subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki source cvs

body:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to
use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook
XML format.  That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for
Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.

This, of course, refers to a more innocent earlier time when we actually
thought we were going to do heavy semantic markup of Nupedia articles.

Eventually, though, we will, if we can.  So, this would be good, David!

Larry

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:11:43PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any
> > license you want.  I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you
> > guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
> >
> > I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good
> > for everyone.
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> If we do in fact go with Wiki (and we're not sure of that) rather than
> a simpler "edit this page" we roll ourselves, we will be adding to it
> the ability to convert the tags into DocBook. So:
>
> *item
> *item
> *item
>
> becomes
>
> <simplelist>
> <listitem>item</listitem>
> <listitem>item</listitem>
> <listitem>item</listitem>
> </simplelist>
>
> and so on. Might be of use to you someday if you want to publish
> something out of Wikipedia in DocBook XML format. Just keep it in
> mind.
>
> I've already started such a script, 'cause we'll need it regardless.
>
> > David Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for
> > > working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't
> > > know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in
> > > using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff
> > > like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel
> > > about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
> > >
> > > If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally
> > > established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements.
> > > Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to
> > > make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way.
> > > The big table would be overkill imho.
> > >
> > > But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to
> > > use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
> > >
> > > =Title=
> > >
> > > Foo
> > >
> > > Bar
> > >
> > > becomes:
> > >
> > > <sect1><title>Title</title>
> > >
> > > <para>Foo</para>
> > >
> > > <para>Bar</para>
> > >
> > > </sect1>
> > >
> > > and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the
> > > cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run
> > > into and send a patch if that happens.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
> > > Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
> > > Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org
> > >
> > > By the Earth that is Her body
> > > By the Air that is Her breath
> > > By the Fire of Her bright spirit
> > > By the Waters of Her living Womb,
> > > The circle is cast.
> > > 		-- Traditional Circle Casting
> > > [Wikipedia-l]
> > > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************************
> > *"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
> > * own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
> > * there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
> > *  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
> > *  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
> > ********************************************************************
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new?

body:
A comment that MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT :-) be relevant to Lars' suggestion
(I'll leave that for you to decide):

I'd generally be opposed to any extra step, particularly anything that
requires any degree of technical know-how, that would make it more
difficult or complicated for the ordinary (non-coding) Joe to save
Wikipedia articles.

Larry

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Lars Aronsson wrote:

> Jimmy wrote:
> > Obviously, there's no way for us to pass all the webpages through a
> > validator (or, is there?) since end users might well write invalid or
> > at least not-perfect html.
>
> When I first thought of this, I thought it will never work because you
> allow HTML markup inside the user-edited wiki text.  Then I found out
> that this is wrong.  Think again!  Each user can run her favorite page
> through the validator and fix the HTML code in the user-edited wiki
> text until it passes.  All that the system programmers have to do is
> to make sure the system-generated HTML code passes through the
> validator.  Testing a few pages without user-edited HTML code should
> be sufficient for this.  After this, your users will help you find the
> remaining bugs.
>
> In the UseModWiki, this code adds a logotype-link to the W3C validator:
>
> sub GetMinimumFooter {
>   my $w3c = "     . "src='/img/valid-html40.png'\n"
>     . "alt='Valid HTML 4.0!' align=top height=31 width=88>";
>   if ($FooterNote ne '') {
>     return T($FooterNote) . $w3c . $q->end_html;  # Allow local translations
>   }
>   return $w3c . $q->end_html;
> }
>
>
> You will want to download the valid-html40.png to your own site from
> http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html40.png
>
> I made a quick test for the German Wikipedia through the validator
> (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline).
> The validator assumed the contents was HTML 2.0 (!), because of
> the insufficient DTD declaration at the top of the HTML code.
>
> The beginning of the page:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> <TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
>
>
> Should look something like this:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
> <TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
>   link="#0000c0" text="black">
>
>
>


body:
Last I heard, we solicited a report from Manning Bartlett on metadata, how
to keep track of it, why we should keep track of it, and so forth.

The suggestion is old, but basically, we shouldn't do it at all unless we
can do it right (and, above all, unless we can keep it *simple for
users*).

Automatically-generated metadata is a Good Thing, I think.

Larry

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:

> I have a meta keywords tag automatically generated from the links in the
> article body. Check the output of any article at
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml
>
> Language will be done as well soon.
>
> Magnus
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> > [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Kurt Jansson
> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 8:22 PM
> > To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new?
> >
> >
> > Hello everyone!
> >
> > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> > > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
> > > </HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="white">
> >
> > Silly question from me:
> > Why don't we have meta tags like keywords, language, author <g>, etc.?
> >
> > Bye,
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New York Times Magazine writeup

body:
At 01:40 PM 1/13/02 -0600, Laura wrote:
>Would it be ok for someone to cut and paste that article into here? I
>don't have a subscription to the NY Times Magazine. I'd really like to
>read the article.
>
>Laura

The NY Times magazine is online, as part of the Times Website. Registration
is required but
free (and they really won't start sending you junk--I've been a registered
user for a couple of
years and have never heard from them). www.nytimes.com
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: rose.parks at worldnet.att.net

subject: [Wikipedia-l] NYTimes.com Article: Populist Editing

body:
This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by rose.parks at worldnet.att.net.

For Laura T.

         As Ever,

            Ruth Ifcher

rose.parks at worldnet.att.net

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\

Share the spirit with a gift from Starbucks.
Our coffee brewers & espresso machines at
special holiday prices.
http://www.starbucks.com/shop/subcategory.asp?category_name=Sale/Clearance&ci=274&cookie_test=1

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Populist Editing

December 9, 2001

By STEVEN JOHNSON

Despite the popular conception of the Internet as our most
interactive medium, on the great majority of Web pages the
interaction all goes in one direction. But an intriguing
new subgenre of sites, called WikiWikiWebs, really are
interactive: users can both read and write. If you don?t
like the perspective of the article you are perusing, you
can go in and rephrase the concluding paragraph. If you
stumble across a spelling mistake, you can fix it with a
few quick keystrokes. Wikis are like communal gardens of
data: some participants do a lot of heavy planting, while
others prefer to pull a weed here and there.

The most ambitious Wiki project to date applies this
governing principle to the encyclopedia, that
Enlightenment-era icon of human intelligence. The result is
the Wikipedia, created in early 2001 by a philosophy Ph.D.
named Larry Sanger and billed as ??a collaborative project
to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch.??
Wikipedia has attracted more than 1,000 new entries a month
on everything from astronomy to the visual arts. With a
total of 16,000 articles in the database, the Wikipedia is
already large enough to be a source of generally reliable
information, though stronger in some areas (??Star Trek??
spinoffs) than others (the novels of Charles Dickens).

Wikipedia differs from conventional encyclopedias in that
each article is a work in progress: a visitor will draft a
new entry, sometimes merely jotting down a few random data
points, with a handful of links to other related entries; a
few weeks later, another visitor might add a paragraph or
two or a few more hyperlinks. Each entry has a revision
history, like those featured in modern word processors,
that lets you see at a glance any changes that have been
made to the document.

What prevents a crank or a saboteur from deliberately
undermining the quality of entries? Only the steady force
of constant revisions, doled out by thousands of
contributors. A few jokers in the mix will invariably get
washed out by the overwhelming number of contributors who
are genuinely interested in the site?s meeting its
objectives. There is a saying in the open-source software
community (from which the Wiki movement borrows more than a
few moves): given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
The slogan works for programmers collectively writing an
operating system like Linux, so why shouldn?t it work for
hobbyists and armchair enthusiasts stringing together an
encyclopedia?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/09POPULIST.html?ex=1011957729&ei=1&en=6c3d50d7681900b8

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
Racer at alyson at nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help at nytimes.com.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company


from_name: David Merrill

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki source cvs

body:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:07:02PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
> This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to
> use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook
> XML format.  That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for
> Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
>
> This, of course, refers to a more innocent earlier time when we actually
> thought we were going to do heavy semantic markup of Nupedia articles.
>
> Eventually, though, we will, if we can.  So, this would be good, David!

If you want to take 'er for a spin, go to db.linuxdoc.org. Use
'guest,guest' for your username/password. Edit any document meta-data.
Click the "Edit (test)" link from within that. You'll get the
document's pseudo-wiki edit box.

When you click save it will show you the docbook it rendered.

I'm keeping meta-data separately, as you'll see in the database.

These are valid but are being expanded hourly. ;-)

=Title=			<sect1><title>Title</title>
			<sect1>

=Title|id=		<sect1 id='id'><title>Title</title>
			<sect1>

(works for other sect levels as well)

==Title==		<sect2><title>Title</title>
			</sect2>

===Title===		<sect3><title>Title</title>
			</sect3>

Foo			<para>Foo</para>

#Foo			<orderedlist>
#Bar			<listitem><para>Foo</para></listitem>
#Baz			<listitem><para>Bar</para></listitem>
			<listitem><para>Baz</para></listitem>
			</orderedlist>

*Foo			<simplelist>
*Bar			<listitem><para>Foo</para></listitem>
*Baz			<listitem><para>Bar</para></listitem>
			<listitem><para>Baz</para></listitem>
			</simplelist>

[[foo]]			<ulink url='url-to-ldp doc by that id>
			  <citetitle>document-title</citetitle>
			</ulink>

[[http://foo.org]]	<ulink url='http://foo.org'>
			  <citetitle>http://foo.org</citetitle>
			</ulink>

[[http://foo.org Foo]]	<ulink url='http://foo.org'>
			  <citetitle>Foo</citetitle>
			</ulink>

[Foo]			<filename>Foo</filename>

'''Foo'''		<emphasis>Foo</emphasis>

<foo></foo>		<foo></foo>

Or, you can insert arbitrary DocBook. It cannot be embedded within anything
else, though. In other words, you cannot have DocBook and one of the constructs
above in the same line.

Any text that starts with "<" is considered docbook, until the
close tag is found. Tags can be nested arbitrarily deep. It won't be wrapped
with <para> tags or anything, so you'll need to do that manually if you
insert DocBook.

As you can see, it's heavily influenced by Wikipedia, my only real
wiki experience. :-)

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:11:43PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any
> > > license you want.  I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you
> > > guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
> > >
> > > I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good
> > > for everyone.
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
> > If we do in fact go with Wiki (and we're not sure of that) rather than
> > a simpler "edit this page" we roll ourselves, we will be adding to it
> > the ability to convert the tags into DocBook. So:
> >
> > *item
> > *item
> > *item
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > <simplelist>
> > <listitem>item</listitem>
> > <listitem>item</listitem>
> > <listitem>item</listitem>
> > </simplelist>
> >
> > and so on. Might be of use to you someday if you want to publish
> > something out of Wikipedia in DocBook XML format. Just keep it in
> > mind.
> >
> > I've already started such a script, 'cause we'll need it regardless.
> >
> > > David Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for
> > > > working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't
> > > > know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in
> > > > using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff
> > > > like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel
> > > > about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally
> > > > established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements.
> > > > Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to
> > > > make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way.
> > > > The big table would be overkill imho.
> > > >
> > > > But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to
> > > > use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
> > > >
> > > > =Title=
> > > >
> > > > Foo
> > > >
> > > > Bar
> > > >
> > > > becomes:
> > > >
> > > > <sect1><title>Title</title>
> > > >
> > > > <para>Foo</para>
> > > >
> > > > <para>Bar</para>
> > > >
> > > > </sect1>
> > > >
> > > > and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the
> > > > cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run
> > > > into and send a patch if that happens.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
> > > > Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
> > > > Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org
> > > >
> > > > By the Earth that is Her body
> > > > By the Air that is Her breath
> > > > By the Fire of Her bright spirit
> > > > By the Waters of Her living Womb,
> > > > The circle is cast.
> > > > 		-- Traditional Circle Casting
> > > > [Wikipedia-l]
> > > > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > > > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > > --
> > > *********************************************************************
> > > *"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
> > > * own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
> > > * there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
> > > *  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
> > > *  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
> > > ********************************************************************
> > > [Wikipedia-l]
> > > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

Holy ad nauseam: If I hear anyone from Microsoft talk about the freedom to
innovate one more time, I think I'll hurl a month's worth of cookies.
Instead of worrying about whether or not the government will stop Microsoft
from innovating in the future, the head honchos in Redmond ought to spend
some energy trying to figure out what force has prevented them from
innovating over the past decade.
	--InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley - December 20, 1999


from_name: Kurt Jansson

body:
Hello everyone!

> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
> </HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="white">

Silly question from me:
Why don't we have meta tags like keywords, language, author <g>, etc.?

Bye,
Kurt


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
I have a meta keywords tag automatically generated from the links in the
article body. Check the output of any article at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml

Language will be done as well soon.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Kurt Jansson
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 8:22 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new?
>
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
> > </HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="white">
>
> Silly question from me:
> Why don't we have meta tags like keywords, language, author <g>, etc.?
>
> Bye,
> Kurt
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia search engine

body:
This may already be fixed in the new version, but if I
do a search for a term and there's an article *titled*
that, shouldn't that always be the top search result?

Chuck Smith

=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj!  Venu al Filadelfio, Usono 15-17 Februare
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Categories in the PHP script

body:
I'd like to mention two simple technical solutions that came to my mind
reading the last posts:

1. The cat: namespace is a nice idea. Maybe [[cat:foobar]] could point to
the same page as does [[foobar]], so the script could tell apart when you
mean "link" and when you mean "category".

2. Another way would be to have no {{}} or [[cat:]] or the like at all, but
use the "pages that link here" function I already implemented. Instead of a
seperate page, it could be included by a variable on every page that
(supposedly) is a category. The advantage would be that we'd only have to
add "see also" links or the like on all the pages to have them listed. The
disadvantage would be having pages listed that we don't want to have (e.g.,
"HomePage" would be listed on the "Biology" page, because it links there).

But currently, I don't think the problem is a technological one. IMHO the
question is "have category functionality or not?".
I'll leave that one to the rest of the community and to the "higher
powers";)

Magnus


body:
I just ran the main page of the test site through the W3C HTML validator
(checking for HTML 4.01), and it shows 4 errors:

- 3 of then I blame on the validator for it won't parse <a
href="wiki.phtml?foo=this&bar=that"> , saying "unknown entity bar".
Obviously, it is trying to parse the URL...

- The other error is a </p> that lacks a matching <p>.

If these are the problems we're facing with incorrect HTML, there's no need
to be scared... :)

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Larry Sanger
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:34 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new?
>
>
> Last I heard, we solicited a report from Manning Bartlett on metadata, how
> to keep track of it, why we should keep track of it, and so forth.
>
> The suggestion is old, but basically, we shouldn't do it at all unless we
> can do it right (and, above all, unless we can keep it *simple for
> users*).
>
> Automatically-generated metadata is a Good Thing, I think.
>
> Larry
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > I have a meta keywords tag automatically generated from the links in the
> > article body. Check the output of any article at
> > http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml
> >
> > Language will be done as well soon.
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> > > [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Kurt Jansson
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 8:22 PM
> > > To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something new?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone!
> > >
> > > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> > > > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Wikipedia: HomePage</TITLE>
> > > > </HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="white">
> > >
> > > Silly question from me:
> > > Why don't we have meta tags like keywords, language, author <g>, etc.?
> > >
> > > Bye,
> > > Kurt
> > >
> > >
> > > [Wikipedia-l]
> > > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> href="wiki.phtml?foo=this&bar=that"> , saying "unknown entity bar".
> Obviously, it is trying to parse the URL...

Actually, whenever you represent the & character in HTML 4.0, you
should write & even if it is in the middle of a CGI URL.  This
does not change the URL, only its representation in the HTML document.

> If these are the problems we're facing with incorrect HTML, there's
> no need to be scared... :)

It is not very difficult to do HTML 4.0 correctly.  The change to
XHTML is a much bigger step (and unnecessary, if you ask me).

--
  Lars Aronsson
  <lars at aronsson.se>
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue

body:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> > PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've
> > snuck into the boys room. ;)
>
> :-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis
> writes a lot on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if they are on the
> mailing list, though.  Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.

Let's not forget JHK, --April, and Dreamyshade, to name three of the more
hard-working females.  There are quite a few others, too.  Wikipedia is
definitely male-dominated, though, which I agree is regrettable.

Larry


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

body:
Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> writes:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > href="wiki.phtml?foo=this&bar=that"> , saying "unknown entity bar".
> > Obviously, it is trying to parse the URL...
>
> Actually, whenever you represent the & character in HTML 4.0, you
> should write & even if it is in the middle of a CGI URL.  This
> does not change the URL, only its representation in the HTML document.

Perhaps just use ";" instead to separate parameters in the URL.

> It is not very difficult to do HTML 4.0 correctly.  The change to
> XHTML is a much bigger step (and unnecessary, if you ask me).

XHTML 1.0 Basic shouldn't be that big. But its strict rules are a bear
if we want to encourage users writing HTML markup (instead of Wiki
markup). I don't know if we want to encourage that, though.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020114/f3e3702c/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jimmy Wales

in_reply_to: <200201130229.g0D2ToF16856@levi.aronsson.se>; from lars@aronsson.se on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 03:29:50AM +0100

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Each user can run her favorite page through the validator and fix
> the HTML code in the user-edited wiki text until it passes.

I dunno.  Seems pretty unwiki to me.  One of the key principles of
wikipedia is that anyone can edit without having to know much of
anything.  Requiring them to input semantically perfect HTML seems a
bit much.

Of course, I have no opposition to having some easy way for people who
care about such things (not me) to run any page through a validator
_if they feel like it_.

> The validator assumed the contents was HTML 2.0 (!), because of
> the insufficient DTD declaration at the top of the HTML code.

O.k., well, I'm in over my head a bit.  My feeling is that we should
be generating a very low level of HTML, so that all browsers can be
sure to render it.  So why do we want to force 4.0?

--Jimbo


in_reply_to: <871ygtp7u9.fsf@orcus.priv.at>; from robbe+wiki@orcus.priv.at on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:03:58AM +0100

body:
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> XHTML 1.0 Basic shouldn't be that big. But its strict rules are a bear
> if we want to encourage users writing HTML markup (instead of Wiki
> markup). I don't know if we want to encourage that, though.

My guess is that no, we don't want people writing HTML markup.  We
want to support a few tags, as we do now, because they're so commonly
known and useful.

Above all, we don't want people to _have_ to do anything even the
_least bit_ hard.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue

body:
Laura T. wrote:
> I haven't been doing much more than skimming the list but I do have a
> question about copyrights and Wikipedia. What if someone posts their own
> article as a Wikipedia topic? I posted one of my articles which I also gave
> to a garden site and posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one
> who has a copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?

It's o.k. to do, but by doing so, you're releasing the article under
GNU FDL, which means that anyone can redistribute it and edit it to
say anything they like.  If that's o.k. with you, and presumably it
is, then it's great!

> PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've
> snuck into the boys room. ;)

:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis
writes a lot on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if they are on the
mailing list, though.  Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia search engine

body:
Chuck Smith wrote:
> This may already be fixed in the new version, but if I
> do a search for a term and there's an article *titled*
> that, shouldn't that always be the top search result?

Yes, it should!

1.  The search engine for the English wikipedia is a fast one that I
    wrote myself -- similar to the Bomis search engine -- that uses an
    alogithm that should push the article titled as the search term to
    the top.  In some rare cases, it might come in second for some
    reason, though.

2.  It takes a *long time* for my search engine to update -- when I
    run the update program, it takes a few hours.  So I haven't put it
    on a cron, and I run it by hand every couple of weeks.  So,
    sometimes recent articles aren't in the search engine yet, which
    stinks I know.

3.  The new software is currently using a MySQL database search.  I
    have no idea if it is good or not, but my thinking is that once we
    get moved over to that version, we can play with ideas for making
    the search engine better.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue

body:
At 01:16 PM 1/14/02 -0600, Jimbo wrote:
>Laura T. wrote:
>
>
> > PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've
> > snuck into the boys room. ;)
>
>:-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis
>writes a lot on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if they are on the
>mailing list, though.  Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.

And me.

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


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020114/4141413a/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Down?

in_reply_to: <r5ir8os24dc.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:07:27PM +0000

body:
Yes, we had a router issue this morning.  We're upgrading our link to
the net, and... well, if I knew what the problem was I would explain
it.

For now, we're sitting tight and we'll try again once we figure out
for sure what went wrong.  :-)

Gareth Owen wrote:

> For about a half hour now ... (Mon Jan 14 18:07:05 GMT 2002)
> Problems?
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wiki source cvs

body:
Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to
> use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook
> XML format.  That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for
> Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.

I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for this kind of
content. I like it very much for (computer-oriented) technical
documentation, but for a more general topic? When used to its full
extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it probably wouldn't be
used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>). Take a look at
<URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html> to get an overview
of DocBook elements.

A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better. On the other hand,
I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits this description, and
a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other software than any
DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe Wikipedia).

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020114/4397147e/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue

references:
<003e01c16eb4$8b4e07c0$1d7558d9@maximilian>
	<ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGKEFGCEAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de>
	<003e01c16eb4$8b4e07c0$1d7558d9@maximilian>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20020113125917.00a567a0@mail.midwest.net>

body:
"Laura T." <ldb64 at midwest.net> writes:

> What if someone posts their own article as a Wikipedia topic? I
> posted one of my articles which I also gave to a garden site and
> posted in my own column at BackWash. I'm the only one who has a
> copyright to the article. Was that ok to do?

Yes. It should be noted though that (print) publishers often retain
exclusive rights to articles/books published through them. One should
always check the specific agreement or contract. See
<URL:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/authors_note.html> for one horror
story.

I think web publishers are less notorious about this.

> PS- Are there no other women taking part in this?

I'm quite positive you're not the first/only woman working on
Wikipedia. They are definitely in the minority, though. Let's hope
this situation gets better over time.

> I feel a bit like I've snuck into the boys room. ;)

This seems part of the reason -- so every new female on board helps
double.

Enough speculatin' ...

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020114/260a88a5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Down?

body:
For about a half hour now ... (Mon Jan 14 18:07:05 GMT 2002)
Problems?


from_name: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians

body:
> > > PS- Are there no other women taking part in this? I feel a bit like I've
> > > snuck into the boys room. ;)
> >
> > :-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on wikipedia) and Janet Davis
> > writes a lot on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if they are on the
> > mailing list, though.  Oh, and there's also PinkUnicorn.
>
> Let's not forget JHK, --April, and Dreamyshade, to name three of the more
> hard-working females.  There are quite a few others, too.  Wikipedia is
> definitely male-dominated, though, which I agree is regrettable.
>
> Larry

There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF, since we're
counting. :)

- Stephen Gilbert


from_name: Simon Kissane

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians

body:
--- sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
[snip]
> There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF, since
> we're counting. :)
Maybe it's time for [[Wikipedians/Female]]? :)

> - Stephen Gilbert
Simon J Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Press release tomorrow: Wikipedia Day!

body:
Hi all,

If all goes according to plan, the press release should come out tomorrow,
which is "Wikipedia Day" (our first anniversary).  This might or might not
bring in lots of traffic.  Be ready, Militia members!  Get into a
welcoming mood, Welcoming Committee members!  :-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wiki source cvs

body:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:50:53PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:
>
> > This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to
> > use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook
> > XML format.  That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for
> > Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
>
> I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for this kind of
> content. I like it very much for (computer-oriented) technical
> documentation, but for a more general topic? When used to its full
> extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it probably wouldn't be
> used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>). Take a look at
> <URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html> to get an overview
> of DocBook elements.
>
> A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better. On the other hand,
> I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits this description, and
> a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other software than any
> DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe Wikipedia).

I agree that any complete-ish implementation of DocBook would be very
hard and frought with difficulty. However, being about to export into
basic docbook (meaning not much more than links, sections, and <para>
tags) would allow the content to be worked into DocBook based
publication systems and such, and also the generation of pdf,
postscript, and other outputs. And *that* much at least would be
fairly easy and worth doing imho.

--
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

And let's face facts. innovation has never been Microsoft's strong suite.
We're much better at ripping off our competitors. For example, we did not
invent either ASP or IE, we bought them!
	--E-mail from an unidentified Microsoft employee,
	  as revealed in the antitrust trial


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Press release is out

body:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020115/latu099_1.html

Here is the text:

Free Encyclopedia Project, Wikipedia, Creates 20,000 Articles in a Year

      SAN DIEGO, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The free encyclopedia project
Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.com ) celebrates its first anniversary
today.  In its first year, the collaborative project has created over
20,000 articles, organizers say.  Wikipedia is a so-called WikiWiki, which
means that anyone with an Internet connection can visit the website and
edit an article without signing up.  For such an open project, some may
find it remarkable that many of the articles are reasonably good and that
the project has attracted a large number of well-educated, articulate
contributors.

    Wikipedia is not only free to read, it is free to distribute.  It is
released under the GNU Free Documentation License, which ensures that
anyone may reuse the entries on the site in any way they wish, including
commercially, as long as they too preserve that right in their own
versions. Many participants are attracted to the notion that they are
contributing to a completely free resource that can be used worldwide.

    The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and
philosopher Larry Sanger.  Wales has supplied the financial backing and
other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in
Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.  Sanger and Wales
attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core
group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality
and neutrality.  "Participants all keep a watchful eye over the 'Recent
Changes' page," Wales said.  "They edit each others' work constantly.  It
seems surprising that it works very well, but it does."

    The project began life quietly in January 2001 as an offshoot of its
more academic sister project, Nupedia ( http://www.nupedia.com ), but has
long since overtaken it in terms of size.  Wikipedia announced 10,000
articles last September, and claims to have doubled that number in the
past four months. This growth, and the project dynamics that fuel it, have
recently been the subject of articles in The New York Times, The New York
Times Magazine, and MIT's highly-respected Technology Review, as well as
technology news websites such as Slashdot and Kuro5hin.

    At present, nearly 200 people are working on the project daily, from
all around the world; organizers estimate that the project has had well
over a thousand contributors.  The success of such an open project,
staffed by such a large and diverse body of writers, is a puzzle: how can
so many people with so many different backgrounds collaborate with such
little oversight?  Project organizers say that it is partly because the
participants can edit each others' contributions easily, and partly
because the project has a strong "nonbias" policy; this keeps interaction
relatively polite and productive. Sanger explains: "If contributors took
controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many
different viewpoints to collaborate. Because of the neutrality policy, we
have partisans working together on the same articles.  It's quite
remarkable."

    What motivates a scholar to participate in such a wide-open project?
For Axel Boldt, a mathematics professor at Metropolitan State University
in St. Paul, Minnesota, the motivation to contribute dozens of mathematics
articles is "the same that motivates me to work in academia: it's fun to
teach, it's fun to learn, it's fun to interact with intelligent people."

    Sanger has been invited to speak about Wikipedia at the Stanford
University Computer Systems Laboratory colloquium on January 16;  the
press is invited to attend or to view the talk via the Internet.  Please
see http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/ for details.

    Wikipedia may be found on the web at http://www.wikipedia.com .

    Interview contacts:  Larry Sanger, +1-702-631-7301 (except Jan. 16,
and until Jan. 20), lsanger at nupedia.com, or Jimmy Wales, +1-619-296-1732,
jwales at bomis.com, both of Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.com ), 3585 Hancock St., Suite A, San
Diego, CA 92110, Tel. 619-296-1732, Fax 619-296-1754.

SOURCE Wikipedia
Web Site: http://www.wikipedia.com


from_name: Julie Kemp

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians

body:
Ummmm not unless we add a list for Wikipedia/men...but
then we might get more lists of classifications than
we need!  Besides, It's kind of fun watching people
figure out that I'm a person of the gyno-persuasion!

JHK
--- wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  Re: Incorrect HTML encoding--something
> new? (lcrocker at nupedia.com)
>    2. More female Wikipedians (sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca)
>    3. Press release tomorrow: Wikipedia Day! (Larry
> Sanger)
>    4. Re: More female Wikipedians (Simon Kissane)
>    5. Re: Re: wiki source cvs (David Merrill)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:35:17 -0800
> From: lcrocker at nupedia.com
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re:  [Wikipedia-l] Re: Incorrect HTML
> encoding--something new?
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
>
> ------------=_1011044117-15411-0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
>
> The way theyare now (HTML4 Trans., ISO-8859-1) is
> great. In the
> future we can tweak the sotware if we need to
> generate something
> else, since the data is unambiguous.
>
> >I have no _particular_ opinions.  All I want is for
> our pages to work
> >in all browsers.  What should I do?
> 0
> ------------=_1011044117-15411-0--
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:13:20 -0400
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> > > > PS- Are there no other women taking part in
> this? I feel a bit like I've
> > > > snuck into the boys room. ;)
> > >
> > > :-) Ruth Ifcher is around (RoseParks on
> wikipedia) and Janet Davis
> > > writes a lot on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if
> they are on the
> > > mailing list, though.  Oh, and there's also
> PinkUnicorn.
> >
> > Let's not forget JHK, --April, and Dreamyshade, to
> name three of the more
> > hard-working females.  There are quite a few
> others, too.  Wikipedia is
> > definitely male-dominated, though, which I agree
> is regrettable.
> >
> > Larry
>
> There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF, since
> we're
> counting. :)
>
> - Stephen Gilbert
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:34:09 -0800 (PST)
> From: Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com>
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Press release tomorrow:
> Wikipedia Day!
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> Hi all,
>
> If all goes according to plan, the press release
> should come out tomorrow,
> which is "Wikipedia Day" (our first anniversary).
> This might or might not
> bring in lots of traffic.  Be ready, Militia
> members!  Get into a
> welcoming mood, Welcoming Committee members!  :-)
>
> Larry
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:29:29 -0800 (PST)
> From: Simon Kissane <sj_kissane at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] More female Wikipedians
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> --- sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> [snip]
> > There's also Claudine Chionh, H. Jonat and BF,
> since
> > we're counting. :)
> Maybe it's time for [[Wikipedians/Female]]? :)
>
> > - Stephen Gilbert
> Simon J Kissane
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:58:26 -0500
> From: David Merrill <david at lupercalia.net>
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wiki source cvs
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:50:53PM +0100, Robert
> Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:
> >
> > > This, by the way, would be a great feature for
> Wikipedia to be able to
> > > use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to
> be convertable to DocBook
> > > XML format.  That's what we decided we wanted to
> use as an XML DTD for
> > > Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for
> Wikipedia too.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for
> this kind of
> > content. I like it very much for
> (computer-oriented) technical
> > documentation, but for a more general topic? When
> used to its full
> > extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it
> probably wouldn't be
> > used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>).
> Take a look at
> >
> <URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html>
> to get an overview
> > of DocBook elements.
> >
> > A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better.
> On the other hand,
> > I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits
> this description, and
> > a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other
> software than any
> > DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe
> Wikipedia).
>
> I agree that any complete-ish implementation of
> DocBook would be very
> hard and frought with difficulty. However, being
> about to export into
> basic docbook (meaning not much more than links,
> sections, and <para>
> tags) would allow the content to be worked into
> DocBook based
> publication systems and such, and also the
> generation of pdf,
> postscript, and other outputs. And *that* much at
> least would be
> fairly easy and worth doing imho.
>
> --
> David C. Merrill
> http://www.lupercalia.net
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/


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

> O.k., well, I'm in over my head a bit.  My feeling is that we should
> be generating a very low level of HTML, so that all browsers can be
> sure to render it.  So why do we want to force 4.0?

I agree. As long as there are no 4.0 features in the generated HTML,
there's no need to specify it.

OTOH, I know of no old browser which would reject displaying a page
just because it specifies a DTD that is new.

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> My guess is that no, we don't want people writing HTML markup.  We
> want to support a few tags, as we do now, because they're so commonly
> known and useful.
>
> Above all, we don't want people to _have_ to do anything even the
> _least bit_ hard.

Agreed again. I even thought about rewikifying commonly-known
elements like B back to '''. Otherwise the following situation is
possible:

Author 1 knows a bit HTML, but less Wiki. She writes "<b>term</b>".
Author 2 knows no HTML, but is fluent in Wiki. He is confused by
"<b>". Also note that while Wiki is fully documented on our site, HTML
is not.

For the time being rewikifying can be done by people, but the software
could do it as well.

The problem is not big, though, the only thing where Wikipedians
commonly use HTML is tables -- many think HTML tables are superior to
the Wiki tables. That complaint could be fixed of course in Magnus's
script.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020115/d2a9df70/attachment.pgp


body:
Simon Kissane <sj_kissane at yahoo.com> writes:

> I both agree and disagree. An organized collection of
> links can be useful. But an alphabetical list of
> articles in the category can still be quite useful.

[later:]

> I don't envision the primary responsibility for
> categorisation necessarily being with the writer of
> the page.

[and, on the topic of "just edit one page":]

> Well, it depends on how well you know the category,
> and how it is organized. If you are thinking of just
> assigning things to major categories, like "Physics",
> or "Philosophy" and "History", and we are in the
> process of assigning 20,000 articles to these major
> categories, then just being able to click "Edit this
> page", add "{{CATEGORY}}}" and save is a lot simpler.

I think my suggestion to add a "put this page in the following
categories" box (in addition to the normal "edit page text" box) can
achieve all that:

* Page authors not interested in elaborate categorisation have a quick
way to stuff a topic into the right categories.

* These categories end up with an unsorted (or alphabetically sorted)
  list of topics.

* "Categorisers" can use this unsorted lists and gradually move topics
  from there into a proper order.

* Topics which are afterwards put in a category the same way again end
  up in an unsorted section, ready to be moved into the existing
  order.

> I know it might sound like a bit of an overkill, but
> we could have both -- we could have organized and
> unorganized category pages, the unorganized ones
> automatically generated, the organized ones made by
> hand. Since we'd only have to maintain one (the
> organized one), its really no more work than we have
> at the moment.

My scheme keeps both parts (manual and automatic) of a category on one
page so that they can be kept in sync more easily. Otherwise
"categorisers" always have to scan the automatic page for changes.

> Well, my suggestion was that they would be
> subcategories, or independent categories in their own
> life... so an algorithm could go in the category
> [[Computer Science/Algorithms]], or alternatively in
> both the [[Computer Science]] category and the
> [[Algorithms]] category. Using a modification of
> Magnus' proposal you could display the contents of
> multiple categories on the one page.

This would work, although it would blur the one-article-one-page
concept. What would you be editing if you select "edit" on such an
[[Computer Science]] page automatically built from a number of
subpages?

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020115/4261e6f2/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wiki source cvs

body:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:58:36PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for
> working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't
> know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in
> using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff
> like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel
> about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.

We have decided not to use *any* wiki software. However, I am still
basing my text format on the Wikipedia format. So if at any time you
want a utility to convert that into DocBook, it's in the LDP cvs all
ready and waiting for you. :-)

--
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

My father, the Padishah Emperor, took me by the hand one day and I sensed
in the ways my mother had taught me that he was disturbed. He led me down
the Hall of Portraits to the ego-likeness of the Duke Leto Atreides. I
marked the strong resemblence between them -- my father and this man in
the portrait -- both with thin, elegant faces and sharp features dominated
by cold eyes. "Princess-daughter," my father said, "I would that you'd
been older when it came time for this man to choose a woman." My father
was 71 at the time and looking no older than the man in the portrait, and
I was but 14, yet I remember deducing in that instant that my father
secretly wished the Duke had been his son, and disliked the political
necessities that made them enemies.
		-- "In My Father's House" by the Princess Irulan


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recent changes page logging seems broken

body:
This might or might not be related to the problem F. Lee Horn pointed out
on the wiki today:

I've noticed that I made several edits, today, that were not logged at all
in the Recent Changes page, even though mine is the most recent edit.
For example, right now, I'm the person who has most recently edited [[The
rationality of atheism]] as you can see on

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=history&id=The_rationality_of_atheism

but on [[Recent Changes]], revision 12 made at 9:52 PM, by 64.71.228.xxx,
appears.

I've idly puzzled about this several times before this.  Ugh.  And you
know, for such an active day as today has been (and it really has been,
you know, if the referrer log stats are correct), we have had relatively
few edits appearing on [[Recent Changes]].

This really is a problem that needs to be solved, because we're apt to
have more traffic if some news organization writes up the press release,
and we've got to be able to monitor the new folks (to say nothing of the
older folks :-) ).

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea...

in_reply_to: <r5iy9ixoss2.fsf@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:18:21PM +0000

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> At some point, some of the vandals are going to spot the "minor edit" button,
> and realise it makes their vandalism harder to police.  Would it be too unwiki
> to limit the option of "minor edit" to those logged in (most non-vandal new
> users don't seem use it anyway).

I think that's pretty reasonable.

I personally have my preferences set to "show minor edits" and "show
all changes".  This means that I see _everything_ on my Recent_Changes
page.

This makes the page longer, but I also have it set to show only 1 day.
So it isn't unbearable.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Test the new software!  test.wikipedia.com is up!

body:
Larry Sanger wrote:
> For all I know, we should go live with this ASAP.  Maybe all of the
> outstanding issues are so minor that we can easily live with them, and
> that we'd all benefit more from having the new software running than from
> aiming for an impossible perfection.

My current thinking, just so everyone knows, is that unless we see any
"showstoppers" that must be fixed before we move, and unless those
"showstoppers" are so difficult that we can't fix them before Monday,
we will go live with this on the English Wikipedia on Monday.

At that time, http://test.wikipedia.com/ will be reborn as the new
copy of http://pl.wikipedia.com/, and we'll make sure that their
issues are taken care of -- in a portable way.

After that, and I hope that will only take a couple of days really, we
will probably do Esperanto next -- it might not be as active as German
or Spanish, I'm not sure, but Brion Vibber is good at
internationalization issues, and Esperanto raises some special issues
that we will want to solve ASAP.

For all the inactive wikis, we'll just "blindly" import the data, but
with confidence that it will be o.k., because we have other languages
working, and take it from there.

--Jimbo


body:
http://test.wikipedia.com/

Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
essential features.

For all I know, we should go live with this ASAP.  Maybe all of the
outstanding issues are so minor that we can easily live with them, and
that we'd all benefit more from having the new software running than from
aiming for an impossible perfection.

On this, Jimbo, Magnus, and I want and need your input!

So I'd like to ask the list: *are* there any outstanding issues that are
so important that we just *have* to have them fixed before we move to the
new software?  This could be very important, so I hope those of you who
care about this will give it some thought.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An idea...

body:
Just a thought re: vandalism

At some point, some of the vandals are going to spot the "minor edit" button,
and realise it makes their vandalism harder to police.  Would it be too unwiki
to limit the option of "minor edit" to those logged in (most non-vandal new
users don't seem use it anyway).
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] Test the new software!  test.wikipedia.com is up!

body:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Larry Sanger wrote:

> So I'd like to ask the list: *are* there any outstanding issues that are
> so important that we just *have* to have them fixed before we move to the
> new software?  This could be very important, so I hope those of you who
> care about this will give it some thought.

To answer my own question, right now, there's only one really bad problem.
There are problems to fix, but nothing that should stop us from moving
forward.

The really bad problem is that there is no easy way to go back to reedit
redirected pages.  For example, suppose that for any reason I want to edit
"philisophy" (which redirects to "philosophy").  When I go to

http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Philisophy

the URL doesn't change, but I see the "philosophy" article.  If I press
the "edit this page" link, I arrive at

http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?action=edit&title=Philosophy

So, if I want to edit the "philisophy" redirection page, I have to change
the latter URL to

http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?action=edit&title=Philosophy

and only then can I do it!

This might or might not be related to the problem that

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Larry_Sanger/Columns

isn't redirecting.

My own personal top priorities, though, are as follow (drawn from
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Bugs ):

(1) I'd like to turn off the section numbering.  Does anyone like it?  I
don't.  I'd rather not have my sections numbered--I'd like to have the
choice, anyway.  Sometimes, I have just one heading at the top of a pages;
that shouldn't be numbered "#1".  This sort of thing is better done by
humans, not made automatic, IMO.

(2) This one: "The script parses an ending period as part of an external
link. e.g. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Recent_Changes. It should
probably ignore final periods. --Stephen Gilbert"

(3) This one: "There's no "Talk" functionality for user pages."  There
should be talk functionality for all namespaces.  I also agree with this:
'I think what would work is for each namespace (such as "user:" or
"Wikipedia:") there will automatically be a related talk namespace (such
as "user talk:" or "Wikipedia talk:"). That would resolve the issue,
though perhaps the need for this points out a flaw in the current design."

(4) This one (if it hasn't been fixed yet): "The script just missed an
edit conflict, and claimed "Your page Wikipedia:Bugs was successfully
saved!" when in fact it saved the "Added
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" revision."

(5) This one :-( : "I cannot simply hit the back button in my browser,
after I have saved a page, and make another change to the page.  I do that
all the time in UseModWiki, but I can't do it on PediaWiki because I get
into an edit conflict with myself."

(6) This: "Other namespaces : Talk" is just confusing to about 99% of
users.  This should be changed to something like "Discuss changes to this
article: Talk".

(7) Finish the list of the new features.
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=wikipedia:New+features

(8) The parser doesn't work as expected here:
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Mathematics

I think that's it!

Others might have other priorities, but I think the above would really
cause significant frustration for a significant number of people.  But
just frustration, that's all.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article statistics

body:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:

> Article statistics
>
>       That means there are about 24724 articles, including subpages
> (except Talk).

Wow!  :-)

Larry


in_reply_to: <200201180114.g0I1EHH29082@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:14:17PM -0800

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> Likewise, I'd like to tweak the code for dictionary lists a bit
> before I add 20 more pages of poker jargon, but that too can be
> done post-live, and I can do the code myself as soon as it's in
> some reasonable source control system like Sourceforge CVS.

Well, Magnus's development version is in Sourceforge CVS:

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/

Is that helpful?


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020117/9c8f3b99/attachment.diff


body:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

> >http://test.wikipedia.com/
> >Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
> >essential features.
>
> Well, my extensive use of subpages in Poker get translated pretty
> badly, so I'll have to do a lot of manual fixing there.  But I'm
> probably the worst case on that score, and I don't think the problem
> is that bad, and I'd much rather do it now than after 20,000 more
> pages are added.

I think what would help a lot is if there were added, to the conversion
script, something that made [[Poker/Bluff]] (for instance) into
[[Poker/Bluff|Bluff]].  It appears that what the script does right now is
to convert instances of [[/Bar]] on a [[Foo]] subpage into [[Foo/Bar]].
I'd say it would be better in 95% of the cases to convert it instead into
[[Foo/Bar|Bar]].

> Likewise, I'd like to tweak the code for dictionary lists a bit
> before I add 20 more pages of poker jargon, but that too can be
> done post-live, and I can do the code myself as soon as it's in
> some reasonable source control system like Sourceforge CVS.
>
> So I'm certainly in favor of going live.

Woo-hoo!

Larry


from_name: João Mário Miranda

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Article statistics

body:
Article statistics

      There are 35531 pages in the database.
      There are 3398 Talk pages.
      There are 25162 pages with a comma that are not Talk pages.
      There are 438 that have "ikipedia" in the title and are not Talk
pages.
      There are 2337 subpages that are not Talk pages.
      That means there are about 24724 articles, including subpages
(except Talk).
      Or, there are about 22387 articles, not counting any subpages!
      Finally, there are about 6971 junk pages :-(
      And, there are old page versions in the database, giving an
average of 0 old pages on every active
      page.

Joao
http://www.nonio.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Larry Sanger wrote:
> > For all I know, we should go live with this ASAP.  Maybe all of the
> > outstanding issues are so minor that we can easily live with them, and
> > that we'd all benefit more from having the new software running than from
> > aiming for an impossible perfection.
>
> My current thinking, just so everyone knows, is that unless we see any
> "showstoppers" that must be fixed before we move, and unless those
> "showstoppers" are so difficult that we can't fix them before Monday,
> we will go live with this on the English Wikipedia on Monday.
>
> At that time, http://test.wikipedia.com/ will be reborn as the new
> copy of http://pl.wikipedia.com/, and we'll make sure that their
> issues are taken care of -- in a portable way.
>
> After that, and I hope that will only take a couple of days really, we
> will probably do Esperanto next -- it might not be as active as German
> or Spanish, I'm not sure, but Brion Vibber is good at
> internationalization issues, and Esperanto raises some special issues
> that we will want to solve ASAP.
>
> For all the inactive wikis, we'll just "blindly" import the data, but
> with confidence that it will be o.k., because we have other languages
> working, and take it from there.
>
> --Jimbo
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
jo?o
http://www.nonio.com
http://www.explicacoes.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Volunteer?  This will help!

body:
Would anyone like to volunteer to e-mail the press release to all the big
tech news sources--Computerworld, Newsbytes, Wired, etc.?  I'm not sure
that they were all included in the distribution of the press release, and
I think there's a decent chance that they'll be interested in the story.
It's certainly worth a try, anyway.

As I'll explain in my next e-mail, it would be a wonderful if someone
could volunteer to do this and save me the work of doing it myself.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I'm moving and will be unavailable for a while!

body:
My new bride and are moving to Columbus, Ohio (where I went to grad school
and taught fiddle, among other things).  We're actually renting a moving
van and driving it there.  It'll take up to four days, and we're leaving
Sunday or Monday, so I'll be out of contact for the most part (and
possibly entirely) from the 20th through the 23rd or so, at least.  Then
of course there are the many moving-related tasks to do in Columbus.  So,
while I'll try to be in touch, and if necessary I'll try to be on hand as
much as I can, I probably won't be able to devote *nearly* as much time in
the near future as I've been able to in the past many months.

The press release hasn't immediately caught the attention of any
significant press sources, but there's still some chance that we'll see
news articles that could bring a lot of traffic in the next week.
Nupedia's first press release didn't immediately generate a lot of press,
either, so it'd be premature even at this point to conclude Wikipedia's
press release was a dud.  I guess what I'm a little afraid of is that I'll
be midway through Arkansas or someplace like that, and you (one or many of
you) are having to call out the Militia.  :-)  Actually, I don't think my
absence in such a case would be at all a disaster, and it would be pretty
arrogant of me to think that it would be.  Still, I'd hate to miss it.  I
do definitely trust you all could handle it, anyway, with or without me.

Of course, my e-mail address will not change through this move.

Larry


body:
Is it a good idea to change to the new software after a
press release? Imagine something goes wrong and some
newspaper features wikipedia in the same day thing go wrong...

Joao
http://www.nonio.com

Larry Sanger wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> > >http://test.wikipedia.com/
> > >Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
> > >essential features.
> >
> > Well, my extensive use of subpages in Poker get translated pretty
> > badly, so I'll have to do a lot of manual fixing there.  But I'm
> > probably the worst case on that score, and I don't think the problem
> > is that bad, and I'd much rather do it now than after 20,000 more
> > pages are added.
>
> I think what would help a lot is if there were added, to the conversion
> script, something that made [[Poker/Bluff]] (for instance) into
> [[Poker/Bluff|Bluff]].  It appears that what the script does right now is
> to convert instances of [[/Bar]] on a [[Foo]] subpage into [[Foo/Bar]].
> I'd say it would be better in 95% of the cases to convert it instead into
> [[Foo/Bar|Bar]].
>
> > Likewise, I'd like to tweak the code for dictionary lists a bit
> > before I add 20 more pages of poker jargon, but that too can be
> > done post-live, and I can do the code myself as soon as it's in
> > some reasonable source control system like Sourceforge CVS.
> >
> > So I'm certainly in favor of going live.
>
> Woo-hoo!
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
jo?o
http://www.nonio.com
http://www.explicacoes.com


in_reply_to: <3C477A6E.119D8148@explicacoes.com>; from jmiranda@explicacoes.com on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:29:18AM +0000

body:
Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:
> Is it a good idea to change to the new software after a
> press release? Imagine something goes wrong and some
> newspaper features wikipedia in the same day thing go wrong...

We should certainly proceed with caution.  But press releases, in my
personal experience, don't usually lead to much traffic directly.

Keep in mind that a slashdot story can generate significantly more
times traffic than even the New York Times article did.  The AP
article hardly produced even a blip.


body:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:
> > Is it a good idea to change to the new software after a
> > press release? Imagine something goes wrong and some
> > newspaper features wikipedia in the same day thing go wrong...
>
> We should certainly proceed with caution.  But press releases, in my
> personal experience, don't usually lead to much traffic directly.
>
> Keep in mind that a slashdot story can generate significantly more
> times traffic than even the New York Times article did.  The AP
> article hardly produced even a blip.

Two comments are in order: (1) I'll be absent Sunday through Wednesday and
possibly later.  This doesn't mean you can't do it, of course (why need I
be on hand?); I'll leave it up to the higher powers.
(2) test.wikipedia.com is not working at this very moment :-( --

Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server
through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (111) in ./databaseFunctions.php on line
6

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in
./wikiPage.php on line 45

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in
./wikiPage.php on line 63

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in
./wikiPage.php on line 64

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in
./wikiPage.php on line 76

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in
./wikiPage.php on line 83

etc.

--Larry


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020118/e337cf96/attachment.diff


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20020118/83ad0059/attachment.diff


body:
Someone just shot down both test.wikipedia.com and meta.wikipedia.com.

Meanwhile, let's go through these:

> The really bad problem is that there is no easy way to go back to reedit
> redirected pages.  For example, suppose that for any reason I want to edit
> "philisophy" (which redirects to "philosophy").

Easy. At the top of the screen, when viewing the redirected "Philosophy"
article, there's a line starting with "Watch this article...". At the end of
this line, there's a text "(redirected from Philispohy)". Click on the link,
and you go to the edit page of the article containing the redirect.

> This might or might not be related to the problem that
>
> http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Larry_Sanger/Columns
>
> isn't redirecting.

The tarball I have doesn't have a redirect there. I can't check
test.wikipedia.com, because it is offline.

>
> My own personal top priorities, though, are as follow (drawn from
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Bugs ):
>
> (1) I'd like to turn off the section numbering.  Does anyone like it?  I
> don't.  I'd rather not have my sections numbered--I'd like to have the
> choice, anyway.  Sometimes, I have just one heading at the top of a pages;
> that shouldn't be numbered "#1".  This sort of thing is better done by
> humans, not made automatic, IMO.

You can turn it off in your user preferences. I'll change it to be off by
default for new users.

> (2) This one: "The script parses an ending period as part of an external
> link. e.g. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Recent_Changes. It should
> probably ignore final periods. --Stephen Gilbert"

I know, I know...
I couldn't figure our how to do that with a single regular expression
search&replace - yet!

>
> (3) This one: "There's no "Talk" functionality for user pages."  There
> should be talk functionality for all namespaces.  I also agree with this:
> 'I think what would work is for each namespace (such as "user:" or
> "Wikipedia:") there will automatically be a related talk namespace (such
> as "user talk:" or "Wikipedia talk:"). That would resolve the issue,
> though perhaps the need for this points out a flaw in the current design."

But there is! Exactly as requested! Boy, that was easy...

>
> (4) This one (if it hasn't been fixed yet): "The script just missed an
> edit conflict, and claimed "Your page Wikipedia:Bugs was successfully
> saved!" when in fact it saved the "Added
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" revision."

I think that's a weird one, and probably outdated as well. Tell me if this
still applies.

>
> (5) This one :-( : "I cannot simply hit the back button in my browser,
> after I have saved a page, and make another change to the page.  I do that
> all the time in UseModWiki, but I can't do it on PediaWiki because I get
> into an edit conflict with myself."

OK, for now, do this: Back button, then reload (just hit F5 in most
browsers). Should work then.
I struggled with this for quite some time, and I hope once we get a bomis
CVS repository, I'll get some help ;)

> (6) This: "Other namespaces : Talk" is just confusing to about 99% of
> users.  This should be changed to something like "Discuss changes to this
> article: Talk".

Well, if there's an article "foo", a "Talk:foo" page, a "wikipedia:foo" page
and a "user:foo" (or even more!), they all get listed there. It's not just
for talk. Just look at the sidebar, no misleading titles there ;)

>
> (7) Finish the list of the new features.
>
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=wikipedia:New+features

As most new features are visible (and usable), this can be filled in by
others as well. It's wikipedia, after all! ;)

> (8) The parser doesn't work as expected here:
> http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Mathematics

Oh, test.wikipedia.com is online a gain! I just fixed the mathematics bug.
It was on the page. Don't type a backslash at the end of a line, the script
takes it for something else...
(This won't become the most common error in the wiki, I guess...)

I just uploaded the "default: no header numbering" version to the
sourceforge site.
I also reversed the buggy changes I made there to support other languages.
This needs a different approach.

Don't worry, I saved the real bugs for the Monday change :]

Magnus


body:
> I think what would help a lot is if there were added, to the conversion
> script, something that made [[Poker/Bluff]] (for instance) into
> [[Poker/Bluff|Bluff]].  It appears that what the script does right now is
> to convert instances of [[/Bar]] on a [[Foo]] subpage into [[Foo/Bar]].
> I'd say it would be better in 95% of the cases to convert it instead into
> [[Foo/Bar|Bar]].

I fixed the conversion script so it does that now, although it might become
confusing for the reader if (in your example) there's a "real" [[Bar]]
article too, because it would look exactly like [[Foo/Bar|Bar]]. Well, I
guess we can't have the cake and eat it...

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test wikipedia problems

body:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:

> > Also, it would be nice in the conversion if you could
> > delete blank wikipedia articles so the articles that
> > link to them become question marks again and this
> > won't mess up the now useless Stub Articles page.
>
> That would cause a major rewrite in the conversion script (it is
> supposed to run only once in a lifetime, so it is not the most
> universal script I ever wrote...) I could add a "Delete empty pages"
> functions for administrators, though.

Well, a similar suggestion would be great: I'd like it to be the case
that, if a page is completely blank, the page history might still exist,
but in any case links to the page would show up as clickable blue question
marks.  That would remove the need for me to permanently delete pages the
contents of which happen to have been completely deleted, *if* we want
links to those pages to show up as clickable blue question marks.  (I hope
that's clear.)

OK, I'm going to pack this computer now, which means I'll be using the
laptop for the next week or two, which means it'll be less likely I'll be
online so often.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test wikipedia problems

body:
I put my bug catches and feature requests on
sourceforge wikipedia, but I guess no one reads that.
So, here they are:

17 Jan -- When I searched for "? language" I got:
Warning: REG_BADRPT in ./specialPages.php on line 365

Warning: REG_BADRPT in ./specialPages.php on line 365

It would be nice if the Most Wanted page let you click
to view which pages actually do want that one.  Also,
it might be nice if the number of articles want that
article rather than how many times it is wanted...
thus, the [? language]? problem because of the
Non-English wikipedias page!

Also, I can't access an article by typing
http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki/Esperanto for example.

Also, it would be nice in the conversion if you could
delete blank wikipedia articles so the articles that
link to them become question marks again and this
won't mess up the now useless Stub Articles page.
Also, try to put a note on the homepage about when you
plan to do the conversion so people don't get
frustrated that wikipedia is down.  Your faithful
addicts may not take it so well, and we don't want to
cause any health problems...  ;-)

Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or is
that still in the works?

Thanks,
Chuck

=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj!  Venu al Filadelfio, Usono 15-17 Februare
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test wikipedia problems

body:
Quick update:

> 17 Jan -- When I searched for "? language" I got:
> Warning: REG_BADRPT in ./specialPages.php on line 365

Probably a SQL thing. I'll look into it, but it seems to be only a minor
bug.

>
> It would be nice if the Most Wanted page let you click
> to view which pages actually do want that one.  Also,
> it might be nice if the number of articles want that
> article rather than how many times it is wanted...
> thus, the [? language]? problem because of the
> Non-English wikipedias page!

I fixed all of that. You can see it on the sourceforge site (I don't have
write acces at bomis yet).

> Also, I can't access an article by typing
> http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki/Esperanto for example.

This is an Apache thing, it will be done for the final site.

> Also, it would be nice in the conversion if you could
> delete blank wikipedia articles so the articles that
> link to them become question marks again and this
> won't mess up the now useless Stub Articles page.

That would cause a major rewrite in the conversion script (it is supposed to
run only once in a lifetime, so it is not the most universal script I ever
wrote...)
I could add a "Delete empty pages" functions for administrators, though.

> Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or is
> that still in the works?

It would work, but only between wikipediae (?) that run the PHP script.
The *automatic* crosslinking is *not* implemented yet.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test wikipedia problems

body:
Chuck Smith wrote:
> Also, I can't access an article by typing
> http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki/Esperanto for example.

This I can fix easily.  I'll do so.

> Also, try to put a note on the homepage about when you
> plan to do the conversion so people don't get
> frustrated that wikipedia is down.  Your faithful
> addicts may not take it so well, and we don't want to
> cause any health problems...  ;-)

:-)  Right!

> Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or is
> that still in the works?

I think it's actually still very much just in the idea stage.

As a typically pathetic monolingual American, I have a concern that
cross-language linking should be done in a way that's non-obtrusive.
It doesn't strike me that very many people will find it very useful to
have 50 links on every page to every other language wiki for which the
same article exists.

Even people who are multilingual typically speak only 2 or 3
languages.  For example, many of our Polish wikipedians speak English,
Polish, and probably in many cases 1 or possibly even 2 other European
languages.  But they might find it useless to have links to Tagalog,
Mandarin, Japanese, etc.

The cool thing would be if interlinking was fully customizable to the
end user.  People can just check off all the languages that they know,
and then those links would magically appear.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ian

body:
I don't think this reaches "essential features", but on the "Pages that
link to <this page>" page it should list the links that link to a page
which redirects to the current page.
For instance:
http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=special:whatlinkshere&target=Kosovo_War
and
http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=special:whatlinkshere&target=Kosovo_Conflict
(The former redirects to the latter.)

Also on the Pages that link to Kosovo War , it has two "These articles are
linked back from Kosovo War:" headers for no apparent reason.

Ian Monroe
http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean/

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Larry Sanger lsanger at nupedia.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> http://test.wikipedia.com/
>
> Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
> essential features.
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] test wikipedia problems

body:
> > Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or is
> > that still in the works?
>
> I think it's actually still very much just in the idea stage.

Well, it *is* working in one direction (from the PHP script to the Usemod
script) and in two directions (both PHP script). See
	http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Vikings
with a link to the German article in the page header.

The automatic cross-checking and -linking between several PHP scripts is the
part that is *not* implemented - yet.

> The cool thing would be if interlinking was fully customizable to the
> end user.  People can just check off all the languages that they know,
> and then those links would magically appear.

I agree, this would be great! I already mailed the "final version" of the
script to Jason, so I won't implement this before the script goes online
(Monday?), but this will be quite easy to do.

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] language interlinking

body:
> > Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or
> is
> > that still in the works?
>
> I think it's actually still very much just in the
> idea stage.
>
> As a typically pathetic monolingual American, I have
> a concern that
> cross-language linking should be done in a way
> that's non-obtrusive.
> It doesn't strike me that very many people will find
> it very useful to
> have 50 links on every page to every other language
> wiki for which the
> same article exists.
>
> Even people who are multilingual typically speak
> only 2 or 3
> languages.  For example, many of our Polish
> wikipedians speak English,
> Polish, and probably in many cases 1 or possibly
> even 2 other European
> languages.  But they might find it useless to have
> links to Tagalog,
> Mandarin, Japanese, etc.

Well, I'm mostly thinking of the Esperanto wikipedians
which on average will probably know about four
languages...

Thanks,
Chuck

=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj!  Venu al Filadelfio, Usono 15-17 Februare
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Search engine misses

in_reply_to: <3C50AB4E.A7CEDDE1@telebel.de>; from grasso@telebel.de on Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 01:48:14AM +0100

body:
Ulrich Grassberger wrote:
> I see at least one topic which Wikipedia covers but does not list
> in its search engine, that is [[Conditioning]]. I wrote that
> article long ago, so it should have been spidered.
>
> Frankly, I think that it has been removed from the search engine
> index, a kind of censoring.

Good lord.  Will you please take a deep breath and relax?

If anyone wanted to "censor" your article, they could just click on 'Edit
text of this page' and go at it.  Such is wiki nature.

Whenever you wonder why some aspect of wikipedia sucks, it's because it
sucks, and that's that.  When it sucks, it's probably my fault.  But
there's no one out to get you, least of all ME.

I'm having trouble logging in right now -- I suspect the machine is heavily
overloaded for some unknown reason.  As soon as I can get in, I'll see if I
can diagnose your problem.

I mean, my problem, with the search engine.  Your problems are
probably beyond me.

--Jimbo

p.s.  I'm sorry about this message, really I am.  But, geez-o-pete.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

body:
In the search engine, I am currently "smashing down" all 'ing' words.  This
does wonders in _most_ cases, but fails miserably in some other cases.  It seemed
to help, on balance, when I did it -- but the wikipedia was smaller then.

In the current case, we are looking for the page [[Conditioning]].  My technique
of chopping off the 'ing' performs poorly here.

So, I'm eliminating the 'ing' trick now.  I'm still keeping the 's' trick.  So
'horse' and 'horses' return exactly the same results.  Someday, if we have lots
and lots of cases where that doesn't work, I'll switch back.

'ing' is a less obviously good idea, after all.  It was nice to return the same results
for 'network' and 'networking'... when there wasn't much in the database, this ensured
that something marginally useful would show up.

Further clever tweaks are always possible -- but soon we will be upgrading to Magnus's
software, and the search will -- at first -- just be whatever default behavior comes
from MySQL.  Perhaps that can be improved upon.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tarball

body:
I'm adding wikipedia stuff to the LDP site. I will definitely pass the
result past you before any publication, to make sure you're happy with
how I've implemented it - since the official "policy" has never been
finally established.

I hope you know by now I will do everything I reasonably can to make
sure what I do benefits the Wikipedia and doesn't "fork" it in any
meaningful way. I'll be driving traffic to you, for one thing, and
won't do any actual "editing" on my site. Clicking the "Edit this
page" link will do just what it says -- but will take you to the
Wikipedia to do your edits. I think the LDP probably gets a lot more
traffic right now than the Wikipedia does (6 million page views a
month), so that should be a good thing for you.

I do have a problem though, that you can help me with if you will.
It seems the tarball is not being updated regularly. I want to
download and process it regularly, probably weekly. An rsync feed
would be really ideal, because it would minimize the bandwidth
requirements. It's not a problem on my end, but it could be on yours.

But if an rsync feed is not in the cards, at least update the tarball.
Can you get the tarballs updated on a more regular basis? It should
just take a few minutes to write a script and put it in
/etc/cron.daily.

Thanks,

--
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit
And Mine also is joy on earth.
For My law is love unto all beings.
		-- from The Charge of the Goddess, Doreen Valiente


from_name: Ulrich Grassberger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Search engine misses

body:
Hi all!

I see at least one topic which Wikipedia covers but does not list
in its search engine, that is [[Conditioning]]. I wrote that
article long ago, so it should have been spidered.

Frankly, I think that it has been removed from the search engine
index, a kind of censoring. You may ask why someone would do that
- well, the article originally contained slightly off-topic and
provocative information:

"Conditioning works the best when the poor individuum is not
aware that it is being conditioned.
<p>
Societies use the technique of conditioning to a great extent
because they need to push structures which stand opposite to what
the virgin individuum wishes. The individuum is to be integrated,
to loose a portion of his own will, emotionality and freedom. The
manipulation of totalitaristic states (Nazis, Stalinism, etc) was
often said to be the contrary of the western democracies, "the
free world", but in my opinion the latter is not that much
better. Hear Henry Rollins? "Liar",
http://www.albert.warka.pl/rollins.htm!

Grasso

--

(Grassomusic.de)


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

body:
At 01:58 PM 1/25/02 +0100, Ulrich Grassberger wrote:

>I don?t like to be paranoid either, it sucks. However, I see that
>the search engine does different again on other words: Zero hits
>for reason but 2 for reasoning. Zero hits for most *ings. Is
>there manual editing involved, or doesn?t the search engine do a
>complete re-indexing every week or so?

Words ending in 's' get weird responses, too. For example, I searched
on "loris" and got lots of things with 'lori' in them. Even when it found the
whole word, it bold-faced the 'lori," not the whole word.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

in_reply_to: <3C515665.6A317A22@telebel.de>; from grasso@telebel.de on Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 01:58:13PM +0100

body:
Ulrich Grassberger wrote:
> I don?t like to be paranoid either, it sucks. However, I see that
> the search engine does different again on other words: Zero hits
> for reason but 2 for reasoning. Zero hits for most *ings. Is
> there manual editing involved, or doesn?t the search engine do a
> complete re-indexing every week or so?

There is no manual editing involved.  I don't have time for that.

The search engine does a complete re-indexing whenever I run it by
hand.  I hesitate to put it on a cron job because I like to monitor
the machine while I'm re-indexing... due to potential load problems.
I'm sure I could do a better job.

In any event, you'll find that 'Conditioning' now returns
'[Conditioning]' as the first result, as it should.  :-)

If I'm visited by any corporate/government agents who desire to keep this
incredibly powerful information suprressed, I'll let you know... if they
don't lock me up first.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Words ending in 's' get weird responses, too. For example, I searched
> on "loris" and got lots of things with 'lori' in them. Even when it found the
> whole word, it bold-faced the 'lori," not the whole word.

This is an excellent example of a case where my "trick" fails.  Even
so, I think that the results are qualitatively improved _on average_
by squashing 's'.  The best example would be 'horse' and 'horses'.  There
are many similar cases.  People may search for 'president' or 'presidents'.
Since our database is not _huge_, squashing the 's' isn't bad.

There's a better way, a better version of this trick, and I could
program that.

What should happen is that the _exact_ term gets a "score" boost, so that those
results tend to show up higher.  But we should still return results from the
'squashed' version.  This is a nice balance.  So, for 'Loris' you should find
the _exact matches_ at or near the top, but then 'Lori' results further down.

This means that if you search for 'horses', you'll get 'horses' results first,
in case that's EXACTLY what you meant.  But if you're just searching for every
article that mentions 'horse', you'll also get a good result.

I'll think about how to make this change, but I think I'll hold off until we have
some experience with the php/mysql search engine.  I think it'll be sort of o.k.,
but I think with some creativity, I can do something that will beat it.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:35:16 -0800"

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

> In the current case, we are looking for the page [[Conditioning]].  My
> technique of chopping off the 'ing' performs poorly here.

You should see what it did to my attempts to find [[Albert Spalding]]

--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tarball

in_reply_to: <20020125003703.GA4516@lupercalia.net>; from david@lupercalia.net on Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 07:37:03PM -0500

body:
David, that's great news!

Actually, Wikipedia did 14,780,010 pageviews in December, and is on track
to break 17 million this month. :-)

> I do have a problem though, that you can help me with if you will.
> It seems the tarball is not being updated regularly.

In my opinion, the tarball is updated nightly, and has been for a few
weeks.  I just looked, and it looks good!  Have you checked it lately?

> It's not a problem on my end, but it could be on yours.

Oh, I love rsync.  It's one of my favorite inventions, it's just so clever.  :-)

What do I need to do to set that up for you?

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Er, huge correction!

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Actually, Wikipedia did 14,780,010 pageviews in December, and is on track
> to break 17 million this month. :-)

I obviously had a mental breakdown when I wrote this 10 minutes ago.

That's 1,478,010 pageviews in December, and on track to break 1.7
million this month.  I looked at the numbers, and my eyes and
enthusiasm tricked me.

So, if LDP has 6 million pageviews a month, then, yes you DO have a lot more
traffic than us!  :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia.com cut over to PHP?

body:
Hi!  Yes, we just did this, and it's still very much "in progress" as far
as making sure all the links work.  mod_rewrite is voodoo.

> seem to point to the home page. Sigh. Thrash, thrash, thrash.

:-)  All my fault.

Comments welcome.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

body:
Hi Jimmy, hi all!

I don?t like to be paranoid either, it sucks. However, I see that
the search engine does different again on other words: Zero hits
for reason but 2 for reasoning. Zero hits for most *ings. Is
there manual editing involved, or doesn?t the search engine do a
complete re-indexing every week or so?

Grasso


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 'ing' words

body:
> the search engine does different again on other words: Zero hits
> for reason but 2 for reasoning.

Or build and building: Many hits for both, but they differ.