaving more in the coming days.

If any of you are actually interested in honest dissent intended to
(hopefully) make wikipedia better, you'll find it here, because you're
certainly not going to find it on a "moderated" list where the slightest
dissent from the groupthink is answered with cries of "troll."

Parker


from_name: zetawoof

subject: [WikiEN-l] My own Livejournal

body:
On 1/18/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I waited over a week after having my account with Gmail fixed following the
> major database corruption. This necessitated the creation of a new Gmail
> account as the old one was beyond recovery.

"Database corruption"... so, is that what they're calling it these days?

[ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/060314.html ]


from_name: Thomas Dalton

body:
> I think the first scenario would still be a major breakthrough;
> requiring graduate students to write their literature papers for
> Wikipedia is a whole different beast from (a few idealistic) graduate
> students writing on top of their other duties.

Wikipedia is written for the layman, a graduate student's papers are
written for the expert. Writing for Wikipedia requires different
skills than the ones graduate students are being tested on with their
papers, and the skills currently being tested are required, so writing
for Wikipedia would have to be in addition to, it can't be instead of,
academic papers.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources

references:
<fb7fdd9c0701160117q40877722hc5c5361b5c665c6b@mail.gmail.com>
	<g7epq2liu7apdm26p250p4gatlreokceo7@4ax.com>
	<45AEA7CC.3070904@telus.net>

body:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>This sounds sensible.  Perhaps what we need some where is a list of what
>would be "standard" information in a biographical article.  Essentially
>we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a
>"Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of
>birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc.  Any of ths stuff
>could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.

Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual
is encyclopaedically notable.  If there are no sources for basic
biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words
if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile,
then I don't believe we can have an article.

Although this would make most porn bios impossible, of course, since
for the vast majority of those we have no reliable information other
than their skin colour and their appearance in a number of (usually
ultra low budget) films.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: David Strauss

subject: [Foundation-l] wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki is gone

body:
I use Wapedia. I really like it.

Gary Kirk wrote:
> Isn't there something called Wapipedia to search WP? I'm pretty sure
> I've seen a link to it from my network's content pages.
>
> Personally, I don't see the need for it. I use Opera Mini on my phone
> to browse WP and occasionally edit.
>
> The 3G phones can all surely run Opera or even simply the phone's
> native browser - Symbian-based, some of them.
>
> On 1/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [sent to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
>>
>> wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki , a third-party WAP translator for
>> Wikipedia, is gone and not coming back.
>>
>> How did I find this out? A "problem manager" for Hutchison 3G just
>> called me! 'Cos the volunteer press contact is obviously the person to
>> call about this sort of thing.
>>
>> Apparently, Hutchison promote Wikipedia as one of the things you can
>> get through their service. And apparently they were just hooking into
>> this third-party volunteer service. If you go to
>> http://wap.fluffypeople.com/wiki/ and read the WML file, the text it
>> gives is:
>>
>> "Sorry folks, the interface to wikipedia is down for the forseeable
>> future. There's a bug that crashes the webserver, and I don't have
>> free wap access any more, so I've got no incentive to fix it. I hope
>> you have enjoyed using the service."
>>
>> Apparently a Hutchison director saw that message and didn't understand
>> that it wasn't us. And this guy read that message and didn't twig that
>> it wasn't us. Ahem.
>>
>> As it happened I knew the right answer - "that'll be a third party
>> translator, we don't supply a WAP version of Wikipedia, just the web
>> version. If you want to run a WAP service, then you should contact
>> fluffypeople and pay them to run the service for you, or you should
>> get your own sysadmins to run the service for you."
>>
>> ANYWAY - it occurred to me that if we want to make Wikimedia projects
>> available to people - should we run our own WAP server? Or supply a
>> suitable feed or software as a paid feed for phone companies who want
>> to sell this to their customers? Or get them to give us the access to
>> supply knowledge to the world this way?
>>
>> (Given our fundraiser shortfall, options that involve money coming to
>> WMF are probably the nicest.)
>>
>> Does any of this sound at all feasible? Not that I'm volunteering for
>> the project ... just floating the idea.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070118/70627002/attachment-0001.pgp