from_name: steve vertigo

body:
>Mav:No - Wikipedia stays the same. The only
>difference is that another project takes our
articles, >improves them and then puts the >results
back into
>Wikipedia. And nobody has proposed selling textbooks.

"Put the results back into wikipedia?"  how is that
going to happen?  Source A forks into:Source A, Source
B. Source A develops, and source B develops
independently of A.  What does source B have that
directly gets put back into A?  Why would someone take
more time to do it twice? Is that efficient? Isnt this
the whole reason why people like WP in the first
place?  --The good idea gets the buzz -- the copycats
get the buzz off. This is basic entropy 101.  The
truth is, underlying all attempts to make "proper"
product is a philosophy that has completely *given-up
on the democratic -- improve-it-or-shut-up approach of
the WP.  Once again, another way to "fork" the WP.

>MAV:If you don't want external projects doing this to
the >text you submit then you are in the wrong
project.

As I recall, someone came up with this textbook idea
and three days later it had its own url. Hardly a well
thought out idea -- but nevertheless a reality -- and
probably a good thing.  Its not original, though as
there are other projects that are related -- and the
GNU FDL compatibility issues with these other projects
are somewhat unresolved.  Anyway, good luck with the
textbook project -- It seems to be a more focused and
legitimate goal than some of the others.

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Do we really need a Sifter project?

body:
>MAV penned (condensed): ""We are talking about
>creating a stable version of the articles.Nupedia
would be a stable distribution of that content that
has been checked by experts.....I have a
baccalaureate degree in biology but that doesn't mean
I'm staking my reputation on anything I write in the
biology section as 'maveric149.'   But if I am
checking facts in a biology article submitted to
Nupedia I /will/ be staking my reputation on the
factual accuracy of the article. ....As an added bonus
Wikipedia gets an article whose facts have been
checked by somebody who should know what they are
talking about.
There is no such stamp of approval on Wikipedia
>articles now. ...I'm the type of person who likes to
>use stable distributions. """

POINT BY POINT REFUTATION:

1. Stable version is a euphemism for "selected for
quality" a brilliantly disguised elitism that, if seen
for what it is -- leads to a direct conflict with FDL.

2. Quote: "MY reputation"  - so its about YE, now is
it Mr. Maverick?)
3.  It may be, Mav -- that if you were concerned with
"stable distributions" and 'staked reputations'  that
YOU may have been "involved with the wrong project"
from the get-go.

Wink, wink.
-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz

body:
On 27-07-2003, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
> Kpjas wrote:
> >The Sifter idea was a compromise but a
> >better proposal than using dead Nupedia.
>
> Nupedia, right now, is dead. The /only/ thing that we would use is the name
> under a new framework.
If I understand you correctly you propose that Brilliant prose is a waiting
room for Nupedia. And then Nupedia approval process (peer review) comes
into play. Right ?
If so I am against it.

Regards,
Kpjas.


from_name: Ulrich Fuchs

body:
> Having a "checked by" attrib is hardly giving all the credit to the
> Nupedian. The complete article history will also be linked from the static,
> checked version on Nupedia. And Wikipedia is the content development area -

We are not talking about a "checked by" for a stable version within Wikipedia,
we are talking about seperate articles (e.g. in the domain www.nupedia.org)
that were taken out of the Wikipedia, copyedited and then placed under a new
label.

I agree that accuracy is the most important thing for an encyclopaedia.
However, Wikipedia is out there to prove that an encylopaedia (sic!) can be
build without a formalized process and without a formalized experts "editing
commitee". Do I understand it right, that you declare this attempt to be
failed right now?

Uli


from_name: Delirium

body:
My take on this whole issue is that there *will* be a stable version of
Wikipedia, because there is demand for such a thing.  When my mom reads
articles, she doesn't want them to sometimes be in the middle of an edit
war, or sometimes have been vandalized, and so on.  As Wikipedia
currently is, on average it has great information, but at any given
time, any given article could be completely crap, even if it was great
10 minutes ago.  Sure, those of us who know what we're doing can look
through the edit history and pull out a good version, but most people
aren't going to want to or know how to do this.

So basically I think if we don't do it ourselves, somebody else will
start sifting out "good articles" from Wikipedia.  I think we can do a
better job of it though, and keep the results under the Wikipedia name.

I also don't really see what the worries with elitism and especially
with the FDL are.  I see this exactly as most open source software
development -- you have a CVS branch that can be updated at any time,
and periodic releases of "known good" versions.  The attributions and
such are of course not going to be removed (I wouldn't think).

I think perhaps some of the problem might be that people are advocating
(or think other are advocating) a more formalized process along the
lines of Nupedia.  I don't think that would be a good idea -- choosing
"known good" versions of articles should IMO by done by consensus, and
we shouldn't require any formal credentials to do so (though hopefully
people with such credentials will be among the people who make comments
in the attempt to reach a consensus).  But I do think some process by
which a particular version of an article can be nominated as good, and
then added to the "good" distribution if there are no objections, is a
good idea.

This could all be done on the Wiki, but if the stable distribution is to
be anything but a tiny subset of Wikipedia, I think some more software
would be necessary.  Some automated method by which the software keeps
track of submissions and comments would be helpful.  One possible method
-- anyone can nominate a particular version of an article, and anyone
can post replies to the nomination that are tagged either "support" or
"oppose" (or "neutral").  Any nomination with no "oppose" comments
within some certain period of time is automatically added to the stable
version; the ones with opposing comments are dealt with more manually in
the usual wiki way, added if it's been determined a consensus has been
reached, or the nomination withdrawn if a consensus against is reached.

Of course this all requires someone with time and interest in coding up
some more software.  But I think that's necessary -- the "Brillian
Prose" manual method doesn't really scale well, and will never I don't
think end up successfully scaling up to, say, keeping track of 25,000
articles.

-Mark


body:
On 27-07-2003, Erik Moeller wrote thusly :
> Daniel-
> > We can use Erik's idea for adding neat features to the Brilliant prose page
> > as a start. Then that page can act as a queue for articles that Nupedia can
> > take-up and then put through a simplified Nupedia polishing process by area
> > experts. The Sifter software can be used to make this easy but it is not
> > really needed.
>
> Well, here's the thing. Our Main Page is protected. Our Main Page links to
> the Brilliant Prose page, which would also be protected. The Brilliant
> Prose page would only link to verified revisions of articles. A user can
> choose this path
>
> Main Page->Brilliant prose->Article
>
> And they will never see an "unstable" article -- these pages would always
> be in a reasonable state. It is the same thing as a separate site, but
> happens entirely within Wikipedia. We might have to streamline the whole
> process -- turn BP into a directory of pages, make this directory part of
> the start page, and warn readers that pages linked from pages within that
> directory may not necessarily be in as good quality. This would not
> preclude us from also using a category system that contains *all*
> Wikipedia pages, not just filtered ones. On the other hand, we would
> retain wikiness and encourage people to also browse and participate in our
> unstable sections. I think that's a good thing.
>
> Of course the BP articles could be taken as they are and copied to another
> site, but that would not really be very useful. What might be useful, if
> BP grows into a directory of sorts instead of just a single page, and if
> there would be lots of articles linked from there, is to publish only
> these articles on a CD-ROM, in print etc.
I think this is a very interesting idea that has good chances of succeeding
and bringing some important quality into Wikipedia - quality assurance and
approval mechanism. It should work and it is absolutely wiki way.

Regards,
Kpjas.


body:
> And Wikipedia is the content development area -
> that is a serious and very important thing. Without it there would be no
> content.

With an "official" cannibalization of Wikipedia arcticles for Nupedia articles
there would be no content - people do not like it to write without being
acknowledged. They get this acknowledment right now by supporting the free
encyclopedia idea *directly*. I bet most of the contributors will have a very
bad feeling about not doing the "final" thing any more, but being just the
idiots who do all the work for some guys and girls at Nupedia who will be the
"gods" which - at the end of the day - decide rather authorically what is
good content and what is nonsens.

If you want the Wikipedia volunteers to keep volunteering, you must keep the
"stable" versions under the Wikipedia label.

I say stable, not "approved". There could be a formalized, but still open
process for building "stable" versions. You can start with an excellent
article, put it into a sperate namespace or whatever, and than apply an
important copyediting rule to it: "No new content may be added here, but
content may be deleted". There are clever editors without degrees in the
particular area that can do copyediting by throwing out everything that
doesn't sound reasonable to them.  Editors with a degree in the area are free
to join in, of course and prevent the stable article from having wrong
content by simply throwing it out! One can use the discussion pages for
dabating which sentences will be thrown out and so on.  If no new content may
be added, there is a guarantee that this process will not work the same way
like normal editing, where a lot of "arguing" takes place in the articles. If
no new argument may be added, the article will shrink to the undisputed facts
and gain quality.

After some time of copyediting there would be a freeze for the article and a
vote, if it's ok to be declared "stable". Such a stable version could be
merged back to the in-process-article, all the arguing there takes place
again, and the cycle restarts.

Uli


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sifter project comments

body:
>Limholt wrote: 1. We do need a sifter project and a
stable base. As more outside references (google, web
sites, etc.) point to Wikipedia, I'd like the casual
reader/browser to find a worthwhile product.

The above assumes that whats on the WP is not
worthwhile -- this after countless thoughts on the
merits of a wiki -- why they are wrong about us --
people here ask "whats wrong with us?" Nothings wrong
with the WP -- maybe some better inter-language
connectivity ( reverse language links?)

>Limholt:2. I'd like to see the electronic version
kept under the Wikipedia brand.

This "branding" concept is irrelevant -- marketers,
accordint to the normal laws of capitalist S&D shouldt
touch WP with a ten foot pole!  Good!  at 150k
articles in three years, Id say Jims roll of the dice
after a frustrated and expensive failure of Nupedia
was a rather successful venture. Wouldnt you?

>>3. The BP process seems OK, adding some controls to
limit access and movement (syssop status?) to the
en0100 (version 1.00) protected pages.
Technically, the en000 page doesn't need to be a
database entry, just a reference to the time stamped
page.

"Access. "  "Limits"  - wrong. Its important not to
confuse process-perfection with ways that interfere
with the interest of the public to give you their free
time.  Take away the fun -- and youll go (using
Burning Man as an example) from a place of freedom and
liberty people riding around on motorcycles naked with
shotguns duct-taped to their thighs -- to one with a
zillion restrictions and fees this way till Sunday.
Blech.

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Daniel-
> We can use Erik's idea for adding neat features to the Brilliant prose page
> as a start. Then that page can act as a queue for articles that Nupedia can
> take-up and then put through a simplified Nupedia polishing process by area
> experts. The Sifter software can be used to make this easy but it is not
> really needed.

Well, here's the thing. Our Main Page is protected. Our Main Page links to
the Brilliant Prose page, which would also be protected. The Brilliant
Prose page would only link to verified revisions of articles. A user can
choose this path

Main Page->Brilliant prose->Article

And they will never see an "unstable" article -- these pages would always
be in a reasonable state. It is the same thing as a separate site, but
happens entirely within Wikipedia. We might have to streamline the whole
process -- turn BP into a directory of pages, make this directory part of
the start page, and warn readers that pages linked from pages within that
directory may not necessarily be in as good quality. This would not
preclude us from also using a category system that contains *all*
Wikipedia pages, not just filtered ones. On the other hand, we would
retain wikiness and encourage people to also browse and participate in our
unstable sections. I think that's a good thing.

Of course the BP articles could be taken as they are and copied to another
site, but that would not really be very useful. What might be useful, if
BP grows into a directory of sorts instead of just a single page, and if
there would be lots of articles linked from there, is to publish only
these articles on a CD-ROM, in print etc.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] oldid (Re: Do we really need a Sifter project?)

body:
>KArl Eichwalder claimed: Sounds good to me (and I
>don't understand why we must discuss it
at all); nobody can prevent you from using article
within a different context as long as you respect the
license.

HA!  This on the discussion list for the source itself
-- not merely some other site community planning on
palming wiki bits.

Karls notion of "do it and ask quesions later" --
aside from all other reasons --- is suspect for the
simple problem of contradicting the role of the
Wikipedia shepherd -- (which all are here who deal
with the workings of WP.) There are good shepherds,
bad ones, and ugly ones -- I would suggest that a good
shepherd is one who see it as their duty to keep all
things as open as possible -- to alllow and invite as
many intelligent people into the fold as are
interested.

They would also **refrain from taking it upon
themselves, based on their powers (knowledge,
connections) to usurp or undermine the ability of
people to participate fully (with full knowledge of
that in which they participate.)

Bless ye flock.
-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageZh.php completed

body:
Sheng-
> It seems that my previous email has been ignored. :(

> The new LanguageZh.php has been completed, and it is now fully
> localised. Please kindly install it on the server. It can be found at
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/LanguageZh.php

Can you handle CVS? If so, we can give you CVS access so you can do
updates yourself.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Anti troll mechanism

body:
Hunter-
> Crap, crap, http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_contest was
> just vandalised.

> If it is ok with some people, I think I should code a feature so that
> non-registered users are not allowed to delete anymore than 50 characters in
> a row. (as you just have found out, i hacked around with difflib.php in
> order to get some ideas for the difflib.py that i worked on, so i could do
> this quickly).

This won't help at all, and will only impair normal use. Anons delete
substantial amounts of text all the time, perfectly legitimately, they
even help in blanking vandalism. Many anons are registered users who
cannot or do not want to sign in from where they are for whatever reason.

This really reminds me of Slashdot style lameness filters -- all they
accomplish is alienate users. If you want to reduce vandalism, don't make
it harder to cause -- make it easier to fix. That's the wiki way. With a
fast difflib, it should be possible to systematically view and flag all
anonymous edits for the past x hours, for example.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Lars-
> Timwi wrote:
>> I've uploaded the following file to demonstrate... something... or just
>> to show off, I don't know...
>>
>> http://www.lionking.org/~timwi/t/wikipedia/wikipedia-iv.html

> You forgot one parameter: Response time.  As far as I know, phase III
> doesn't even have a design goal for response time, only a naive hope
> that it will be "as fast as possible", which in reality for the last
> week seems to be an average of 1.5 seconds, with 8% of requests taking
> more than 5 seconds.  It has been far worse at times.

I agree quite strongly. One reason behind susning.nu's impressive growth
has been the excellent response time of your site. Viewing it almost makes
me wish I spoke Swedish, just because it's so pleasant to browse. In fact,
Wikipedia initially was very fast, too, thanks to the well written UseMod
engine. Too bad it's only file based.

Note that Phase III *can* be very fast, too. It is just constantly bogged
down by unoptimized queries and slow parsing.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Timwi-

> I've uploaded the following file to demonstrate... something... or just
> to show off, I don't know...
> http://www.lionking.org/~timwi/t/wikipedia/wikipedia-iv.html

Quite impressive. Let's see how long it takes you to actually implement
:-). Some notes:

1) You'll need some capability for banning signed in users. Having bans
expire after a while would be nice, too.

2) New message notification needs to work for all users, not just signed
in ones. In Phase III we use a table that stores IP addresses of users who
have new messages.

3) Currently talk pages and normal pages are "bundled" when watching: You
watch one, you also watch the other. You remove one, you remove the other.
This behavior should not change.

4) While you're at it, you may want to think about a better access rights
system than simple sysop/non-sysop. ACLs would probably work best.

As for the userprops, having a langid column seems to make the most sense.

Regards,

Erik


body:
Daniel-
> As I said - I think that is a great idea. But I also see within that idea a
> way to kick-start Nupedia and feed it already high-quality content.

I know, but what's the point? Why not just kill off Nupedia and advertise
Wikipedia as a single project? If Wikipedia is not simple enough, not easy
enough to use for the kind of experts who can help in certification, then
it seems we should make it simple enough -- perhaps by having a special
skin for the purpose. See, my main concern is about having separate
communities. I feel that getting the experts hooked on Wikipedia might be
way cooler.

Regards,

Erik


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] No new wikis

body:
Toby-

look, I can agree on this: Only hold a vote if there is an actual
substantial number of dissenters, and if there isn't, just move on with
the project. New project plans would have to be announced in the proper
places so that every dissenter gets an opportunity to object. Silently
ignoring dissenters, starting projects without giving people a proper
opportunity to voice their objections or letting them bog down the whole
process even though they are just a small minority is all not desirable.
Consensus can not always be reached, and in these cases, we use voting.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sifter, Phase IV

body:
After all my bad-talk about Wikiphilosophy being
violated -- Im in agreement with Erik that different
ways of looking at wikipedia more dynamically, more
focused, more intuitively -- like an intelligent
category scheme, etc. Im not opposed to.

But I like to boil things down to the essentials -- A
category scheme, in addition to doing most of that
other stuff, should also not be limited to a
particular *language, rather be a way of giving
dynamic content from the whole of WP content, based on
 wholistic databasing approach. -- i.e language as
simply a factor of a page, rather than a separate web
location.  There could be a universal numbering system
for categories that is different only by the language
its targeting. ---

Kinda getting into Ebay territory there, but hey -- as
far as Wiki goes -- Wikipedia is the Ebay of Wikis.
Gadzooks! you say?  I understand these different
efforts are underway -- I just not sure if the
language issue is being considered as much as I (me)
would like it to be.

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sifter, Phase IV


from_name: limholt at excite.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sifter project comments

body:
Catching up on my e-mail, I've read a lot of comments and discussion on the various proposals. Rathe than trying to fit into dying threads, etc. I'm going to toss ib my six cents worth (3 comments) in this one message.

1. We do need a sifter project and a stable base. As more outside references (google, web sites, etc.) point to Wikipedia, I'd like the casual reader/browser to find a worthwhile product.

2. I'd like to see the electronic version kept under the Wikipedia brand. I understand the desire to see Wiki as Wiki friendly, with open edits, etc., etc. and the desire for a stable base. However, bear in mind that serarch engines and reviewers look to site hits and visit totals. I'd prefer something like -- http:/en0100.wikipeda.org/wiki/Article.htm -- rather than to dilute us through multiple domains.

3. The BP process seems OK, adding some controls to limit access and movement (syssop status?) to the en0100 (version 1.00) protected pages.
Technically, the en000 page doesn't need to be a database entry, just a reference to the time stamped page.

Thanks for a lively discussion, I will now resume lurk mode.

Regards, LouI

_______________________________________________
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> 1) You'll need some capability for banning signed in users.

What's the point? They'd just log out.

> Having bans expire after a while would be nice, too.

OK, how about this:

CREATE TABLE bans (
     userid      int unsigned        NULL,
     iprange     char(13)            NULL,
     bannerid    int unsigned    NOT NULL,
     reason      varchar(255)    NOT NULL,
     timestamp   datetime        NOT NULL,
     expires     datetime            NULL,
     PRIMARY KEY (userid, iprange)
);

The idea here is that in each row, either userid or iprange is NULL (but
not both). Banning a single IP is possible because anonymous edits
generate pseudo-accounts and thus a userid.

As you can see, I have also added 'expires'.

> 2) New message notification needs to work for all users, not just signed
> in ones. In Phase III we use a table that stores IP addresses of users who
> have new messages.

Yes, and in my model, IP addresses that have ever edited something have
a userid.

> 3) Currently talk pages and normal pages are "bundled" when watching: You
> watch one, you also watch the other. You remove one, you remove the other.
> This behavior should not change.

There's nothing wrong with adding (and removing) two rows each time you
watch/unwatch something.

> 4) While you're at it, you may want to think about a better access rights
> system than simple sysop/non-sysop. ACLs would probably work best.

Hm. I'm not very familiar with the concept of ACLs (Access Control
Lists, I assume). What in particular can they do that userprops cannot?

> As for the userprops, having a langid column seems to make the most sense.

OK.

Thanks,
Timwi


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

body:
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:

> Also having a different name makes it clear that those articles are
> different than regular Wikipedia ones (a "stable" Wikipedia article is
> an oxymoron anyway).

I will start citing articles with oldid as follows:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Trier&oldid=218799

> We already have the experts - let's use them in Nupedia, revive the
> Nupedia brand as a stable, experted-approved distribution of Wikipedia
> and that will attract even more experts. All editing will still be on
> Wikipedia so every Nupedian is also a Wikipedian. I see this as
> setting-up great synergies between the two projects.

Sounds good to me (and I don't understand why we must discuss it at
all); nobody can prevent you from using article within a different
context as long as you respect the license.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |    _-\_<,
ke at suse.de (work) / keichwa at gmx.net (home)               |   (*)/'(*)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Timwi-
> Erik Moeller wrote:

>> 1) You'll need some capability for banning signed in users.

> What's the point? They'd just log out.

For one thing, we ban offensive usernames. For another, we don't give
sysops the ability to view IP addresses of signed in users, so they can't
ban their IP because they don't know it.

> The idea here is that in each row, either userid or iprange is NULL (but
> not both). Banning a single IP is possible because anonymous edits
> generate pseudo-accounts and thus a userid.

Works for me.

>> 4) While you're at it, you may want to think about a better access rights
>> system than simple sysop/non-sysop. ACLs would probably work best.

> Hm. I'm not very familiar with the concept of ACLs (Access Control
> Lists, I assume). What in particular can they do that userprops cannot?

Well, the idea is that you can set permissions on a per page basis, and do
something like

*       cannot edit
Hans    can edit
Heinz   can edit

*       can edit
Hans    cannot edit
Heinz   cannot edit

*       can edit
anon    cannot edit

This might be useful for, e.g., allowing certain users to edit the Main
Page without giving them sysop privileges. It would also allow use of your
engine in other CMS contexts. Might be doable via the articleprops.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
steve vertigo wrote:
>...
>"Put the results back into wikipedia?"  how is that
> going to happen?

Simple: All editing will be on Wikipedia = no fork.

-- mav


body:
steve vertigo wrote:
>1. Stable version is a euphemism for "selected
>for quality" a brilliantly disguised elitism that, if
>seen for what it is -- leads to a direct conflict with
>FDL.

And Erik's idea doesn't also select for quality? All I'm saying is that
Nupedia can take it to the next level - no changes to Wikipedia required. The
GFDL explicitly allows for redistribution so I'm puzzles why you think that
is a conflict.

Your other points were cheap personal attacks and I won't dignify them with a
response.

--mav


body:
Daniel-
> Erik wrote:
>> I know, but what's the point?
>> Why not just kill off Nupedia and
>> advertise Wikipedia as a single project?

> The point is that a main criticism I always here about Wikipedia is that it
> is largely not written by people trained in the areas they are writting.

They should not care whether it is *written* by people who are trained in
the respective areas, they should care whether it has been fact-checked by
those people. And this can be best accomplished within Wikipedia,
especially since we already have many of those people.

> Also having a different name makes
> it clear that those articles are different than regular Wikipedia ones (a
> "stable" Wikipedia article is an oxymoron anyway).

Having a prominent, clearly labeled, protected section within Wikipedia
should be sufficient. Linking to a specific revision of an article is
equivalent to a "stable" Nupedia page. (We might make a minor change that
links to specific revisions which contain the parameter "&stable=true" are
shown as protected pages even if they aren't, so that users don't
accidentally edit old revisions. Alternatively, clicking the "Edit" link
would automatically load the newest revision in these cases.)

> We already have the experts - let's use them in Nupedia, revive the Nupedia
> brand as a stable, experted-approved distribution of Wikipedia and that will
> attract even more experts. All editing will still be on Wikipedia so every
> Nupedian is also a Wikipedian. I see this as setting-up great synergies
> between the two projects.

I think there's an ancient Egyptian curse on the Nupedia name that
prevents any project running under that banner from succeeding. That, and
I still don't see the point of doing on Nupedia what can be done within
Wikipedia. :-)

Regards,

Erik


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia: Warehouse or Pyramid?

body:
Hi,

viajero at quilombo.nl wrote:
>
> except that this metro system
> won't be operational until 2011 (!).  It made wonder about X's
> priorities.

We are all volunteers; nobody gets paid to contribute. Therefore, I
don't see how anyone should impose any priorities on somebody else. In
other words, if someone wanted to work on obskure and insignificant
topics, there's nothing wrong with letting them; there is no way of
forcing them into other topics that interest them less. Who knows, maybe
in 2011 we won't find someone to write out the list of stations, so it's
good to already have one.

> And herein lies the crunch. To begin with, X favors wikifying words, such as

The question what words are relevant to the context and which aren't is
purely subjective -- unfortunately. I understand from my own experience
that it can often feel to you like it's completely obvious that "beach"
has no relevancy to an article on the [[Sun]], say. But it's not
actually this obvious. Someone else might feel this link is relevant,
and they might feel that this is completely obvious.

We cannot formulate a rock-solid policy that will dictate which words
should be wikified and which ones shouldn't. We have to live with the
fact that there are, and always will be, disagreements about this.
Probably the best way to handle it (for both you and "X") is to try not
to have too strong feelings about it.

> More critical for me, however, is that X adamantly opposes removing ANY
> information from Wikipedia: everything that goes in cannot go out.

Well, I would agree to that. Of course you can refactor articles and
perhaps move little insignificant factoids to the bottom, but seeing as
one of Wikipedia's goals is to record as much of human knowledge as
possible, why should any of it ever be removed?

For example, I'm pretty certain that somewhere in Wikipedia it says that
humans at some point in history used to be under the impression/belief
that atoms are unsplittable (as evidenced by the word's etymology). You
see, even if some ground-breaking research brings to light new facts
that contradict existing information in the Wikipedia, perhaps it's best
*NOT* to remove it, but only prefix it with "It used to be believed
that" and add "until in [[2003]] an experiment by [[John Doe
(physicist)]] proved that ......"

> developing a critical eye for what should be included and what not,

Everything should be included ;-)

> However, yesterday he
> reverted an entire article in which I dewikified a couple of common
> words, thereby junking other edits I had also made.

This is, of course (not taking into account possible bias due to your
point of view) not very nice, but the best you can do about it is
reinstate your other edits. Of course, you could also revert his revert,
and if it ends in an edit war, then a sysop will take care of the
article and (hopefully) keep your useful information in while making an
educated decision regarding the linking of common words.

> But there
> are other more substantial articles dearer to my heart (that X has also
> worked on) which I feel need work, but I don't feel that now I can
> comfortably do so.

Indeed I am starting to suspect that this is one common reason people
leave us before we ever see substantial contribution from them. We have
a page telling people to be 'Bold in editing pages', but some people are
bolder than others. Especially when an existing contributor ("X" in this
case) is being bold in reverting, it is relatively uncommon for the
other party to initiate an edit war (a revert war) if they're a newbie
(you in this case).

Greetings,
Timwi


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] morphophonics for wikipedia

body:
A while ago, there was a discussion of creating a
morphophonic system for use in wikipedia and
wiktionary. I accidentally responded to the letters
around a month late because I was at summer camp for
the past 3 weeks and was in the middle of my
post-summercamp bike trip. On the bike trip (and
previously at summer camp), I worked on a morphophonic
system in my head that is now almost fully functional,
using only lowercased roman alphabet letters and the
characters - ' ". I think that such a system would be
beneficial to Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Here are some
words transliterated into my system, which I'd like to
call the Wikipedia Morphophonic Pronounciation (WPMP):

wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u
wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e
Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv

You can't really glean much of how the system works
from those samples, though.
-LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body: Hello,


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE:Anti troll mechanism

body:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 10:26:17AM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> on 7/27/03 8:29 AM, Lightning at lightning at chaos-productions.com wrote:
>
> > Hunter Peress wrote:
> >
> >> In irc just now, taw and I discussed the above. He even asks "maybe we should
> >> restrict editing of
> >> even registered users".
> >>
>
> Yet it might prevent the wholesale reverts some folks participate in. If
> they had to actually go into the article and edit they might be less ham
> handed. I remember one case where both new material and a link correction
> had been put in and article and the reverter never caught on that by
> reverting he was also reverting a link correction over and over.

Hey, we could write protect the entire Wikipedia and thereby avoid any
future vandalism! Wouldn't this be just great? This would also stop
people who change years in articles to random numbers by changing only
one or two characters.

Come on, this restricting to 50 chars is not serious, is it? That's the
most unwiki proposal I've ever read. Highlight ''suspicious'' edits in
Recent Changes. Or perhaps not. Even ''unsuspicious'' changes might be
vandalism and be overlooked since they are not marked.

Regards,

JeLuF


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Do we really need a Sifter project?

body:
Erik wrote:
>In my opinion, university degrees are no guarantee
>for quality. I've seen so many uninspiring mediocre
>academics (not all of them are like that of course)
>that it makes me question todays education system.

Oh I agree - One thing I've found out while working on Wikipedia is that my
college professors are far from all knowing or neutral. Same goes for my
college textbooks. The Wikipedia process has, on a regular basis, greatly
improved upon my knowledge of many different subjects.

>Another point: let us say several tens of thousands of
>articles qualify for "Wikipedia Professional". The screening
>will be a huge undertaking, but it can be done. But after that,
>how often will people be willing to go through the whole
>certification process again and again in order to approve
>possibly small additions and corrections?

The same thing can be argued for free software; Who is going to go through the
polishing and performance testing of free software so that it is reasonably
safe and easy to use for the user? And yet there are many GNU/Linux
distributions that use professional programmers to do just that.

>I am not against freezing articles to deal with random
>troll droppings. I am vehemently against an elitist approach.
>It blows the whole concept.

But the reality of the world we live in is that a great many people will not
let you into the door of an interview without certain pieces of paper
indicating you successfully completed some type of process. This is also a
major criticism of Wikipedia; that articles are not necessarily checked by
"experts" and therefore they should not be trusted.

As I have already indicated I think this is flawed reasoning - but it still is
a very widely-held viewpoint.

So I think it would be useful to have a Nupedia stamp of approval on selected
Wikipedia content. That satisfies the critics and is one more way to further
improve Wikipedia.

That's all - the last thing I am is an elitist; I am, above all else, a
pragmatist.

>Wikipedia is a hobby, even experts want to take
>a break from their daily work every now and then,
>and Wikipedia provides this.

Yes I agree - I am, for example, a trained biologist and yet my contributions
to the history, chemistry and geology sections far outshine my contributions
to biology. It is fun to learn new things. But that is about the article
creation process - I would consider my duty as a Nupedian to check
biology-related articles so that people in the very common elitist mindset
can think it is safe to use those articles.

So I guess I'm being pragmatic (wanting our content to be viewed by the
largest possible audience) while you and others are being idealistic (wanting
to rebel against the whole notion of the elitist mindset).

Both views are valid and have their pros and cons.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] morphophonics for wikipedia

body:
>-LittleDan wrote:
wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u
wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e
Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
>unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv

You can't really glean much of how the system works
from those samples, though.
I like the simpler is best approach, Daniel -- but
take issue with your choice of using strictly English
vowel voicings. (E, and :"U" for what would be better
as an "a" (far) -- like its written now, incidentally!
:)

Like I talked about before --  you have to consider
the vowels used per language as they vary over
different languages, and rate these based on
population.  In this internationalist sense the sharp
"A" sound (cat, bat ) must be **secondary** to the
more *widely* understood *softer* "A" sound (bar,
car).  By widely understood -- take a look at
Espertanto -- the phonetics of that language are based
on the more common soft vowel sounds -- just as in
Spanish.
The "o"s dont morph into (ah)'s, the "e"'s dont morph
into (ii)'s, etc.

Since many languages (inglesh) will allow for flexible
sounds, from flat (resembling a different vowel) to
soft (moderate) to sharp (extreme), etc -- the idea of
a **standard phonetic scheme** is basically premised
on *removing that *flexibility so that vowels then
become static.  This is the counterintuitive part --
most of us think of vowels as flexible, and which way
they flex hints at our language origin/bias.  How can
you tell a Hindi/Arabic/Chinese/German/Spanish accent?
(when speaking english) --by their vowel bias.
A system, if its going to be usable has to map its
vowels according to language use statistics.

For example:  I see your using the "E" as in a "me"
sound, as opposed to a "ben" sound -- for a "me" sound
this should be a "mi"  --

Example 2:Just as say, Arabic, defaults to an A ....
(an Arabic A is often halfway tween an A("cat") and an
E("ben")  (alef,ba,ta,tha, jiim,h!a, kha,
daal,thaal,zai, siin,shiin, saad, daad, taa, vaa, ayn,
thayn, fe, q'af, kef, lam, mim, nuun, he, waw, yah

So too does English (\inglesh\) defaults to an EE (the
letters
(ei)(bi)(ci)(di)(ii)(ef)(gi)(eich)(ai)(jei)(kei)(el)(em)(en)
(oh)(pi)(kiu)(ar)(es)(ti)(iu)(vi)W(eks)(wai)(zi)

If English was an abjad -- most of its words would
naturally default to an /i/ sound ("ee"). These
languages have a marked bias toward their respective
sounds --and as such are unusable in the
internationalist task of creating a phonetic scheme.

Sincerely,
-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


body:
While I appreciate the sincerity of your opinion mav
-- the question of purpose remains (as Danny stated)
Where is the impetus for dividing up Wiki energies?

That these efforts would go toward feeding something
else is almost irrelevant -- people can already take
what they want *now, (provided FDL) -- why should the
WP community put its energy into dividing its own
community into tiers, classes,  and camps?  Life is
full-enough of classes, tiers, and camps, -- let
someone else set up an Web encyclopedia with
peer-reviews and feel-good stamps of authority.  They
can call it whatever they want. ( Maybe theres one or
two out there already. )  As for playing "Jesus" to
the supposedly "Lazarus" Nupedia --  don't beat a dead
horse.

Whats it trying to prove? It seems the only answer to
that is to get non-believers to join Wiki-related (not
actually Wiki) efforts , by changing the Wiki belief
that got us all here in the first place. The highest
principles -- FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/OPENSOURCE -- embodied
in a body of world community knowledge.  This stuff is
going on the *Ark, my friend.

Your idea seems to be like saying: (*exaggerated for
effect) 'Let's get more people to join our
congregation by putting a casino/brothel in the
basement!'  The philosophy of WP is not something that
can just be turned around and made to mingle with the
non-believer notions that "the Wikipedia is not
authoritative."  Sca-rew them.  That notion, again,
only comes from people 1. who've never believed in the
Wiki faith, or 2. have lost the faith, or whos faith
is slipping.

And, sincerely -- I mean none of this personally --
the comment about your 'choice of projects' was merely
an echo of your comment previous.

Respectfully,
-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: tarquin

subject: [Wikitech-l] RE:Anti troll mechanism

body:
Jens Frank wrote:

>Come on, this restricting to 50 chars is not serious, is it?
>
It would encourage vandals to be *very* creative.
Eg:
change all instances of "art" to "fart"
change all instances of "sum" to "bum"
change all instances of  "parse" to .... you get the idea ;)

> That's the
>most unwiki proposal I've ever read.
>
yup.


body:
Delirium-
> This could all be done on the Wiki, but if the stable distribution is to
> be anything but a tiny subset of Wikipedia, I think some more software
> would be necessary.  Some automated method by which the software keeps
> track of submissions and comments would be helpful.  One possible method
> -- anyone can nominate a particular version of an article, and anyone
> can post replies to the nomination that are tagged either "support" or
> "oppose" (or "neutral").  Any nomination with no "oppose" comments
> within some certain period of time is automatically added to the stable
> version; the ones with opposing comments are dealt with more manually in
> the usual wiki way, added if it's been determined a consensus has been
> reached, or the nomination withdrawn if a consensus against is reached.

It is hard to say whether such an addition would actually simplify things,
since every new interface is a new barrier to entry. On the other hand, if
it would make things easier, it should be part of the standard Wikipedia
software, because it would be useful for semi-automating other Wiki
processes as well -- "Votes for deletion", "Requests for adminship" etc.
If "Brilliant prose" does not scale as a selection mechanism, then "Votes
for deletion" does not scale as a deletion mechanism -- the two are
virtually identical in terms of process.

It is harder to find solutions that are well integrated into our existing
wiki framework than to start a separate project, but the potential
benefits are far greater, especially because there will inevitably by
<marketing>synergy effects</marketing> for the project as a whole.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Ramesh

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Fw: A NeuroEndocrine,Neurology & Communication Topic ---Mr Thattes
 Brain as an Information Transmitter,An Extra Sensory Transmission
 Phenomenon[EST]  ie counterpart of ESP

body:
Date- 28 th July 2003.

FROM-.
MR.RAMESH PANDURANG THATTE
B E ELECT-PUNE-1964 / M.TECH-ELECT-IIT BOMBAY-1968
SEC-B INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS(INDIA) IN [MECH-CHEM-INDUSTRIAL]
EX IAF PILOT OFFICER ( TECH/SIGS - 11230 )
" THATTE CONSULTING ENGINEERS "
SNEHSADAN NEAR CHAMBHARLI BUS STOP PO-MOHOPADA
TAL-KHALAPUR DIST-RAIGAD.MAHARASHTRA.INDIA.PIN-410222.
TEL NO-91-02192-250004/254471
  E Mail Ids  rpthatte at sancharnet.in  ,  arthatte at sancharnet.in
 Verify Mr THATTE'S EST phenomenon www.thatte.net
Mr THATTE'S M Tech Verification www.IITB MUMBAI 1968 ELECT BATCH

TO-WIKIPEDIA.ORG Readers

SUBJECT--Mr. Thatte's Brain As Information Transmitter
A Miraculous "EST"ie Extra Sensory Transmission Phenomenon
"EST" is counterpart of "ESP/ESR" ie Sixth Sense Phenomenon

 I request to read my EST phenomenon as described below

   RAMESH THATTE

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

CONTENTS OF THE PAGE
1.Heading.2.About Mr Thatte.3.Schematic Presentation
4.Introduction of"EST"Phenomenon.5.Verification.6.Description In Brief.
7.Effect on Life 8.Scientific Investigation 9.Publishing.10.Tribute

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

2.About Mr Thatte.
MR.RAMESH PANDURANG THATTE
B E ELECT-PUNE-1964 / M.TECH-ELECT-IIT BOMBAY-1968
SEC-B INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS(INDIA) IN [MECH-CHEM-INDUSTRIAL]
EX IAF PILOT OFFICER ( TECH/SIGS - 11230 )
" THATTE CONSULTING ENGINEERS "
SNEHSADAN NEAR CHAMBHARLI BUS STOP PO-MOHOPADA
TAL-KHALAPUR DIST-RAIGAD.MAHARASHTRA.INDIA.PIN-410222.
TEL NO-91-02192-250004/254471
Contact 1 Ramesh Thatte
Contact 2 Ramesh Thatte
Contact 3 Ramesh Thatte
Mr THATTE'S EST phenomenon www.thatte.net
Mr THATTE'S M Tech Verification www.IITB MUMBAI 1968 ELECT BATCH

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

-3.SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF THE MIRACULOUS"EST"PHENOMENON.MR THATTE'S BRAIN AS INFORMATION TRANSMITTER"

Seen thr eyes->[Brain]->Information Goes Thr Air->->->->[Brains]
-----Light->->->[--OF--]->Seen & Heard by MrThatte->->->[--OF---]
Heard thr ear->[ -MR-]->Talked Thought by Thatte->->->-[Other]
---SOUND--->[THATTE]->Via MrThatte's Brain Waves>-[People]

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

-4.INTRODUCTION OF THE MIRACULOUS "EST" OR "BRAIN PHENOMENON"
MR THATTE'S BRAIN AS"INFORMATION TRANSMITTER"
TO
ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
PSYCHIATRISTS & PSYCHOLOGISTS NOT TO POKE THEIR DIRTY NOSES IN EST PHENOMENON

Important Explanation is as below
i]The "EST &ESP/ESR" phenomenons are body functions similar to respiration, blood circulation, digestion, secretions etc ie uncontrolable by human will.
ii]"EST&ESP/ESR"combination is something like"sound&hearing","light&seeing" & "ESP/ESR/sixth sense"capacity is inherent part of all human brains. Public as well as science community can approve ESP/ESR/Sixth sense ONLY after VERIFICATION of MR THATTE'S BRAIN capacity as Information Transmitter. A Physics Scientists/Communication Engineer may be able to develope DEVICE capable of receiving recording & reproducing "Thatte's Brain Waves & the information transmitted out from Thatte's brain.

iii] Information transmitted by Mr Thatte"s brain [EST] is noted/ recognised/identified by brains of human beings when the distance between them is short like 30 metres say zone1.
Whereas Information transmitted by Mr Thatte's brain is retained in the memory part of brains of human beings when they are away even upto 150 kms [Mumbai yo Pune Distance].That information is displayed on human mind screen, after trigger/call back memory action, due to Mr Thatte"s presence within say 30 metres or zone1.
SIMILAR TO
The internet e-mails are stored in e-mail boxes of ISPs & are displayed on computer screen thr the use of ID & password
iv] Mr Thatte's presence[Along with past] is felt in a crowded place due to his "EST"ie Transmission from his Brain
SIMILAR TO
A person's presence is felt in a crowded place only if `He starts shouting or uses a Loud Speaker'.
Therefore Mr Thatte CAN NOT HIDE HIMSELF ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD.[LIKE KASTURI MRUG]
v] After discussing any matter with someone & making walk together thr a crowded place that Someone may notice public response to the matter. OR
Mr Thatte visits a person,then go away for doing 10-12 important events in 15 minutes,comes back & visit the same person again.The person will be able to identify himself about what Mr Thatte has done during that period.
vi]Interested persons may verify[By way of memory call back actions], the Incidents during preceding few hrs about Mr Thatte,when those persons meet Mr Thatte.
vii]-During any Govt Election period public speeches & meetings are banned for 48 hrs.But I can do propoganda work thr my EST strength as no legal action is found possible.

Human brains receive information about surrounding mainly through sensors like ears and eyes. A miraculous means ("EST"ie Extra sensory Transmission)capable of feeding information directly from Mr. Thatte's brain to the brains of the people has developed due to certain unknown changes in Mr.Thatte's brain structure/NeuroEndocrine glands / physiology in January Nineteen Sixty Five (Jan 1965) making Mr. Thatte a known person with transparent personality. That time he was staying near Nagnath par,Sadashiv Peth Pune 411030. This has happened without any changes in the brain physiology of the other people.

This shows human brains capability of receiving external information directly from brain to brain ("EST"&"ESP"mode) did exist even in the past. Mr. Thatte has been experiencing this phenomenon continuously from January 1965, at allplaces like Pune, Sangli, Mumbai, Banglore, Jammu, Delhi, Vadodara,Thane, Rasayani, Panvel, where he has stayed during last 37 years.This phenomenon has proved a curse to Mr. Thatte.

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

-5.VERIFICATION OF THE BRAIN TRANSMITTER PHENOMENON

This phenomenon can be verified by interested personalities / organisations in following ways.
i] The blood glucose consumption by the brain of Mr Thatte can be ascertained by PET/SPECT scan tests.[which at present are not available in India]The glucose consumption,in case higher than normal,might be providing energy to the brain to act as Information Transmitter.

ii) To observe silent presence of Mr. Thatte for few hours & days in offices, work places, libraries etc. Mr. Thatte's brain can try to transmit totally wrong information about a person like age, height, weight, qualifications. This way the person will be able to distinguish between the information transmitted out from Mr. Thatte's brain verses thoughts coming to his mind through his own thinking.A Physics Scientists Communication Engineer may be able to DEVELOPE A DEVICE CAPABLE OF RECEIVING, RECORDING & REPRODUCING the information transmitted out from Thatte's brain.

Mr.Thatte can try to convince Mr "XYZ"about the phenomenon as shown below. Mr Thatte & Mr XYZ are sitting in a library facing each other.Mr Thatte keeps thinking continuously several times following sentences- a].Mr XYZ at present is in mental asylum. b].Mr XYZ is 120 years old fellow.c].Mr XYZ died 3 years ago. d].Mr XYZ is travelling in NASA's Space shuttle.e]Mr XYZ is swimming inarabian sea. f].Mr XYZ is playing football. g].Mr XYZ is addressing a public meeting. Mr XYZ just can not think as above about himself. In case Mr XYZ feels about himself as above then it is because the information transmitted out from MR thattes brain have got forced into his brain.

iii) To accompany Mr. Thatte at crowded places like roads, buses & bus stops, railway compartments & railway stations, big shops, theatres, melas, hotels, public offices etc. in cities like Pune, Mumbai, Nasik, Vashi, Thane, Kalyan & to watch the public response, talks, comments on Mr.Thatte.This is similar to memory (Information transmitted out by Mr. Thatte's brain & stored in the memory of people's brains during previous two three months ) call back action by people's brains initiated triggered through Mr. Thatte's brain transmission.

iv) Organisations based in Mumbai / Pune area can verify the phenomenon through their reporters, informers, private detectives, social & political leaders, CID, CBI, Central Intelligence Agency, KGB, MOSAD, FIB of USA etc.

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

< B>-6.DESCRIPTION IN BRIEF ABOUT THE BRAIN TRANSMITTER MODE

(i) Mr. Thatte's brain transmits information (about his thoughts & all actions like reading, talking, working etc.) which enters the brains of large number of people even at long distances.

(ii) This phenomenon is similar to the broadcasting by a radio station & other people's brains act as receivers. This transmission from Mr. Thatte's brain is different Form sound waves & electromagnetic waves. and takes place all the time except when he is sleeping.

(iii) The transmission from his brain is uncontrollable like respiration, blood circulation, digestion, secretions etc and sensing of this phenomenon by other people is also uncontrollable by them.

(iv) The rate of transmission i.e. number of words per second transmitted out of his brain is much higher than the rate of very fast talking. His brain may keep changing the topic of transmission even every two-three seconds. Therefore only summary of information transmitted from his brain gets retained / stored in the brain memory of other people.

(v) The information transmitted out from his brain may not be stored word by word into the memories of the people receiving it but only summary of it gets retained into their brains

(vi) Mr. Thatte's presence is felt by people at all locations ( close vicinity as well as distant places ) due to "EST" & "ESP"phenomenons & is revealed through their comments on Mr. Thatte's thoughts & actions during previous few days, weeks, & months. This may be similar to the memory called back action by people's brain initiated through Mr. Thatte's brain transmission.

(vii) Initially a person's brain will not be able to distinguish between
a) Information Transmitted out of Mr. Thatte's brain
VERSES
b) Thoughts coming to that person's mind through his own thinking.The same person will be able to distinguish between these two, provided Mr. Thatte's brain purposely transmits out information completely irrelevant about that person.

(viii) Sixth sense phenomenon has developed in a natural way about Mr. Thatte's brain but without any changes in the brain physiology of other people. This shows human beings brains capability of receiving sixth sense information did exist even in past.

(ix) The sixth sense phenomenon being transmission of information from Mr.Thatte's brain into the brains of other people it has got no barriers of language at all.

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

-7.EFFECT ON THE LIFE OF MR THATTE

The brain of Mr. Thatte has become a means of very fast communication with masses. Mr Thatte is not able to hide his private and confidential from public even at remote locations due to his transmitting brain. He can never go into hide out at any place in the world. Harassment of Mr. Thatte through the surrounding mob is found possible for his enemy groups. Lack of ON/OFF control on "Information Transmission" from his brain" has rendered it useless for political oratory. On the contrary Mr. Thatte has to be careful to avoid personal and political enemies

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

8.SCOPE AND GAIN FROM SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION

The scientific investigations about the "EST"& ESP" phenomenons shall have following gains :-

1)The investigation may help deaf to receive information as it is different from sound waves.

2)It may also help developing some means of extracting information from the brains of human beings.

3)The research may possibly help Mr. Thatte if a SUITABLE MATERIAL CAPABLE OF ABSORBING THE TRANSMITTED WAVES FROM HIS BRAIN is found out.

The passage of information from Mr. Thatte's brain 'through surrounding medium' up to the brains of public is a matter of research in the science of Physics and Communication.

The generation and transmission of information from Mr. Thatte's brain as well as reception of this information by brains of other people is a matter of research in the field of Biophysics, Neurology, Physiology etc only. The psychiatrists and psychologist need not poke their dirty noses into this matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.PUBLISHERS & SUPPORTERS & FRIENDS The following personalities have published/supported the above phenomenon.

Mr P R Behere editor of Marathi Daily "Navshakti" has published about this sixth sense phenomenon in his sunday edition of November 1978, under heading LOLAK.

Mr. Pramod Navalkar, MLC Mumbai Tel No 91-022-22062038 a writer of " Marmik" weekly has published about this sixth sense phenomenon in the edition dated 1st April 1979, under the heading " Vichar Lahari".

THE FOLLOWING PERSONALITIES HAVE SUPPORTED THE ABOVE MENTIONED PHENOMENON

1)Mr. T. A. Swaminathan ex CMD HOCL ( 1975 - 77 )
iii) Mr. Girish G. Raje,M Tech Chem [IITB 73] Chief Executive, Supreme Petro Chemicals Nagothane Dist-Raigad Pin--402106 India Tel No-[O]02194-222613 [R]-223280
iv)Mr.B.P.Peshattiwar Gen.Secretary HOCL Employees Union Panvel City 410206. Tel 91-022-27458874.
v) Mr Prashant R Thakur BE{CIVIL} PWP Youth Leader Panvel.Tel No-022-27452713/27460504.
vi) Mr Vijay Mundhe SS Leader PRO HOCL Rasayani Po-Mohopada Pin-410222 India Tel No-91-02192-251596 & 02192-250041 extn 3555
vii) Mr Achyut M Joshi Union Leader .HOCLS Janata Colony Rasayani Po-Mohopada India-410222.Tel No 91-02192-250549 [Father of Mr Jitendra M. Joshi working at NASA HQ]
viii) Mr.P.S.Bhate'Ex GEN Mgr' HOCL Rasayani Stayingat 108 Neeldhara bldg sector 4 New Panvel.Dist-Raigad Pin-410206 Tel No. 91- 022-27874410
ix) Mr.A.G.Gadre'Ex Chief Engineer' HOCL Tel-91-022-24377747/27458317
x) Mr.Elkcan Gershan Moses,Materials Manager HOCL Rasayani Pin-410207 India. Tel 91-02192-251677

MR THATTE PAYS TRIBUTES TO HIS FRIENDS

i] Dr V D Nene Phd From IITB In 1968 At present in USA
ii]Late Dr Lederley 0f Snehsadan 250 Shaniwar Peth Pune 411030 & Dr Dullery of Snehsadan Pune staying at present in France.
iii] Late Mr Anchawale Ex Gen Mgr HOCL, Late J G Patel Of HOCL,Late Dada Sawant Congress Leader sarpanch wasambe & Late Nana Karawale SS Leader Sarpanch Wasambe.
iv]Mr Ram G Mundhe Chambharli Congress Leader VicePresident AGRI SENA chairman Paras Union.Tel No 91-02192-252884
v] Mr Nathuram Bhoir Shiv Sena Leader & Sarpanch Mohopada Gram Panchayat Tel No-91-02192-250425 & Mrs Anagha Kanitkar Shiv Sena Leader Mohopada Tel No-91-02192-251479.
vi]-Mr Chandrakant Mahadik PWP Leader secretary Rickshaw Union Tel No-91-02192-255555.
vii] Mr Sudam G Mundhe NCP Leader Chambharli Tel No-91-02192-250687 & Mr Anant Pingale NCP Leader RIS TelNo-91-02192-251028 & Mr Tulsidas d Patil NCP Leader Chambharli Tel NO-91-02192-250737

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.Tribute From Thatte Consulting Engineers

TRIBUTE TO
THE GREAT BAJIRAO PESHAWE

Founder Of The Peshawa/Maratha Empire

VIEW GREAT BAJIRAO PESHAVE
.
Date Of Birth : 18 August 1700 Sunday Bhadrapada 15 Shake 1622
Date Of Death : 28 April 1740 Monday Vaishakh 13 Shake 1662
Appraised By Field Marshal Montgomery In His Book
" A Concise History Of Warfare " Page 132 in Edition of Year 1972

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030727/c4dfdd30/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Relative-Thatte Ramesh P.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 1002 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030727/c4dfdd30/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20030727/c4dfdd30/attachment-0001.html>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: PNG format???

body:
Jimmy O'Regan wrote:

> Having an RFC makes it an Internet standard

As stated in FAQ #3 at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html, this is
not actually true. It is an extremely widely-spread misconception.

An RFC is an Internet standard if and only if the RFC actually says so.
Take, for example, RFC 854 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc854.html): it
states explicitly at the top that it is an Internet standard. In
contrast, RFC 2549 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html) specifically
mentions that "It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Now, in the case of that latter RFC this is not much of a surprise (it's
one of numerous April Fool's jokes among the RFCs), but it may come as a
surprise to a great many people that the same sentence is contained in
the PNG RFC: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2083.html

Greetings,
Timwi


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Just a note

body:
Just a note letting you all know that because Comcast isn't the best
internet company around, I (and every other Comcast customer) was unable to
access any website hosted by the largest ISP in Asia. Since my personal
website is hosted by a company a few stops downstream from them, I have
also been unable to access my email for the past few days. All those of you
who have sent me email, please don't think I've been ignoring you. Also,
the backlog will take some time to sift through, so please be patient. :)

On a side note, avoid Comcast internet like the plague, and ICDsoft.com is
the best web site hosting company in the known universe.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Timwi-
>
>>What's the point? They'd just log out.
>
> For one thing, we ban offensive usernames.

In this case, the question arises: Do we want the username to continue
existing in a banned state? This would leave the offensive username in
edit histories. Might we not actually want to delete the account
(marking all its edits as from a 'Deleted User') and then make it
impossible to re-register it?

> For another, we don't give
> sysops the ability to view IP addresses of signed in users, so they can't
> ban their IP because they don't know it.

I didn't know that. I guess that makes it possible to keep creating new
accounts to overcome any ban.

So, shouldn't there perhaps be a feature that would let sysops ban the
IP of a signed-in user without actually displaying that IP?

>>>4) While you're at it, you may want to think about a better access rights
>>>system than simple sysop/non-sysop. ACLs would probably work best.
>>
>>Hm. I'm not very familiar with the concept of ACLs (Access Control
>>Lists, I assume). What in particular can they do that userprops cannot?
>
> Well, the idea is that you can set permissions on a per page basis, and do
> something like

That sounds like fun. It calls for a new table that describes relations
between users and articles:

CREATE TABLE relations (
	userid		int unsigned	NOT NULL,
	articleid	int unsigned	NOT NULL,
	type		int unsigned	NOT NULL
);

Then for the 'type' column we would define readable constants within the
source code. So, for example, type 1 means the given user can edit that
article. 2 means he cannot. The default is, of course, given by an
articleprop ("protected").

But then again, maybe it would be better design to actually think about
the different actions you can do with an article (edit, move, delete,
etc.) and defining permissions (incl. default permissions) based on
that. I'll think about that more, but just now it's too late and I'm
gong to bed ;-)

Good night,
Timwi


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
In my opinion, university degrees are no guarantee for quality. I've
seen so many uninspiring mediocre academics (not all of them are like
that of course) that it makes me question todays education system. So
let's play safe and limit editorship to Nobel laureates.

Another point: let us say several tens of thousands of articles qualify
for  "Wikipedia Professional". The screening will be a huge undertaking,
but it can be done. But after that, how often will people be willing to
go through the whole certification process again and again in order to
approve possibly small additions and corrections? Probably not too
often. This will lower the movation of wikipedians to contribute to the
"Wikipedia for Dummies". Their efforts will be unseen and not
appreciated by the general public once the Pro Edition is a fact.

I am not against freezing articles to deal with random troll droppings.
I am vehemently against an elitist approach. It blows the whole concept.
How many wikipedians have university degrees right now? Probably quite a
few. How many of those concentrate on their field of expertise? My guess
is: a lot less. Wikipedia is a hobby, even experts want to take a break
from their daily work every now and then, and Wikipedia provides this.
So many of these experts will be in fact amateurs when working on
Wikipedia. This is guesswork of course. My point: if amateurs have
accomplished so much already, it would be a disgrace to make them second
rank members.

Erik Zachte


body:
On 28-07-2003, Erik Zachte wrote thusly :
[snip]
> I am not against freezing articles to deal with random troll droppings.
> I am vehemently against an elitist approach. It blows the whole concept.
> How many wikipedians have university degrees right now? Probably quite a
> few. How many of those concentrate on their field of expertise? My guess
> is: a lot less. Wikipedia is a hobby, even experts want to take a break
> from their daily work every now and then, and Wikipedia provides this.
> So many of these experts will be in fact amateurs when working on
> Wikipedia. This is guesswork of course. My point: if amateurs have
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about doing an anonymous survey of Wikipedia editors/contributors on
meta.wikipedia.org ?  It might be interesting and possibly helpful
to know who we are, what are our attitudes and motivations.
> accomplished so much already, it would be a disgrace to make them second
> rank members.

Regards,
Kpjas.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] European language wiki's to own server+database.

in_reply_to: <200307281658.32409.jsvrp.gw@myrealbox.com>; from jsvrp.gw@myrealbox.com on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 04:58:32PM +0200

body:
If it's just a technical issue, and not a political issue, then I have
no objections to doing this *under the Wikimedia Foundation*.

However, when you start your comments with this:
> * We will not be depending on the US anymore.

I immediately suspect that it's political.

> - As this can be considered a political issue, it is mostly a technical
> issue. Because when there are problems, we (Europeans) can solve this on
> hours, people in the US are still at sleep. This also includes fixing
> things on location.

But, things tend to break at random times around the clock.  The
US-based servers sometimes crash at night, when people are sleeping
here.

One solution to this is to give access to the power port to people
living in other parts of the world.

> * Finding a reliable server that is free and only for us.

Well, everything is free as long as I pay for it, and if it can be
shown that it is technically superior to host European wikis in
Europe, I'm willing to do that.

> * Finding European sysadmins for this server.

That's not hard -- Magnus and Erik spring to mind immediately, but of
course there are many eligible people in Europe.

Again, let me say: I strongly support taking technical measures to
ensure responsiveness and uptime for everyone on the planet.  I
strongly oppose taking measures to divide the wikipedia community
politically.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Phase IV

in_reply_to: <bfplrs$gdr$1@main.gmane.org>; from timwi@gmx.net on Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:16:56AM +0200

body:
Timwi wrote:
> Now, for some reason, against all of your advice, I have started to
> program a Wiki, and by now it's already become a suitable basis for a
> Phase-IV Wikipedia software, including a database schema.

Acting against all advice is the hallmark of genius and madness.  :-)

> Should I continue with this?

Sure, but be aware that it's a really big deal to ask people to
totally switch.  We have a fair amount of built-up investment in what
we're using, and while we should *of course* switch to something
better, there's a lot to consider.

Do you have a public url for us to view the fruits of your labor?


subject: [WikiEN-l] morphophonics for wikipedia

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> Everyone tries to invent their own phonetic system
> when they're in their
> teens. I did.
> But reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea.
> if every dictionary & encyclopedia has its own
> system, then it is not
> transferable, and the reader has to relearn for each
> book they open.
> Let's stick to something that is universal: IPA /
> SAMPA.

But you don't understand. IPA and SAMPA only work with
one accent, whereas my (and possibly your) system
works with multiple accents. Maybe I didn't explain
this.
-LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: DOS attack?

body:
--- Tim Starling <ts4294967296 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> > Question: if Wikipedia was under a DOS attack of
> some sort, would we
> > know about it? I ask because there was an incident
> of repeated
> > vandalism today, and just after that was dealt
> with, Wikipedia became
> > very (very) slow.
> >
> > So I just thought a DOS attack was a possibility.
> Is it? :-)
> >
> >
>
> Very unlikely. There's so much nastier things you
> could do to Wikipedia
> than slow it down somewhat. Like deleting all the
> images, or using
> Special:Movepage to shuffle the article titles.
>
> -- Tim Starling

But I don't think Wikipedia would be attacked in any
way because it would be too easy. It is much like the
Incompatable Timeshare System.
-LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] morphophonics for wikipedia

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>On the bike trip (and
>previously at summer camp), I worked on a morphophonic
>system in my head that is now almost fully functional,
>using only lowercased roman alphabet letters and the
>characters - ' ". I think that such a system would be
>beneficial to Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Here are some
>words transliterated into my system, which I'd like to
>call the Wikipedia Morphophonic Pronounciation (WPMP):
>
>wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u
>wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e
>Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
>unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
>
>
>
Everyone tries to invent their own phonetic system when they're in their
teens. I did.
But reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea.
if every dictionary & encyclopedia has its own system, then it is not
transferable, and the reader has to relearn for each book they open.
Let's stick to something that is universal: IPA / SAMPA.


subject: [WikiEN-l] morphophonics for wikipedia

body:
--- steve vertigo <utilitymuffinresearch at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >-LittleDan wrote:
> wikipedia -> w-ek-ep-ed-e"u
> wiktionary -> wi-ikshun-ar-e
> Daniel Ehrenberg -> Dany-l E'rxnb-rg
> >unintuitive -> xnint'y-u"itiv
>
> You can't really glean much of how the system works
> from those samples, though.
> I like the simpler is best approach, Daniel -- but
> take issue with your choice of using strictly
> English
> vowel voicings. (E, and :"U" for what would be
> better
> as an "a" (far) -- like its written now,
> incidentally!
> :)
>
> Like I talked about before --  you have to consider
> the vowels used per language as they vary over
> different languages, and rate these based on
> population.  In this internationalist sense the
> sharp
> "A" sound (cat, bat ) must be **secondary** to the
> more *widely* understood *softer* "A" sound (bar,
> car).  By widely understood -- take a look at
> Espertanto -- the phonetics of that language are
> based
> on the more common soft vowel sounds -- just as in
> Spanish.
> The "o"s dont morph into (ah)'s, the "e"'s dont
> morph
> into (ii)'s, etc.
>
> Since many languages (inglesh) will allow for
> flexible
> sounds, from flat (resembling a different vowel) to
> soft (moderate) to sharp (extreme), etc -- the idea
> of
> a **standard phonetic scheme** is basically premised
> on *removing that *flexibility so that vowels then
> become static.  This is the counterintuitive part --
> most of us think of vowels as flexible, and which
> way
> they flex hints at our language origin/bias.

My system accounts for that.

> How
> can
> you tell a Hindi/Arabic/Chinese/German/Spanish
> accent?
> (when speaking english) --by their vowel bias.
> A system, if its going to be usable has to map its
> vowels according to language use statistics.
>
> For example:  I see your using the "E" as in a "me"
> sound, as opposed to a "ben" sound -- for a "me"
> sound
> this should be a "mi"  --
>
> Example 2:Just as say, Arabic, defaults to an A ....
> (an Arabic A is often halfway tween an A("cat") and
> an
> E("ben")  (alef,ba,ta,tha, jiim,h!a, kha,
> daal,thaal,zai, siin,shiin, saad, daad, taa, vaa,
> ayn,
> thayn, fe, q'af, kef, lam, mim, nuun, he, waw, yah
>
> So too does English (\inglesh\) defaults to an EE
> (the
> letters
>
(ei)(bi)(ci)(di)(ii)(ef)(gi)(eich)(ai)(jei)(kei)(el)(em)(en)
> (oh)(pi)(kiu)(ar)(es)(ti)(iu)(vi)W(eks)(wai)(zi)
>
> If English was an abjad -- most of its words would
> naturally default to an /i/ sound ("ee"). These
> languages have a marked bias toward their respective
> sounds --and as such are unusable in the
> internationalist task of creating a phonetic scheme.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> -S-

This system is context-sensitive based on the
non-letter character(s) preceding it and, in some
cases, letter combinations like t'y make a /tS/
(although rarely it makes a /tj/) sound in british
english (but a /t/ sound in american english). There
also aren't any two sounds to be represented by the
same letter, even if they only differ slightly (as
long as the accent stays the same). Vowels (or
consonants) never default to a different sound.
-LittleDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] licenses

body:
In case it escaped anyones attention:

http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry:Licenses

Also, I followed the GNU FDL compatibility link and it
didnt go anywhere, does anyone have the good link ?

( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl/compatibility/ )

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #1249 - 14 msgs

body:
on 7/28/03 10:08 AM, sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca at sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca wrote:

> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>> Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
>>> With an "official" cannibalization of Wikipedia arcticles for
>>> Nupedia articles there would be no content - people do not
>>> like it to write without being acknowledged.
>>
>> What are you talking about? By law the Nupedia article would have to give
>> full credit to Wikipedia and have a link back. Our content is already
>> being used in many, many other places as well - this is not cannibalism.
>> That is the whole point of the GNU FDL - re-usability of the text.
>
> I think what Ulrich is most worried about is he doesn't want a
> stable encyclopedia to be a fork. This can be easily avoid by puting
> a link to the current Wikipedia article on hte Nupedia version,
> labeled "Edit the latest version of this article".
>
> Stephen G.

Perhaps "Compare the latest version of this article"

Our articles do go downhill from time to time, but generally get better and
more detailed. But perhaps too detailed from time to time. With a deal like
this you need to check every month or so and see what's happening with the
article and if it is better bring it over to the stable version.

Fred Bauder

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org


body:
on 7/28/03 10:08 AM, sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca at sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> Well, here's the thing. Our Main Page is protected. Our Main Page links to
>> the Brilliant Prose page, which would also be protected. The Brilliant
>> Prose page would only link to verified revisions of articles. A user can
>> choose this path
>>
>> Main Page->Brilliant prose->Article
>>
>> And they will never see an "unstable" article -- these pages would always
>> be in a reasonable state. It is the same thing as a separate site, but
>> happens entirely within Wikipedia.
>
> My first reaction is to be against this; I don't like the idea of locking
> down pages in general, and Brilliant Prose is something I think
> everyone should be able to add to. But, I'm reserving judgement
> until there's more discussion.
>
> Three things off the top of my head:
>
> 1. Who can add to brilliant prose? Sysops? What makes me (for
> example) more qualified to judge brilliant prose about the spectrum
> of human knowledge?

Well everyone has outstanding spot expertise in some areas, you just need to
know your limits. You may often write in areas that are not your areas of
expertise, and neglect areas that you are really expert in, but for this
purpose perhaps you should limit your activities more.
>
> 2. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that readers quickly
> become writers. If we were to use particular versions from article
> histories as stable articles, we'll need some way to allow readers
> to easily move into editing mode, i.e. an "Edit the current version of
> this article" link.

Yes.

>
> 3. The synthesis of the first two concerns: what happens when
> there are errors in the stable version? Mistakes can be corrected in
> the current version, but only sysops will be able to change which
> version is listed on the locked Brilliant Prose page. Thus, it's
> possible that the "stable" version could have more errors than the
> "development" version of a given article.

The stable version will need regular maintenance, both with respect to
ongoing developments and improvement of the current version.

>
> Stephen G.

Fred Bauder

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org


body:
>What I'm most worried about is that Wikipedia will lose contributors, because
>most of them won't get a choice to decide what's in the "real" encyclopedia
>and therefore lose interest. The closer (the more "officially") Nupedia is
>associated with Wikipedia, the less interesting it will be to spend time for
>Wikipedia, because everything one is doing there is just the "foreplay" for
>the "real thing" Nupedia.
>
>
This might be fixed if there's some more automated way of adding
articles to the 'stable' version of the encyclopedia.  All potential
solutions require more software, but there's a number of them (which is
better I'm not sure yet).  One of the many would be to have a process
similar to the way Debian's distribution works (with regards to
'testing' vs. 'unstable') -- all revisions articles automatically get
promoted to the stable version after some period of time (a week?  two
weeks?), unless someone marks it as "not ready for stable".  Then
presumably there could be some process by which either that mark can be
removed, or it can be overridden by a consensus of everyone else.

But really I think something more automated like this is necessary,
because I don't think the Brilliant Prose page is every going to have
15,000 articles on it, and even if it does, will be impossible to keep
up to date.

-Mark


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l]A Digression, was Re: Wikipedia-l
 digest, Vol 1 #1249 - 14 msgs

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>on 7/28/03 11:36 AM, Ulrich Fuchs at mail at ulrich-fuchs.de wrote:
>
>
>>It's
>>like shooting ourselfs in the knee (is that a valid phrase in english?).
>>
>
>We "shoot ourselves in the foot"
>
In this case though, "shooting oneself in the knee" is remarkably
apt, because a shot in the knee is usually much more serious than
one in the foot...

Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia database backup

body:
At http://download.wikipedia.org/ I noticed that:

Last dump made: 2003-07-13 (15 days ago)

If this had been a hard drive crash....

-- mav


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l]A Digression, was Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1
 #1249 - 14 msgs

body:
on 7/28/03 11:36 AM, Ulrich Fuchs at mail at ulrich-fuchs.de wrote:

> It's
> like shooting ourselfs in the knee (is that a valid phrase in english?).

We "shoot ourselves in the foot"

Fred Bauder

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org


from_name: Delirium

body:
Responding to my own suggestion:

> This might be fixed if there's some more automated way of adding
> articles to the 'stable' version of the encyclopedia.  All potential
> solutions require more software, but there's a number of them (which
> is better I'm not sure yet).  One of the many would be to have a
> process similar to the way Debian's distribution works (with regards
> to 'testing' vs. 'unstable') -- all revisions articles automatically
> get promoted to the stable version after some period of time (a week?
> two weeks?), unless someone marks it as "not ready for stable".  Then
> presumably there could be some process by which either that mark can
> be removed, or it can be overridden by a consensus of everyone else.

After thinking about it a bit more, I think this may too easily lead to
stuff slipping through into the 'stable' version that isn't really any
good.  I still think it should be easy to add stuff to the stable
version though, especially simple non-controversial stuff, so perhaps a
better approach would be to automatically add stuff after a certain
period if at least one person other than the author has marked it good,
and nobody has marked it "not ready for stable" (with appropriate manual
dispute resolution, as always).

I think in general my conception of a 'stable' wikipedia is a bit
different than the others being proposed.  I'm hoping for a stable
version that is fairly well in sync with the main Wikipedia, only being
about two weeks behind most of the time, but omitting stuff currently in
the midst of a major revision or edit war, not having vandalism, and
also omitting stuff that's been submitted but not checked and cleaned up
(bold the title and whatnot) yet.  Some other people seem to be
suggesting something more like Nupedia, where only really great
top-quality articles are included, which I'd agree isn't necessarily the
best use of our efforts.

-Mark


subject: [Textbook-l] licenses

body:
Karl Wick wrote:
>In case it escaped anyones attention:
>
>http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry:Licenses
>
>Also, I followed the GNU FDL compatibility link and it
>didnt go anywhere, does anyone have the good link ?
>
>( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl/compatibility/ )

You /cannot/ create your own license terms Karl - until we resolve this issue
on the mailing list the /only/ terms that are to be followed are this;

Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released
under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for
details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and
redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.

You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a
public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK
WITHOUT PERMISSION!

This is the only thing people agree to when submitting. Please see the talk
page. But you can certainly /ask/ other people who work on the organic
chemistry book whether or not they will also release their own work under
other licenses. However you cannot require them to do so.

We have always been able to /informally/ have disjoint licenses - you can
release all original work by yourself under any license you want. But what
licenses are enforced on the Wikimedia server is a matter of policy - which
we still are in the middle of debating.

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Stephen G. wrote:
>I think what Ulrich is most worried about
>is he doesn't want a stable encyclopedia
>to be a fork. This can be easily avoid by puting
>a link to the current Wikipedia article on hte
>Nupedia version, labeled "Edit the latest version
>of this article".

Exactly - I've said several times that all editing will be on Wikipedia.

--mav


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
>Perhaps "Compare the latest version of this article"

Excellent idea! That and "View/Edit latest version" would be very nice.

--mav


body:
Ulrich Fuchs
>Again - If Nupedia wants to use Wikipedia articles
>(forking them or not) - they're free to do it, the
>License perfectly allows for that. Just go ahead
>and do it

Thank you! Exactly my point. But I would not support any fork - all editing
goes onto Wikipedia. I have not advocated /any/ change to Wikipedia other
than agree with Erik on his idea. I /have/ advocated dramatic changes to
Nupedia.

>there will be enough Wikipedia editors merging
>back the approved articles to Wikipedia, both will
>profit from that.

Read my lips; No new no fork.

>But I strongly oppose the Wikipedia *supporting*
>that in any further way.

Perhaps we need a Wikimedia mailing list because I was talking about a way to
revive Nupedia which is a Wikimedia project, BTW.

>It's like shooting ourselfs in the knee

And the Linux volunteer free software coders are harmed by GNU/Linux
distributors?

The Linux kernel has its own stable/unstable configuration and so do the
distributors. Both work together to create a better product.

-- mav


from_name: sgilbert at nbnet.nb.ca

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> I got this email this morning. I'm not sure what the sender means
> by my "advertising [my] business as well"--possibly the note on my
> user page that I'm available for freelance editing. Mostly, I'm not sure
> who she (or he) is, or what prompted this, so I'm passing it along in case
> it makes sense to anyone else.

Doesn't make sense to me. Presumably you removed an ad from
this person, and he didn't like it?

Stephen G.

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


body:
I wrote:
>Read my lips; No new no fork.

And I expect to be quoted on that!

Argh! Should have been "No new fork" (why do I never see typos when I re-read
my email before I send it?)

--mav


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Well, here's the thing. Our Main Page is protected. Our Main Page links to
>  the Brilliant Prose page, which would also be protected. The Brilliant
> Prose page would only link to verified revisions of articles. A user can
> choose this path
>
> Main Page->Brilliant prose->Article
>
> And they will never see an "unstable" article -- these pages would always
> be in a reasonable state. It is the same thing as a separate site, but
> happens entirely within Wikipedia.

My first reaction is to be against this; I don't like the idea of locking
down pages in general, and Brilliant Prose is something I think
everyone should be able to add to. But, I'm reserving judgement
until there's more discussion.

Three things off the top of my head:

1. Who can add to brilliant prose? Sysops? What makes me (for
example) more qualified to judge brilliant prose about the spectrum
of human knowledge?

2. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that readers quickly
become writers. If we were to use particular versions from article
histories as stable articles, we'll need some way to allow readers
to easily move into editing mode, i.e. an "Edit the current version of
this article" link.

3. The synthesis of the first two concerns: what happens when
there are errors in the stable version? Mistakes can be corrected in
the current version, but only sysops will be able to change which
version is listed on the locked Brilliant Prose page. Thus, it's
possible that the "stable" version could have more errors than the
"development" version of a given article.

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


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
> >With an "official" cannibalization of Wikipedia arcticles for
> >Nupedia articles there would be no content - people do not
> >like it to write without being acknowledged.
>
> What are you talking about? By law the Nupedia article would have to give
> full credit to Wikipedia and have a link back. Our content is already
> being used in many, many other places as well - this is not cannibalism.
> That is the whole point of the GNU FDL - re-usability of the text.

I think what Ulrich is most worried about is he doesn't want a
stable encyclopedia to be a fork. This can be easily avoid by puting
a link to the current Wikipedia article on hte Nupedia version,
labeled "Edit the latest version of this article".

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


from_name: steve vertigo

body:
Mav wrote: >Read my lips; No new no fork.
Ok. But just to be clear no clear.

<img
src="http://www.geocities.com/utilitymuffinresearch/forkno.jpg">

http://www.geocities.com/utilitymuffinresearch/forkno.jpg

-S-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


subject: [Textbook-l] Anonymous contributions

body:
>Copyright could be transferred to the Wikimedia
Foundation. A >disclaimer
>could be issued that states that the contributions always
will be used
>in a free and open copyleft spirit.

This sounds like a great idea to me. -- Karl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


subject: [Textbook-l] Anonymous contributions

body:
 Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
>Copyright could be transferred to the Wikimedia
>Foundation. A disclaimer could be issued that states
>that the contributions always will be used in a free
>and open copyleft spirit.

Sounds like an interesting idea....

--mav


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: DOS attack?

body:
a.crossman at blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> Question: if Wikipedia was under a DOS attack of some sort, would we
> know about it? I ask because there was an incident of repeated
> vandalism today, and just after that was dealt with, Wikipedia became
> very (very) slow.
>
> So I just thought a DOS attack was a possibility. Is it? :-)
>
>

Very unlikely. There's so much nastier things you could do to Wikipedia
than slow it down somewhat. Like deleting all the images, or using
Special:Movepage to shuffle the article titles.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>
>And the Linux volunteer free software coders are harmed by GNU/Linux
>distributors?
>
Depends on who you ask. :-)

>
>The Linux kernel has its own stable/unstable configuration and so do the
>distributors. Both work together to create a better product.
>
Ideally yes, in practice there are more than a few ugly disputes.
But it makes a good example to learn from.  For instance, people
have tried to avoid forking in the past, but it doesn't work, so
the usual process nowadays is to set up a deliberate fork (aka
release branch), make a high bar for patches to the branch, and
require programmers to patch both branch and trunk, possibly having
to rewrite the branch patch to be applicable to the the trunk if
the trunk has changed a lot.

If the analogy is applicable, it suggests that the tagging concept
won't work well, because small good edits often follow on the heels
of big bad edits in Wikipedia, and so there's no version with only
good edits.  But if you make small good edits in a separate Nupedia,
they won't find their way back to Wikipedia, which might or might
not be desirable - if Nupedia is the "release version", then it's
likely to be out-of-date relative to Wikipedia, and the patched
article(s) may no longer exist. If the Nupedia edits are still
valuable, then perhaps they could be expressed as a patch file and
the patch applied to Wikipedia a la source code patching.

The process becomes more complicated for Nupedia, but presumably
that's not a serious obstacle because the whole theory of Nupedia
is to improve quality via additional process.

Stan


body:
>Stan said:The process becomes more complicated for
>Nupedia, but presumably that's not a serious obstacle
because the whole theory of Nupedia is to improve
quality via additional process.

Exactly -- never mind the fact that all this
"additional process" yeilds Nupedia 1/10oooth the
energy of Wikipedia. Forgetting this basic fact --
yes, "that's not a serious obstacle."  But then,
turning Nupedia into a haven for (insert silly theme
here. Example=belemic recipe swapping)  would likely
still yield more interest than all that "additional
process."

-S*-

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


from_name: Lightning

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Jeroen-
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Proberly some of you will flame me, but I will take that for granted.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>My idea is to combine all the European language wikipedia's (except english
>>and maybe spanish and portuguese) on one server and using one database,
>>located somewhere in Europe.
>>
>>
>
>Crashes that are so hard that they require someone to do a fix on location
>should be expected to take about 24 hours to fix -- that's normal and OK.
>The present crash took about 7 hours to fix (we still don't know what
>caused it), and it would have taken just a few minutes if I or Tim could
>have done the reboot instead of waiting for Jimbo to wake up. Hopefully
>Brion will be back soon as well.
>
>Splitting up the wikis can cause the following problems:
>* makes software updates harder -- we are trying to move towards a common
>codebase
>* makes it impossible to combine the different tables into a single
>database, which would have various advantages
>* makes it more difficult to combine at least user accounts and
>interlanguage links into a single DB
>* could lead to cultural split -- different power structures, different
>policies etc.
>
>Furthermore, Jimbo is in the process of finalizing the Wikimedia
>Foundation, which will allow us to take donations. Given enough money, we
>can improve our current setup. A reasonably redundant database setup with
>replication should be more resistant to this kind of failure.
>
>Realistically, with a decent setup, we don't need to split up our
>databases -- it's the single point of failure (pliny) that is the problem,
>not that the server is based in the US.
>
>Regards,
>
which reminds m... Any status update on the wikimedia foundation?? I
know as of know Its officially a non-profit, but still hasn't achieved
IRS tax exempt status. So, where are we with that? Have the papers been
filed, or not? And how many more steps do we have afterwards. It'd be
nice to have an estimated time by when this could be done. Is it going
to take a couple of weeks or a couple of months? Just curious, and eager
to donate....

Lightning


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Phase IV

body:
Timwi wrote:

>
> Well, the only "fruit" I have so far is
> http://www.lionking.org/~timwi/t/wikipedia/wikipedia-iv.html, which I
> have mentioned earlier. (Notice that some of this may already be out
> of date again.) I don't have a server to install my actual software
> on, and besides, it can't do anything yet anyway (unfortunately I've
> been distracted quite a bit the past few days).

did you notice my msg about how to bring special:short and special:long
pages back? It's a simple hack but I kinda think its the best way to do
this kinda thing data like this should be cached to take work off the db

Lightning


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia database backup

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>At http://download.wikipedia.org/ I noticed that:
>
>Last dump made: 2003-07-13 (15 days ago)
>
>If this had been a hard drive crash....
>
good point. How do backups work? is the server ever backed up, or just
the datadumps and then kinda like "lets hope someone downloaded the db
sup today"?

Lightning


from_name: Sheng Jiong

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageZh.php completed

body:
Erik Moeller:

>
>Can you handle CVS? If so, we can give you CVS access so you can do
>updates yourself.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>
>
OK, thanks.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fuck article cited in Colorado court document

body:
Someone pointed this out on Talk:Fuck -- From District
Court, Larimer County, Colorado

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fword1.html

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com