from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: WikiIndex (idea)

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

So, do we need another kind of *indexing*, or just a new way of
cross-reading existing categories?

Magnus

Kardos Andr?s schrieb:
> Yes, a *primitive* form of an index.
>
> Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at ...> writes:
>
>
>>Aren't categories a primitive form of index?
>>
>>Alfio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCMBnaCZKBJbEFcz0RAqpxAJ9dPE1J+uF4KvAnpuYuIYFq+hxmkACeOjbJ
emzOGQl/ujxjWHyHnrVaFPo=
=ZMZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Silverback wrote

>Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate
>becomes more clear.  The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia
>is a republic, but whether it is a democracy.   In American english, no it
>is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a
>republic.  Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we
>translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic.  The
>queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly
>anything in Austrailia.

This strikes me as perfect evidence of how people who have done no research
and yet who try to participate in discussions only waste other people's
time.  The phrase, "In American english, no it is note a democracy" manages
to be both ignorant and irrelevant.  Americans have many different ways of
using "democracy," and most Americans would say Australia is a
democracy.  But so what?  Why does it matter what Americans think?

Here is the problem, in a nutshell.  Sometime conflicts at Wikipedia are
over semantics, and sometimes they are substantive.  Constructive editors
are able to sort out which is what.  Unconstructive, obstructionist editors
systematically confuse one source of conflict for the other.

For example, the conflict between Adam and Skyring owes to the fact that
Skyring does not understand proper English grammar and usage ("proper"
regardless of which English speaking country you live in) -- he doesn't
understand the meaning of "shall be" and "is," nor the meaning of
"paraphrase."  Skyring insists that this is a substantive problem, that
Adam is making factually false claims -- and as long as Skyring insists
that this is a conflict over meaning rather than proper grammar, he will
continue to obstruct progress on the article.

Silverback is doing the reverse.  He is suggesting that the conflict over
"republic" is semantic, because Australians and Americans use words
differently.  He is as wrong as Skyring.  Political Scientists as well as
your average Yankee will call both Australia and the US "democracies," and
both groups understand that neither is a pure democracy.  For one thing,
neither country makes decisions through the direct participation of all
citizens -- they have what is called "representative democracy."  Moreover,
modern "liberal" political theory -- meaning, theory of modern liberal
states -- also argue that democracy is and should be limited by rule of
law.  Since some notion of law (e.g. "inalienable rights" limits the powers
of the majority, no country with rule of law can be a pure
democracy.  Silverback suggests that this is what "republic" means.  I am
not a political scientist, nor am I very knowledgeable about Australia
(although as a kid I loved this TV show called "Skippy"), but I do not
think this is what "republic" means.  And we aren't going to resolve this
by each of us coming up with our own definition.  Let Adam, Silverback, and
Skyring do research into Australian constitutional law and political
theory, compare sources, and provide quotes OR paraphrases -- it really
doesn't matter which, as long as they come from verifiable sources.

My point is, that this argument isn't going to be solved by speculations
about what we think words mean -- it will be solved by people doing
research on how political scientists and politicians have used words, and
perhaps how usage has changed over time.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >>I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal
> >>attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
> >>
> >>-Snowspinner
> >
> >
> > Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
> >
> > -- Silverback
>
> Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are
> trying to make.

The idea of name callers blaming the victim for "baiting" them is analogous to spousal abusers who claim the spouse "egged them on", "was asking for it" or committed some other stupid oversight or offense.  The spousal abuse victim, often will defend the abuser claiming it was their fault, they weren't perfect in some way.

Of course, namecallers think their victims deserved it, egged them on, baited them, or was being unreasonable, or refused to acknowledge that the namecaller was right.

Somehow, just as a lot of people manage to avoid abusing their spouses, a lot of people refrain from namecalling.    The difference is more in the abuser or namecaller than in the victim or provocature.
                  -- Silverback
                  -- Silverback


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:34:43 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
> > think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore
> > opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are
> > upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the
> > community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate
> > his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
>
> Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside
> your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into
> attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true.

Judging by Adam's history on Wikipedia, he lets himself be goaded by
quite a few of people. You are hardly suggesting that this is an
isolated instance, are you?

> Nevertheless, as
> he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for
> yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several
> others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace
> fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a
> question of your own, rather than an answer.

This is simply not true. I grew tired of responding to Adam's
questions when he so often evaded my own. Fair's fair.

My opinions are backed up with checkable quotes. I note on checking
the discussion page that you have provided just one quote - the text
of a link I myself provided. You accurately pointed out that it dated
from a time when John Howard was not Prime Minister, so I provided one
from when he was.

Adam's sources are generally an appeal to popular opinion, some
partisan site such as the ARM, or his own individual interpretation of
the Constitution, unsupported by expert opinion.

> You have accused Adam of
> misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very
> precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have
> different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no
> reason for your view.)

Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the
similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is". By
saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the
representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect
of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have
moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative
of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in
this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the
people rather than the government has increased.

> You've been told repeatedly what the community
> consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the
> article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute.
> Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails
> to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't
> addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or
> withdrawn your argument.

Perhaps they should direct argument on this subject to the discussion
page. I am addressing your points here because you seem to insist on
it.

>
> As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have,
> I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I
> believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor
> no desire to see him blocked.

I reject your interpretation. I have repeatedly asked Adam to moderate
his behaviour and this only served to provoke further abuse, as can
readily be seen. By making the issue public my intention was to get
others to ask him to calm down. I hope that this has had an effect. I
also note that blocks on Adam don't seem to last long, as he can
always find a willing admin.

--
Peter in Canberra


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

>
> What about the vast majority of our readers who have needs that are
> being ignored while certain individuals ride their private hobby horses?
> The major challenge of wikipedia is to make sure that the community's
> activities push towards the best possible knowledge source while
> restricting the ability of organized groups of users to slant the pedia.
> After hundreds of posts on the arguments over hypothetical wikis, I am
> going to invoke the NPOV requirement that points of view be represented
> in proportion to their importance. Overwhelmingly our readers are in
> major languages, and the challenges facing these large wikipedias should
> be occupying far more of the discussion than is currently the case.
>

It seems to me that NPOV is a policy meant to be applied to encyclopedic
articles, not to metadiscussion on a mailing list.  While I agree that
(at this time) it is probably more "important" to work toward ironing
out the major issues with the already extant and sizable language
wikipedias than it is to create a myriad of less-sizable wikipedias, I
don't think your justifications for your approach to the matter are
really valid.  Of course, that's just my POV.  Luckily, this mailing
list seems to be an appropriate place to air my POV, unlike an
encyclopedia article.

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: Ulf Lunde

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no: or nb: (again)

body:
Here we go again!  :-)

There are several issues here.

One is the question of *discrimination or equality between the variants*
of the Norwegian language.  This has been pointed out by Mark
Williamson earlier in this thread, but seems to be largely overlooked.

On Fri Mar 4 01:30:40 UTC 2005, Lars Alvik said:

 > forexample the www.google.no is on bokm?l, you have to
 > click an extra link to get to the nynorsk version. This is more or less
 > what i think no: should be, on bokm?l but with a well placed link to
 > nynorsk.

The above remark by Lars Alvik is discriminating and offensive
towards nynorsk users.  Why should it be like that and not
the other way around?   Is bokm?l a superior language?

To better explain the offensiveness of such statements of
superiority, I risk a provocative analogy. To say:
  Bokm?l is the default Norwegian language, so
  asking for "Norwegian" should give you bokm?l,
  but we can put a link to nynorsk there;
is tantamount to saying something like:
  *Men* are the default human beings, so looking up
  "human being" should redirect you to "man", but
  we can have a well placed link to "woman" on that page!

(The Sami languages are a different kind of problem, because
although they are official languages in some regions of Norway,
the Sami languages do not call themselves "Norwegian", and so
probably do not want to claim the name "Norwegian Wikipedia".)

Incidentally, Lars Alvik's description of the Google interface is not true.
The address www.google.no will give you whichever Norwegian variant
you selected on your previous visit.  This is a good model for how the
address no.wikipedia.org can be made to work, too!

A second issue is *which names the inter-wiki links should show*.

To Olve Utne this is a major issue, while who gets to use the
language code "no" is a minor issue.
I see it differently.
In the name of fairness, a wiki which excludes one of the two
official forms of Norwegian, should not be given *exclusive* rights
to the language code for Norwegian.  To display the inter-wiki link
"no" as "norsk (bokm?l)" is simply incorrect.

To me, it is as simple as this:
 "no" is "norsk"
 "nb" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
 "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
This is how the links are displayed in Wikipedia today, and it
looks good to me.

Olve proposes that we change it to be like this:
 "no" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
 "nb" is also "norsk (bokm?l)"
 "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
I don't see any reason to make such a change.  In fact, the
case of equality vs. discrimination is a strong argument *against*
such a change.

A third issue is whether or not to *exclude nynorsk Norwegian*
from the current Norwegian Wikipedia at no.wikipedia.org.

That Wikipedia has so far been a mixed Norwegian Wikipedia,
with a user interface in bokm?l, but allowing articles in any
written form of the language.  Last year a separate nynorsk
Norwegian Wikipedia appeared at nn.wikipedia.org, so now
there are two completely separate wikipedias which allow
articles written in nynorsk Norwegian.  Since nynorsk now
has its own "home", several people have proposed to disallow
it in the hitherto "Norwegian" Wikipedia, effectively changing
the older Wikipedia into a pure bokm?l encyclopedia.

A vote is going on about this right now in
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:M%C3%A5lform
If that vote decides to turn that Wikipedia database into an
exclusively bokm?l encyclopedia, I say that from that moment on
it loses its exclusive right to the language code "no", and all
links to it should thenceforth use the code "nb".

If the vote decides to keep the mixture of written forms, that
wikipedia shall of course stay at no.wikipedia.org.  I have tried
to create a separate, pure bokm?l wikipedia at nb.wikipedia.org
to achieve symmetry with the nynorsk one at nn.wikipedia.org,
but so far there has been little support for such an addition.

There are also other issues, related to *non-official written forms*
of Norwegian, but I won't go into those here, as I feel those can
wait until the main issues have been resolved once and for all.

Ulf Lunde
(user and appreciator of both Norwegian written forms
and of both Norwegian wikipedias)


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
>> The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head
>> of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition
>> of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of
>> his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
>
>
> Before something can be Original research it must first be research.
> Please learn the difference between research and wishful thinking.
>
> Ec

Ouch!

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
JAY JG wrote:
>> From: "csherlock at ljh.com.au"
>> <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
>>
>> The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head
>> of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition
>> of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of
>> his sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.
>
>
> Nah, it's just "simple deductive reasoning".  I can't believe you're
> using your POV and extremist interpretation of the No original research
> rule to try to disallow simple deductive reasoning from Wikipedia
> articles; you might as well be issuing the commandement "Thou shalt not
> think."
>
> Jay.

Er... my sarcasm detection mechanism must be on the blink today... is
this a serious comment?

TBSDY


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think you're misrepresenting how this goes. Let's
> take, say, Adam
> Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is
> generally how it
> goes.
>
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Polite disagreement
> User 1: Hostility at disagreement
> User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement
> User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse.
> User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise
> User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to
> being willing to
> compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now)
> User 3: Protection of article.
>
> Next month, on a new article...
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Wincing, disagreement.
> User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and
> shouldn't edit this
> article. Other abuse.
> User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss
> this again.
> User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to
> compromise, coupled with
> complete lack of compromise offered and streams of
> abuse.
> User 2: Requests for page to be protected.
> User 3: Protects page.
>
> Next month, on yet another article
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed
> with User 1.
> User 1: Accusation of a cabal.
> User 2: Mild personal attack.
> User 1: Arbcoms User 2.

Yout left out how User 1 accuses User 2 AND User 3 of
being members of the cabal out to get him.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people are
> > afraid to request sanctions against other users
> > because of the perceived (and real) threat that
> the
> > arbcom will turn it against the person bringing
> the
> > case.
>
> Name a case where that happened.

Me vs. The Recycling Troll, for starters.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people
> are
> > > afraid to request sanctions against other users
> > > because of the perceived (and real) threat that
> the
> > > arbcom will turn it against the person bringing
> the
> > > case.
> >
> > Name a case where that happened.
>
> I should have added, name a case where that happened
> where the person bringing
> the case was in fact innocent and then wrongfully
> sanctioned. It would be
> absurd to only look at the accused and not the
> accuser. That would encourage
> bad actors to request frivolous arbitrations.
>
> -- mav

All right then.  Me vs. Guanaco.  Me vs. Wik.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:21:22 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
<csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:

> The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our head of
> state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the definition of
> what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have read some of his
> sources, and none of them state what he thinks they say.

This is simply not true, and I welcome the opportunity to spit out the
words you cram into my mouth. Far from insisting anything, I merely
pass on the opinions of constitutional scholars. The view that we have
but one head of state is a minority position amongst these folk, and
if there is any consensus it is that we have two heads of state,
usually expressed as a formal or symbolic head of state in the Queen
and an effective or defacto head of state in the Governor-General.

TBSDY's interpretation of a source that states that we have two heads
of state as meaning that we have but one is one that he really should
explain further.

For example, Professor George Winterton, one of the scholars I cite,
says: "An objective assessment can lead to only one conclusion:
Australia's legal or formal head of state is the Queen. The
governor-general is the effective or de facto head of state of the
Commonwealth, but not of Australia."
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=927

By Australia, Winterton means the Commonwealth and the six State
governments, each of which have their own constitution and Governor.
Naturally, the Governor-General has no role in the government of a
State.

Professor Winterton says we have how many heads of state?

A. None
B. One
C. Two

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Lars Alvik

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no: or nb: (again)

body:
Sorry mac, but you can't ignore the fact that bokm?l is written by the
largest share of the norwegian population, around 90-80%. If no: could
be a serverside redirect to nb: but with a portal frontpage, sure i
would go for that, but i don't think it's technicaly possible.

And i don't see the point in involving a english mailinglist, that
probably don't care about the situation. Hell even i'm getting tired of
it.

On the other hand one of the admins at no: had a good idea that could
probably heal some of the unfairness felt by nynorskusers. To use the
main page on "no" as a multilingual focal point, with the nynorsk
featured article of the week, and the bokm?l one, side by side.

Another impotant note, we shuldn't dream up different technical
solutions that is probably not viable. Sure, it would be great if all
text on the internett appared in your own language (like an oversized
babelfish translating everything) but in our present time this isn't
possible

With no: being the de facto bokm?l wiki, there has been a wish among
the no: users to formalize this.

As for an third norwegian wiki (nb) this would only serve to divert
ressurces and manpower.

I have no oppresion agenda against nynorsk, my goal for wikipedia is
only to create a NPOV wiki in the language i know, and that being the
language closest to my oral language, bokm?l. I agree, even if nynorsk
isn't my language it's no less norwegian than bokm?l. But on the other
hand, i think we should represent the majority of the norwegian people
on no: and the majority use bokm?l as their language. The only other
solution would be to move no: to nb: and create a serverside redirect
(this is accualy technicaly possible).

mvh. Lars Alvik (who is growing tried of being represented as a
ignorant fool and a "j?vela austlending")

P? 10. mar. 2005 kl. 11:28 skrev Ulf Lunde:

> Here we go again!  :-)
>
> There are several issues here.
>
>
> One is the question of *discrimination or equality between the
> variants*
> of the Norwegian language.  This has been pointed out by Mark
> Williamson earlier in this thread, but seems to be largely overlooked.
>
> On Fri Mar 4 01:30:40 UTC 2005, Lars Alvik said:
>
>> forexample the www.google.no is on bokm?l, you have to
>> click an extra link to get to the nynorsk version. This is more or
>> less
>> what i think no: should be, on bokm?l but with a well placed link to
>> nynorsk.
>
> The above remark by Lars Alvik is discriminating and offensive
> towards nynorsk users.  Why should it be like that and not
> the other way around?   Is bokm?l a superior language?
>
> To better explain the offensiveness of such statements of
> superiority, I risk a provocative analogy. To say:
>   Bokm?l is the default Norwegian language, so
>   asking for "Norwegian" should give you bokm?l,
>   but we can put a link to nynorsk there;
> is tantamount to saying something like:
>   *Men* are the default human beings, so looking up
>   "human being" should redirect you to "man", but
>   we can have a well placed link to "woman" on that page!
>
> (The Sami languages are a different kind of problem, because
> although they are official languages in some regions of Norway,
> the Sami languages do not call themselves "Norwegian", and so
> probably do not want to claim the name "Norwegian Wikipedia".)
>
> Incidentally, Lars Alvik's description of the Google interface is not
> true.
> The address www.google.no will give you whichever Norwegian variant
> you selected on your previous visit.  This is a good model for how the
> address no.wikipedia.org can be made to work, too!
>
>
> A second issue is *which names the inter-wiki links should show*.
>
> To Olve Utne this is a major issue, while who gets to use the
> language code "no" is a minor issue.
> I see it differently.
> In the name of fairness, a wiki which excludes one of the two
> official forms of Norwegian, should not be given *exclusive* rights
> to the language code for Norwegian.  To display the inter-wiki link
> "no" as "norsk (bokm?l)" is simply incorrect.
>
> To me, it is as simple as this:
>  "no" is "norsk"
>  "nb" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
>  "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
> This is how the links are displayed in Wikipedia today, and it
> looks good to me.
>
> Olve proposes that we change it to be like this:
>  "no" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
>  "nb" is also "norsk (bokm?l)"
>  "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
> I don't see any reason to make such a change.  In fact, the
> case of equality vs. discrimination is a strong argument *against*
> such a change.
>
>
> A third issue is whether or not to *exclude nynorsk Norwegian*
> from the current Norwegian Wikipedia at no.wikipedia.org.
>
> That Wikipedia has so far been a mixed Norwegian Wikipedia,
> with a user interface in bokm?l, but allowing articles in any
> written form of the language.  Last year a separate nynorsk
> Norwegian Wikipedia appeared at nn.wikipedia.org, so now
> there are two completely separate wikipedias which allow
> articles written in nynorsk Norwegian.  Since nynorsk now
> has its own "home", several people have proposed to disallow
> it in the hitherto "Norwegian" Wikipedia, effectively changing
> the older Wikipedia into a pure bokm?l encyclopedia.
>
> A vote is going on about this right now in
> http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:M%C3%A5lform
> If that vote decides to turn that Wikipedia database into an
> exclusively bokm?l encyclopedia, I say that from that moment on
> it loses its exclusive right to the language code "no", and all
> links to it should thenceforth use the code "nb".
>
> If the vote decides to keep the mixture of written forms, that
> wikipedia shall of course stay at no.wikipedia.org.  I have tried
> to create a separate, pure bokm?l wikipedia at nb.wikipedia.org
> to achieve symmetry with the nynorsk one at nn.wikipedia.org,
> but so far there has been little support for such an addition.
>
>
> There are also other issues, related to *non-official written forms*
> of Norwegian, but I won't go into those here, as I feel those can
> wait until the main issues have been resolved once and for all.
>
> Ulf Lunde
> (user and appreciator of both Norwegian written forms
> and of both Norwegian wikipedias)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Alison Russell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Google Search box - thanks Angela and Brion

body:
Thanks Angela and Brion for the code. I have it working fine, but the frame
extends right across the page, as opposed to being the same width as the
navigation, search and toolbox frames.

I added the code to monobook.php as brion suggested, do I need to add it to
the quickbar section of code? and where do i find that? I am using MediaWiki
1.4.

Thanks again, Alison.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The controversy has come about because Skyring insists that our
>>> head of state is not the monarchy, therefore we fall inside the
>>> definition of what is a republic. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I
>>> have read some of his sources, and none of them state what he
>>> thinks they say.
>>
>> Before something can be Original research it must first be
>> research. Please learn the difference between research and wishful
>> thinking.
>
>
> It certainly is wishful thinking.  If only everyone could have a head
> of state that  did as little as the queen does, what a wonderful
> world this would be.
>
> Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the
> debate becomes more clear.  The issue all along has been not whether
> Austrailia is a republic, but whether it is a democracy.   In
> American english, no it is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally
> limited form a government, a republic.  Therefore, since Austailia is
> not a democracy, when we translate back to Austrailian english,
> Austrailia is not a republic.  The queen has been irrelevant to the
> whole issue, just as she is to nearly anything in Austrailia.
>
> Now if only, the Austrailian's had used the perfectly good word
> "democracy", the debate could have been conducted in their english.
> Somehow, despite "republics" duplication of the meaning of
> "democracy" in their language, it carries so kind of emotional
> baggage that does not allow it to be viewed objectively, perhaps
> because of some meaning bleed, from the other form of english.
>
> -- Silverback

Sorry... I'm totally confused. We have a constitution, we elect our
government (the populace elects them), in fact we MUST elect our
government as this is compulsory and we have equality before the law and
due process under the rule of law! So in what way are we *not* a democracy?

Is there some weird American definition of democracy I'm not aware of?
May I suggest looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_versus_.22republic.22
and if necessary update it?

TBSDY


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] What's in a (country's) name?

body:
Relating to the Coulter-Canada thing:

Consider four countries, A, B, C and D. Each has a government and a
bunch of ordinary citizens. Now let's talk about money. The government
keeps its money in the Treasury. The ordinary citizens keep their money
in their pockets.

Disaster strikes abroand, and money begins to flow from these four lands
to help victims overseas. Reporters covering the story from every
conceivable angle hit upon the idea of ranking the countries in terms of
how much money each has sent (or promised to send) for relief efforts.
They even calculate the per capita donations, by divided money by
population.

Here's the catch: suppose money from A comes primarily from the
government Treasury, while private donations from the Pockets of
ordinary citizens (or the charitable organizations they fund) is much
less.

   A(T) > A(P)

But in country B it might be the opposite. Their government doesn't send
nearly as much as the ordinary people do:

   B(T) < B(P)

Now comes the article, where the newspaper writer praises country A for
sending so much money while criticizing country B for its stinginess.

   A is the highest - counting only government money

Someone in B says, "Wait a minute: you can't ignore private donations.
We actually gave more than A, if you factor in non-govermental
contributions."

   B = B(T) + B(P) - counting both Treasury and Private

People use the names of countries differently, depending on the context
and on the point they're trying to make. If the TOTAL amount aid out of
a country

   B(T) + B(P)

is highest, then it's the "winner" in this contest. Unless we only count
government aid, in which case A is the winner, i.e., its GOVERNMENT is
the winner.

The point is that Canada sent troops all right, just not Government
troops. Canada (the nation as a whole) send 12,000 men - or they "went",
anyway - and they did fight on the South Vietnamese side.

Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that CANADIANS did
serve as soldiers in Vietnam. The interviewer's mistake (or deliberate
deception) was in not acknowedging that Canadians DID SERVE as soldiers
in Vietnam.

He wanted to make it all about the government, which he knew (either at
the moment, or when editing later or when discussing with his producer
how to show Coulter in a bad light) hadn't sent the men.

So we really need to use this example in an article about how the
liberal media goes out of its way to discredit "the right" while NEVER
conceding any error of its own and even DELIBERATELY deceiving the
public.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abuse of blocking powers (The Recycling Troll)

body:
Recycling Troll wrote:
> Well, the case that you're making seems to be that
> admins are never wrong, it is an afront to check their
> edits, and the important thing is to have 'friends',
> presumably, who protect you from the rules.
>
> If you don't like a peer review process, then a
> collaborative encyclopedia seems like the wrong
> project for you. However hard you try to avoid the
> point, the fact is that checking other people's edits
> is a GOOD THING, not stalking.
>
> The Recycling Troll
>

I have no idea what you are doing as I haven't looked into your editing
very carefully, but I DO know that I haven't seen an RFC filed by you on
any admins. If you have a problem with what they are doing there are two
ways of discussing it:

* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]]. I set this up last year for
discussion amongst admins about admin duties, but anyone is free to edit
here. If you have an informal complaint or question about admining
decisions, this is the place to ask.
* [[WP:RFC]]. If you have serious issues against admins, you should file
them under this article in the admin section. This will be commented on
thoroughly and if necessary something will be done about the admin. Mind
you, if you make a friviolous RFC, you'll be pretty quickly shot down. I
wouldn't advise you use this feature lightly.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that we have many
thousands of reasonable editors on Wikipedia, none of whom seem to be
having major problems that required the use of the block feature. That
you did suggests to me that you need to modify the way you edit on
Wikipedia.

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Pulling even with NYT, breaking 100

body:
geni wrote:
>>One step towards freeing up the main page would be offering admins the
>>intermediate step of move-protection.
>
>
>
> Well there certianly is a tick box for it in the protection section. I
> don't know if it works though.  If it does the sandbox is protected
> against page moves.
>

It does. I vaguely remember that someone tested this when I was on IRC,
but I've tried to forget that little incident as I got into an argument
(and lost) with a developer.

TBSDY


from_name: Arno M

subject: [WikiEN-l] This republic nonsense has got to stop.

body:
This is really gone out of control.

What seems to have very much happened that the wikien-l
has become a tool for pushing a false view about Australia
and in persecuting a long-time contributor who lost his temper
at a person who persistantly pursued that view in defiance
of all objective evidence to the contrary (eg quotes from the
Australian Constitution). Other tactics seem to include the
vexatious use of the no personal attacks rule, and general
donning and brandishing of a martyr's cloak that its user was
certainly not entitled to wear.

This is meant to be an encyclopedia, one that is frequently copied
across to other sites. Its facts need to be reliable and objective
at all times.

This principle has become dormant in this whole affair. What he went
through was disgraceful, and if Dr Carr leaves this site in protest,
I can hardly blame him.

If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be
quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.

I stand reminded of a certain user named Plautus Satire who would not stop arguing
that everything was made of plasma or that the space shuttle was shot down by
a laser, regardless of a lack of evidence to back these views. A similar insanity
occurred here.

Its time it came to an end. Its certainly wasted enough space on wikien-l.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Haws" <hawstom at sprintmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:34:04 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

>
> >> I think it's important to note that baiting users into making
> >> personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that
> >> ensue, however. -Snowspinner
> >
> > Abusers often blame the victim.  Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
> >
> >       -- Silverback
>
> In other words, baiting is most definitely not worse than abusing.
> True that both are bad, but pointing fingers merely is a tactic for
> deflecting blame.  Thou shalt not escalate.
>
> - Tom Haws
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
I agree, Rick, I agree.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:59:39 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> --- Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > --- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > ...2) what appears to be a personal attack on the
> > part of Adam Carr > is simply an example of how members of the
> > community, acting in their
> > > anarchic, unregulated way, try to protect the
> > quality of articles > after reasonable, polite efforts have failed.
> >       (..merging two posts...)
> > > If an editor is obstructing improvement of the
> > article, or is damaging the > article, we need an effective mechanism to deal
> > with that problem, directly.
> >
> > Would none of the measures in [[Wikipedia:Resolving
> > disputes]] have been
> > appropriate in this instance? For example,
> > quantifying consensus via a vote,
> > requesting sanctions against a user who flouts
> > consensus...etc.
>
> I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people are
> afraid to request sanctions against other users
> because of the perceived (and real) threat that the
> arbcom will turn it against the person bringing the
> case.
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New policy

body:
How did you go about "scutinizing" their behaviour?

TBSDY

Recycling Troll wrote:
> I imagine that the users who have blocked me for this,
> on multiple occasions think this.
> The Recycling Troll
>
> --- "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Allow me be the first to call you on this one: which
>>users think this?
>>Please point to specific comments.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>TBSDY
>>
>>Recycling Troll wrote:
>>
>>>Some users believe that we should have a new
>>
>>policy of
>>
>>>blocking users if they try to scrutinize the
>>
>>actions
>>
>>>of admins. I would encourage these people to try
>>
>>to
>>
>>>create new policy based on these ideas, rather
>>
>>than
>>
>>>blatantly abusing current rules, which do not
>>
>>support
>>
>>>this notion.
>>>The Recycling Troll


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
>
> But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that:
> * We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who
> make personal attacks.
> So once again I hereby "place myself on report".
> I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
> signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
> rules - such as:
> [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
> If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock
> Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the
> 415 admins will reverse the block.
> Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens.
> Uncle Ed

I have done it myself on a totally unreasonable editor. In this case
there should have been an RFC, I feel. Please consider the circumstances
of this case.

Incidently, I don't condone the language that Adam used.

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
Skyring wrote:

[snip]

> In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a
> pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly
> towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia
> is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from
> the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned
> republic" is appropriate.

OK, I'll admit the matter needed some further clarifying. It has been
handled admirably in the current revision... I hope this little storm in
a teacup is satisfactorally over :)

TBSDY


from_name: Stirling Newberry

body:
On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>
>> What about the vast majority of our readers who have needs that are
>> being ignored while certain individuals ride their private hobby
>> horses?
>
> Er, that is what I do already by writing about the things I find to be
> interesting. That is the hobby horse I ride. Why is this wrong?
>
> -- mav
>

The illusion of the growth phase of branded anarchy is that the people
will just roll in and nothing needs to be done, if everyone just does
what they like all will be well. This is an illusion, the very phase
that wikipedia is going through right  now requires an attention to the
next phase - where retention, and not recruitment, will drive success
of the project.

There have been hundreds of messages about small language wikipedias,
and a handful about the social structure and credibility of wikipedai.
Starting a wikipedia in (fill in the blank language) is far less
important than dealing with credibility issues, and with the
interaction problems in wikipedia, and with ideas to promote wikipedia
to the larger world.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
Tom Haws wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> Some people have lower boiling points than
>> others and can easily be provoked.
>>
> This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse.  We
> can all learn to boil slowly and gently.  The message of the policy is
> clear.  "Take responsibility for your own temper."
>
> Tom Haws

100% agreed. I don't want someone who thinks I'm a troll making a
discussion devolve into a personal attack when I argue a point
forcefully. We get nowhere when this happens.

TBSDY


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
The problem here is that we do not intervene. We accept some case which have
gone through the dispute resolution process.

If there is to be intervention it will have to be by administrators (after a
policy allowing it is established).

Fred

> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:34:45 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors
>
> User 1 should be asked to be polite after "some abuse", then requested
> to review "no personal attacks" after "Hostility".
>
> User 1 should be referred to arbcom for "Other abuse", and will make the
> committee's job easier if he offers "streams of abuse" just as they're
> beginning to look into it all.
>
> No need to slap User 2 (either on wrist or back). Arbcom should
> intervene earlier and set User 1 straight, before he tempts his victims
> to take matters into their own hands.
>
> Uncle Ed


list: foundation-l

from_name: notafish

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak

body:
> If any of you meet me
> after midnight on irc, I am fair game.

Fair game?
/me prepares her shotgun ;-)

Delphine


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: wikibreak


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Me vs. The Recycling Troll, for starters.

That does not appear to be a case that is currently in arbitration or ever was.
Please explain.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> All right then.  Me vs. Guanaco.  Me vs. Wik.

AFAIK, you were not sanctioned for anything in those cases. The closest to that
I could find was a simple reminder about policy.

Did I miss something? How has the ArbCom been persecuting you and other good
editors unfairly?

So far these allegations seem to be hot air. But if they are not, then as an
ArbCom member I need to know so this can be changed.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


from_name: debussy at cyber-rights.net

subject: Re [WikiEN-l] Abuse of blocking powers (The Recycling Troll)

body:
Hi, Recycling Troll.

Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to
you as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing
list.) The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia,
there's plenty of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places
where wikipedia steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where
Jimmy Wales and other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and
then proceed to do to them what they're starting in on doing to
you.

Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at
your expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out
a bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then
ban you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.

Also did you know that Jimmy Wales is a sick
pornograper?:http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.shtml

Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no: or nb: (yet again)

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:52:56 +0100, Kurt-Rune Bergset <kurtber at gmail.com> wrote:
> Split the main page on no.wikipeda.org like this:
>
> 50% Nynorsk  |  50% Bokm?l
> Main article nn|  Main article nb
> Search nn      |  Search no
> and so on..     | and so on...

Did you mean to write "Search nb" on the right under "50% Bokm?l"?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Australia problem - in a nutshell

body:
Steve has come up with both a cogent analysis and an effective solution:

<< Here is the problem, in a nutshell.  Sometime conflicts at Wikipedia
are
over semantics, and sometimes they are substantive.  Constructive
editors
are able to sort out which is what.  Unconstructive, obstructionist
editors
systematically confuse one source of conflict for the other.

For example, the conflict between Adam and Skyring owes to the fact that

Skyring does not understand proper English grammar and usage ("proper"
regardless of which English speaking country you live in) -- he doesn't
understand the meaning of "shall be" and "is," nor the meaning of
"paraphrase."  Skyring insists that this is a substantive problem, that
Adam is making factually false claims -- and as long as Skyring insists
that this is a conflict over meaning rather than proper grammar, he will

continue to obstruct progress on the article.

Silverback is doing the reverse.  He is suggesting that the conflict
over
"republic" is semantic, because Australians and Americans use words
differently.  He is as wrong as Skyring.  Political Scientists as well
as
your average Yankee will call both Australia and the US "democracies,"
and
both groups understand that neither is a pure democracy.  For one thing,

neither country makes decisions through the direct participation of all
citizens -- they have what is called "representative democracy."
Moreover,
modern "liberal" political theory -- meaning, theory of modern liberal
states -- also argue that democracy is and should be limited by rule of
law.  Since some notion of law (e.g. "inalienable rights" limits the
powers
of the majority, no country with rule of law can be a pure
democracy.  Silverback suggests that this is what "republic" means.  I
am
not a political scientist, nor am I very knowledgeable about Australia
(although as a kid I loved this TV show called "Skippy"), but I do not
think this is what "republic" means.  And we aren't going to resolve
this
by each of us coming up with our own definition.  Let Adam, Silverback,
and
Skyring do research into Australian constitutional law and political
theory, compare sources, and provide quotes OR paraphrases -- it really
doesn't matter which, as long as they come from verifiable sources.

My point is, that this argument isn't going to be solved by speculations

about what we think words mean -- it will be solved by people doing
research on how political scientists and politicians have used words,
and
perhaps how usage has changed over time. >>

Those who wish my assistance with this article, please contact me
(either here or on my talk page).

Uncle Ed


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: WikiIndex (idea)

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

Ronald Chmara schrieb:
> Let's take an existing article, which already has some categories:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
>
> It has a fairly small set of current indexed categories:
> Categories: 1929 births | 1945 deaths | Diarists | Dutch writers |
> Murdered writers | Holocaust | Dutch World War II people | People with
> asteroids named after them
>
> It does *not* have the following possibly relevant, hypothetical(?),
> categories attached:
> People born on June 12 | Famous Jewish People | Famous Young Authors |
> People who hid during the holocaust |  Authors whose work has been
> disputed | Authors whose work was redacted by their family | People who
> died in Bergen-Belsen | Authors whose work had been converted to theater
> | Authors whose work became opera | Authors who were born in Frankfurt
> am Main | Authors born in Germany | Famous Reform Jews | Famous
> Montessori Students | Famous Aachen residents | Events of July 8th |
> Events of October 28th | Authors who told biographical account using
> pseudonyms | People published in Het Parool | Plays by Goodrich and
> Hackett | Pulitzer Prize winning Dramas | .... (the list goes on and on)
>
> As you see, the currently existing categories can scratch the surface,
> but can also miss many connections (as currently implemented).
>
> As I understand the idea, it is about either:
> a) Much more human indexing categories being applied
> b) Automated systems so that the "what links here" kinds of information
> are added in some way to existing indexes, or categories, or utilized in
> an obvious way to display existing connections....

So, a variant of [[Category:]] would do it, like [[Index:]]?

With [[Index:Author]] and [[Index:Born in Germany]] present, a special
page could "see" the connection when asked for "(author) AND (born in
Germany)".

Or we take it a step further:
[[Index:Germany|born|died|]]
would add both "born in Germany" and "died in Germany".

The last "|" is for list sorting, as seen for [[image:]] constructs; it
should be
[[Index:Germany|born|died|Frank, Anne]]
(yes, she didn't die in Germany, just an example)

Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCMEw5CZKBJbEFcz0RAj0gAJ4rxMKfEj4dANdWcnxpG3PQoclVQwCeLIWo
V/o01aPZc534GTbTQJa8ias=
=94fX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
> From: Phil Sandifer

> I think you're misrepresenting how this goes. Let's take, say, Adam
> Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is generally how it
> goes.
>
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Polite disagreement
> User 1: Hostility at disagreement
> User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement
> User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse.
> User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise
> User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to being willing to
> compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now)
> User 3: Protection of article.
>
> Next month, on a new article...
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Wincing, disagreement.
> User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and shouldn't edit this
> article. Other abuse.
> User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss this again.
> User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to compromise, coupled with
> complete lack of compromise offered and streams of abuse.
> User 2: Requests for page to be protected.
> User 3: Protects page.
>
> Next month, on yet another article
> User 1: Forcefully stated idea
> User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed with
> User 1. User 1: Accusation of a cabal. User 2: Mild personal
> attack. User 1: Arbcoms User 2.

User 1 should be asked to be polite after "some abuse", then requested
to review "no personal attacks" after "Hostility".

User 1 should be referred to arbcom for "Other abuse", and will make the
committee's job easier if he offers "streams of abuse" just as they're
beginning to look into it all.

No need to slap User 2 (either on wrist or back). Arbcom should
intervene earlier and set User 1 straight, before he tempts his victims
to take matters into their own hands.

Uncle Ed


body:
P? 10. mar. 2005 kl. 14:11 skrev Craig Franklin:

> Scr?obh Lars Alvik
>
>> Sorry mac, but you can't ignore the fact that bokm?l is written by the
>> largest share of the norwegian population, around 90-80%. If no: could
>> be a serverside redirect to nb: but with a portal frontpage, sure i
>> would go for that, but i don't think it's technicaly possible.
>
> I disagree.  I do not have Norwegian, but I think the fact that 90% of
> the
> country speaks a particular language is irrelevant as far as what
> subdomain
> it is allowed to reside on.
>
> Let me illustrate.  Let us say that rather than seperate ga: (Irish)
> and
> gd: (Scottish Gaelic) subdomains being set up, a single subdomain had
> originally been set up, which we will call :gx.  This was meant for the
> "Gaelic" language.  There might be some justification for this, some
> dialects of Irish are somewhat interintelligble with some dialects of
> Scottish Gaelic.  Now, the ratio of Irish speakers to SG speakers is,
> according to the en.wikipedia articles, about 4:1 (260,000 vs 59,000) -
> roughly similar to the ratio of bokm?l to nynorsk speakers, from what I
> understand.
>
> Now, given the logic that you're attempting to use in the no:
> situation, we
> would simply let "gx" remain the named the "Gaelic" wikipedia, but only
> allow Irish articles there, because after all, it is the language
> spoken by
> the largest share of the Gaelic-speaking population.  This probably
> looks,
> and quite rightly so, ridiculous to those who look upon the situation
> from
> outside.  Yet, this is the "solution" that you're proposing for the no:
> wikipedia.
>
> I think the fact that most Norwegians prefer bokm?l should be
> irrelevant.
> If 99.9% of Norwegians spoke it, it's still cannot exclusively claim
> to be
> "Norwegian", and I think that it's ridiculous that it should get the
> reserved domain for that language.  Personally, I think the #1 solution
> would be:
>
> no: Portal page to :nb and :nn.  Links to article pages here redirect
> to :nb
> nb: Wikipedia bokm?l
> nn: Wikipedia nynorsk
>
> I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this.  Anyone who
> types in
> "no" can get to their preferred variety with a single click, and there
> is no
> language confusion or feelings of unfairness on either side.

Not at all, i don't really care what code it's under, on a sidenote
your sugestion is identical to what i suggested earlyer (but didn't
belive it was technicaly possible)... But i suspect mr. Lundes agenda
is to deny bokm?l the use of no: even as a redirect. I don't know if a
portal page that's seperated from the rest would work. A way to move
around this is to give nb: a "interlingual" mainpage, with links to nn:
and nn:s featured.

The problem here with the .no code is that it's also the domainname for
norway (www.dagbladet.no) being an example. And www.wikipedia.no
redirects to no.wikipedia.org.  The debate is also comparable to the
old debate about www.wikipedia.org redirecting to en:.

Mvh. Lars Alvik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> ------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>> Sorry... I'm totally confused. We have a constitution, we elect our
>>  government (the populace elects them), in fact we MUST elect our
>> government as this is compulsory and we have equality before the
>> law and due process under the rule of law! So in what way are we
>> *not* a democracy?
>>
>> Is there some weird American definition of democracy I'm not aware
>> of? May I suggest looking at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_versus_.22republic.22
>>  and if necessary update it?
>
>
> Sorry, I was under the impression that you did not consider
> Austrailia a republic, and that republic meant "democracy" in
> Austrailian english.  It was the discussions on [[Austrailia]] and
> the far more substantial article on [[republicanism]] that gave me
> this impression.  The short blurb you point to on in the Democracy
> article, says the head of state must be elected.  This appears at
> odds with the republicanism article which states only that he must
> serve a limited term, but also talks about many other issues,
> including the sovereignty lying with the people.
>
> Now I have heard people argue that a representative democracy is not
> a democracy, but I don't take that position.
>
> -- Silverback

Ummm... no. Don't know about the talk page of [[Australia]], but most
Australians realise that a republic is a democracy, but other forms of
govt like, for instance, constitutional monarchies, can also be
democracies. After all, we do live in one!

AFAICS, the person who argued that point on [[Talk:Australia]] (now in
the archives) was talking up a VERY odd viewpoint. This is NOT how
Australians view republics! It seems to me that this person was a person
who spent quite a bit of time around academics who like to argue strange
positions. As Skylaw shows us, sometimes academics argue against general
opinion, as
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=927
shows:

"This changed when Prime Minister Paul Keating's policy for the 1996
general election included a proposal to conduct an indicative plebiscite
on the question of whether Australia should have an Australian head of
state, obviously intending thereby to enquire whether Australians wished
to abolish their links with the monarchy and become a republic. The
question was based on the premise that our present head of state is the
Queen, who is British. Thereupon, several monarchists, led by Sir David
Smith, developed the argument that Australia did not need a republic to
achieve an Australian head of state; it already had one - the
governor-general. Initially, Sir David argued that "we have two heads of
state - a symbolic head of state in the Sovereign, and a constitutional
head of state in the Governor-General". But, as the republic debate
intensified, the Queen's role was increasingly diminished until she was
virtually invisible. (Even Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
became the "no republic" group, as reflected in the address of their
website.) Now the Queen has been relegated to being merely "the
sovereign". Monarchists - especially Sir David Smith and David Flint -
have pursued this argument unceasingly since 1996, refusing to
acknowledge any doubt on the subject.

"Since republicans wish to abolish Australia's constitutional links with
the monarchy, whether or not the monarch is "head of state", debate over
the identity of Australia's head of state is an arid and ultimately
irrelevant battle over nomenclature. However, since it forms part of the
nationally important republican debate, it is appropriate to enquire as
to who actually is our head of state, an issue on which the Constitution
is silent."

As you can see, academics can argue interesting and novel viewpoints to
try to force a point through to win a larger argument.

Incidently, I note that the person arguing that we are a republic never
signed their comments (it's now in an archive). Many MANY people
disagreed with them, and told them he/she was wrong.

TBSDY


from_name: Kardos András

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: WikiIndex (idea)

body:
> Let's take an existing article, which already has some categories:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
>
> It has a fairly small set of current indexed categories:
> Categories: 1929 births | 1945 deaths | Diarists | Dutch writers |
> Murdered writers | Holocaust | Dutch World War II people | People with
> asteroids named after them

The Anne Frank article also shows the limitations of the Category feature. Do we
need 200 categories just for born in, died in XXXX? Instead the "people" index
would contain name:Anne Frank, born:1929/06/12, died:1945, nationality:german...
And the "events" index would contain memorable moments of her life. With a more
database like aproach - a table with fields. Searchable. And then you could also
open the original pages you found, if you want to know more.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
Sorry to play Devil's advocate here, but how can you tell that someone
is doing this when they can appeal to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]?

TBSDY

Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal
> attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 7:47 PM,
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
>> Tom Haws wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some people have lower boiling points than
>>>> others and can easily be provoked.
>>>>
>>> This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse.
>>> We can all learn to boil slowly and gently.  The message of the
>>> policy is clear.  "Take responsibility for your own temper."
>>> Tom Haws
>>
>>
>> 100% agreed. I don't want someone who thinks I'm a troll making a
>> discussion devolve into a personal attack when I argue a point
>> forcefully. We get nowhere when this happens.
>>
>> TBSDY


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [Fwd: Kennisnet will underwrite/pay for the
	creation of Wikidata and the Ultimate wiktionary]

body:
Angela wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
>
> Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical
> solution to some of the problems on existing projects.

So did anybody ever actually specify what Wikidata is and what its
requirements are? What exactly was pitched to Kennisnet that they're
offering to pay for?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050310/86b76891/attachment.pgp>


body:
Angela wrote:
> The basic requirements are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata
> with mock ups and implementation strategies. A more detailed proposal
> is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary#Milestones
>
> The features pitched to Kennisnet include those at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_ultimate_Wiktionary

Spiffy, thanks for the links!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050310/bab35212/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: What's in a (country's) name?

body:
Oops, I meant

"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served
as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."

(Gosh, this linguistic analysis is tricky. How come they're so good at
tricking us and we're so lousy at seeing through the tricks?)

ed


from_name: Cool Hand Luke

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:28:28 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people are
> > afraid to request sanctions against other users
> > because of the perceived (and real) threat that the
> > arbcom will turn it against the person bringing the
> > case.
>
> Name a case where that happened.
>
> -- mav
>

Even in cases where the petitioner is ultimately cleared, arbitration
requires an arduous defense. For people that would rather, say, work
on wikipedia, arbitration is a hassle. No sane individual would want
to draw fire from a troll who wants nothing more than to launch
spurious attacks.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>>I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal
>>attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
>>
>>-Snowspinner
>
>
> Abusers often blame the victim.  Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
>
>        -- Silverback

Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are
trying to make.

TBSDY


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Fwd: Kennisnet will underwrite/pay for the creation
 of Wikidata and the Ultimate wiktionary]

body:
Hoi,

I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to underwrite/pay
for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate wiktionary. This will
allow us to host relational data within a Mediawiki environment.
Wikidata will particularly enhance projects like Wikispecies and
Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is relational in nature. The
details of this project can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary

Thanks, :)
   GerardM


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [Fwd: Kennisnet will underwrite/pay for the creation
 of Wikidata and the Ultimate wiktionary]


subject:
[Wikitech-l] [Fwd: Kennisnet will underwrite/pay for the creation
 of Wikidata and the Ultimate wiktionary]


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] [Fwd: Kennisnet will underwrite/pay for the creation
 of Wikidata and the Ultimate wiktionary]


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: POV featured articles?

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> I noticed that an article I considered POV just became a featured article:
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Soviet_Union
>
> I've marked it NPOV, and have made several improvements, including a couple I made before it achieved featured article status.
>
> How do articles become featured articles?  I've read Wikipedia:Featured articles,
> and it talks about standards but not how the actual decision about the status is
> made.  I looked at the nomination page, and there were only 5 supporting votes,
> and zero opposing votes, before mine which I have just added after the fact.
>
> I am not criticising those reviewers, they may not be sensitive to some of the
> selection biases that can occur within articles or may have been unfamiliar
> with the subject.
>
> I am however surprised that an article can become featured without far wider
> review that hopefully would catch incompleteness or biases such as this.  I had
> seen contributions to featured articles cited as feathers in ones cap, so I thought
> the review must have been high.  Is there a minimum number of supporting
> votes that are required?
>                 -- Silverback

May I suggest you put it on [[WP:FARC]] and then put it on [[WP:PR]].

However, the method that is used is that the article is submitted to
[[WP:FAC]], who object or support the nomination. They cannot object
with an non-actionable objection like the "topic is too obscure",
because noone can actually do anything about such an objectionable. You
might also want to see [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]].

TBSDY


from_name: Troels Arvin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Status 200 on some error messages

body:
Hello,

I just got a page like this:
http://troels.arvin.dk/misc/wikipedia/200error/
copied from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Java_to_C_Plus_Plus&curid=42922&action=history

The HTTP response status code for that page was 200 (OK), according to my
LiveHTTPHeaders Firefox-extension.

I suggest that such error pages be delivered with a 500 (internal
error) response code. The problem with delivering error-pages using
status 200, is that it may be cached by proxies and picked up by search
engine bots.

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

body:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Oops, I meant
>
> "Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served
> as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."

However, Coulter's claim was offered in the context of an assertion that
the nation of Canada was once a supportive ally of the United States but
no longer is.  International alliances are relationships between or
among states, that is, governments.  In this context, the claim only
really makes sense as an assertion about government actions, since the
actions of private individuals cannot constitute (or break) an alliance.
Moreover, this context also associates the presence of Canadians in the
Vietnam conflict with ideological support by the Canadian government for
the United States government's position in that conflict.

I agree, by the way, with the interpretation that she likely made this
claim from memory (remembering that some Canadians fought in Vietnam),
without intent to deliberately deceive, but without checking the facts.
It appears further that when exposed to the facts she expressed disdain
for those who considered the distinction worth making.  For the morality
of making rhetoric in this fashion -- which is hardly unique to Ms.
Coulter -- I suggest reference to the recent work of Prof. Harry
Frankfurt of Princeton University.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: Kurt-Rune Bergset

body:
Split the main page on no.wikipeda.org like this:

50% Nynorsk  |  50% Bokm?l
Main article nn|  Main article nb
Search nn      |  Search no
and so on..     | and so on...

This way no.wikipedia.org will become a portal for both Norwegian languages.

In a short while experienced users will go directly to the domain they
prefer (nb or nn), while new users will get a logic choice, since
there are two different wikipedias - both in  their own norwegian (no)
language.

I assume I'm not the first person to suggest this, but as far as
technology does not hinder this solution it seems to be the most
democratic way to use the no.wikipedia.org-portal, since the language
code "no" generally means "Norwegian-in-general".

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:35:29 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
> P? 10. mar. 2005 kl. 14:11 skrev Craig Franklin:
>
> > Scr?obh Lars Alvik
> >
> >> Sorry mac, but you can't ignore the fact that bokm?l is written by the
> >> largest share of the norwegian population, around 90-80%. If no: could
> >> be a serverside redirect to nb: but with a portal frontpage, sure i
> >> would go for that, but i don't think it's technicaly possible.
> >
> > I disagree.  I do not have Norwegian, but I think the fact that 90% of
> > the
> > country speaks a particular language is irrelevant as far as what
> > subdomain
> > it is allowed to reside on.
> >
> > Let me illustrate.  Let us say that rather than seperate ga: (Irish)
> > and
> > gd: (Scottish Gaelic) subdomains being set up, a single subdomain had
> > originally been set up, which we will call :gx.  This was meant for the
> > "Gaelic" language.  There might be some justification for this, some
> > dialects of Irish are somewhat interintelligble with some dialects of
> > Scottish Gaelic.  Now, the ratio of Irish speakers to SG speakers is,
> > according to the en.wikipedia articles, about 4:1 (260,000 vs 59,000) -
> > roughly similar to the ratio of bokm?l to nynorsk speakers, from what I
> > understand.
> >
> > Now, given the logic that you're attempting to use in the no:
> > situation, we
> > would simply let "gx" remain the named the "Gaelic" wikipedia, but only
> > allow Irish articles there, because after all, it is the language
> > spoken by
> > the largest share of the Gaelic-speaking population.  This probably
> > looks,
> > and quite rightly so, ridiculous to those who look upon the situation
> > from
> > outside.  Yet, this is the "solution" that you're proposing for the no:
> > wikipedia.
> >
> > I think the fact that most Norwegians prefer bokm?l should be
> > irrelevant.
> > If 99.9% of Norwegians spoke it, it's still cannot exclusively claim
> > to be
> > "Norwegian", and I think that it's ridiculous that it should get the
> > reserved domain for that language.  Personally, I think the #1 solution
> > would be:
> >
> > no: Portal page to :nb and :nn.  Links to article pages here redirect
> > to :nb
> > nb: Wikipedia bokm?l
> > nn: Wikipedia nynorsk
> >
> > I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this.  Anyone who
> > types in
> > "no" can get to their preferred variety with a single click, and there
> > is no
> > language confusion or feelings of unfairness on either side.
>
> Not at all, i don't really care what code it's under, on a sidenote
> your sugestion is identical to what i suggested earlyer (but didn't
> belive it was technicaly possible)... But i suspect mr. Lundes agenda
> is to deny bokm?l the use of no: even as a redirect. I don't know if a
> portal page that's seperated from the rest would work. A way to move
> around this is to give nb: a "interlingual" mainpage, with links to nn:
> and nn:s featured.
>
> The problem here with the .no code is that it's also the domainname for
> norway (www.dagbladet.no) being an example. And www.wikipedia.no
> redirects to no.wikipedia.org.  The debate is also comparable to the
> old debate about www.wikipedia.org redirecting to en:.
>
> Mvh. Lars Alvik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Kurt-Rune Bergset wrote:

> Split the main page on no.wikipeda.org like this:
>
> 50% Nynorsk  |  50% Bokm?l
> Main article nn|  Main article nb
> Search nn      |  Search no
> and so on..     | and so on...
>
> This way no.wikipedia.org will become a portal for both Norwegian languages.

I think this is an excellent suggestion. This is also where www.wikipedia.no
should point.

--
Daniel Mikkelsen
Copyleft Software AS


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Silverback wrote:

>But it is an abstraction in another sense.  The Americans have an
>ideological tradition starting with some of the founders and kept alive by
>conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals, which made a specific
>point that the US was not a democracy, but a republic.  By republic they
>meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be overridden by
>the majority.

This is not true (which proves my point about the problem with people who
do not do research).  According to the Federalist 10 (penned by James
Madison, a major contributor to our (yankees) Constitution and fourth
president --
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the
cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies
from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure
and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are:
first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number
of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens,
and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
They use "republic" to refer to a representative government.  Note -- this
is (for them) a necessary but not sufficient definition of
"republic."  They are comparing "republic" to "democracy" and thus
emphasize the difference.  What they have in common, of course, is no monarch.

Be that as it may, Americans today use these words differently, as do
political scientists and political theorist (although no political theorist
to my knowledge defines "republic" as democracy+law.  They call
democracy+law "liberal state" or "liberal democracy" (tho' I admit I am not
a political scientist, if there is one out there, perhaps she can confirm
or correct me)

He also says

>   A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to
> clearer explanations and understandings on their parts.

And I would again insist that the third party will not be able to suggest
alternatives unless s/he has done research.

You don't have to be an academic to do good research.  But you just can't
write an encyclopedia without doing research.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Me vs. The Recycling Troll, for starters.
>
> That does not appear to be a case that is currently
> in arbitration or ever was.
> Please explain.
>
> -- mav

Exactly.  As I said, I did not bring the case because
of the fear of retribution against me by the arbcom,
as has happened in the past.

RickK

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Chad Perrin

body:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>>Oops, I meant
>>
>>"Coulter's mistake was in not knowing (or saying) that Canadians served
>>as soldiers in Vietnam but WERE NOT sent by its GOVERMENT."
>
>
> However, Coulter's claim was offered in the context of an assertion that
> the nation of Canada was once a supportive ally of the United States but
> no longer is.  International alliances are relationships between or
> among states, that is, governments.  In this context, the claim only
> really makes sense as an assertion about government actions, since the
> actions of private individuals cannot constitute (or break) an alliance.
> Moreover, this context also associates the presence of Canadians in the
> Vietnam conflict with ideological support by the Canadian government for
> the United States government's position in that conflict.

While I think it's likely that Coulter just made a mistake regarding the
extent of the Canadian government, drawing from memory and hitting just
off-center with her facts, I don't think there's enough hard evidence to
make any final declarations about the matter.  It could very well have
been merely a poor choice of phrasing because of the colloquial
understanding her words conveyed.  You're trying to attach an "official
Canadian action" sense to her words and, while she may well have meant
that, she also may not have.  There's no particular reason to assume she
wasn't referring to a general, public support for the US, rather than a
specific state of official relations between governments.  In fact,
considering that she was talking about matters of goodwill (instead of /
in addition to) military policy, one might argue that the "public
goodwill" argument holds more water.

This factual error, misrepresentation, mistake, lie, or whatever else it
might be, is in no way a cut-and-dried case of Coulter being in the
right, the wrong, or the sideways.  Look for reasons to assume good
faith on her part and, if you don't find any reasonable options, THEN
declare otherwise.  Relying on the word of people like Moore, who has
made documented, unavoidably deceptive statements on many occasions,
hardly constitutes proper critical analysis of the situation.

That aside, I don't see any reason to do other than simply include all
relevant perspectives on the debate in the article.  Any actual analysis
of the matter should not be the core of the article's text.

--
Chad
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no: or nb: (again)

body:
Again, we're talking about Minority vs Majority.

There are a greater number of visitors to Wikipedia in English than to
any other Wikipedia, but that doesn't justify eliminating the portal
we currently have set up.

Nynorsk may not have as many users, but the issue is so strong that it
may even offend Nynorsk-using readers to the point of not using
Wikipedia anymore if we use the setup of no: mainpage and such using
Bokm?l because it's the "majority" variety.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:57:05 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> Sorry mac, but you can't ignore the fact that bokm?l is written by the
> largest share of the norwegian population, around 90-80%. If no: could
> be a serverside redirect to nb: but with a portal frontpage, sure i
> would go for that, but i don't think it's technicaly possible.
>
> And i don't see the point in involving a english mailinglist, that
> probably don't care about the situation. Hell even i'm getting tired of
> it.
>
> On the other hand one of the admins at no: had a good idea that could
> probably heal some of the unfairness felt by nynorskusers. To use the
> main page on "no" as a multilingual focal point, with the nynorsk
> featured article of the week, and the bokm?l one, side by side.
>
> Another impotant note, we shuldn't dream up different technical
> solutions that is probably not viable. Sure, it would be great if all
> text on the internett appared in your own language (like an oversized
> babelfish translating everything) but in our present time this isn't
> possible
>
> With no: being the de facto bokm?l wiki, there has been a wish among
> the no: users to formalize this.
>
> As for an third norwegian wiki (nb) this would only serve to divert
> ressurces and manpower.
>
> I have no oppresion agenda against nynorsk, my goal for wikipedia is
> only to create a NPOV wiki in the language i know, and that being the
> language closest to my oral language, bokm?l. I agree, even if nynorsk
> isn't my language it's no less norwegian than bokm?l. But on the other
> hand, i think we should represent the majority of the norwegian people
> on no: and the majority use bokm?l as their language. The only other
> solution would be to move no: to nb: and create a serverside redirect
> (this is accualy technicaly possible).
>
> mvh. Lars Alvik (who is growing tried of being represented as a
> ignorant fool and a "j?vela austlending")
>
> P? 10. mar. 2005 kl. 11:28 skrev Ulf Lunde:
>
> > Here we go again!  :-)
> >
> > There are several issues here.
> >
> >
> > One is the question of *discrimination or equality between the
> > variants*
> > of the Norwegian language.  This has been pointed out by Mark
> > Williamson earlier in this thread, but seems to be largely overlooked.
> >
> > On Fri Mar 4 01:30:40 UTC 2005, Lars Alvik said:
> >
> >> forexample the www.google.no is on bokm?l, you have to
> >> click an extra link to get to the nynorsk version. This is more or
> >> less
> >> what i think no: should be, on bokm?l but with a well placed link to
> >> nynorsk.
> >
> > The above remark by Lars Alvik is discriminating and offensive
> > towards nynorsk users.  Why should it be like that and not
> > the other way around?   Is bokm?l a superior language?
> >
> > To better explain the offensiveness of such statements of
> > superiority, I risk a provocative analogy. To say:
> >   Bokm?l is the default Norwegian language, so
> >   asking for "Norwegian" should give you bokm?l,
> >   but we can put a link to nynorsk there;
> > is tantamount to saying something like:
> >   *Men* are the default human beings, so looking up
> >   "human being" should redirect you to "man", but
> >   we can have a well placed link to "woman" on that page!
> >
> > (The Sami languages are a different kind of problem, because
> > although they are official languages in some regions of Norway,
> > the Sami languages do not call themselves "Norwegian", and so
> > probably do not want to claim the name "Norwegian Wikipedia".)
> >
> > Incidentally, Lars Alvik's description of the Google interface is not
> > true.
> > The address www.google.no will give you whichever Norwegian variant
> > you selected on your previous visit.  This is a good model for how the
> > address no.wikipedia.org can be made to work, too!
> >
> >
> > A second issue is *which names the inter-wiki links should show*.
> >
> > To Olve Utne this is a major issue, while who gets to use the
> > language code "no" is a minor issue.
> > I see it differently.
> > In the name of fairness, a wiki which excludes one of the two
> > official forms of Norwegian, should not be given *exclusive* rights
> > to the language code for Norwegian.  To display the inter-wiki link
> > "no" as "norsk (bokm?l)" is simply incorrect.
> >
> > To me, it is as simple as this:
> >  "no" is "norsk"
> >  "nb" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
> >  "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
> > This is how the links are displayed in Wikipedia today, and it
> > looks good to me.
> >
> > Olve proposes that we change it to be like this:
> >  "no" is "norsk (bokm?l)"
> >  "nb" is also "norsk (bokm?l)"
> >  "nn" is "norsk (nynorsk)"
> > I don't see any reason to make such a change.  In fact, the
> > case of equality vs. discrimination is a strong argument *against*
> > such a change.
> >
> >
> > A third issue is whether or not to *exclude nynorsk Norwegian*
> > from the current Norwegian Wikipedia at no.wikipedia.org.
> >
> > That Wikipedia has so far been a mixed Norwegian Wikipedia,
> > with a user interface in bokm?l, but allowing articles in any
> > written form of the language.  Last year a separate nynorsk
> > Norwegian Wikipedia appeared at nn.wikipedia.org, so now
> > there are two completely separate wikipedias which allow
> > articles written in nynorsk Norwegian.  Since nynorsk now
> > has its own "home", several people have proposed to disallow
> > it in the hitherto "Norwegian" Wikipedia, effectively changing
> > the older Wikipedia into a pure bokm?l encyclopedia.
> >
> > A vote is going on about this right now in
> > http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:M%C3%A5lform
> > If that vote decides to turn that Wikipedia database into an
> > exclusively bokm?l encyclopedia, I say that from that moment on
> > it loses its exclusive right to the language code "no", and all
> > links to it should thenceforth use the code "nb".
> >
> > If the vote decides to keep the mixture of written forms, that
> > wikipedia shall of course stay at no.wikipedia.org.  I have tried
> > to create a separate, pure bokm?l wikipedia at nb.wikipedia.org
> > to achieve symmetry with the nynorsk one at nn.wikipedia.org,
> > but so far there has been little support for such an addition.
> >
> >
> > There are also other issues, related to *non-official written forms*
> > of Norwegian, but I won't go into those here, as I feel those can
> > wait until the main issues have been resolved once and for all.
> >
> > Ulf Lunde
> > (user and appreciator of both Norwegian written forms
> > and of both Norwegian wikipedias)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + smaller
	languagewikipedias in general

body:
No, *you* are wrong.

It's still proposed policy.

I (or anybody else) can go to a developer and request the creation of
a new Wikipedia, and it's entirely up to the developer. 5 supporters
is ultimately a Good Thing, and will go a long way towards convincing
the developer that they won't get flak for creating the new Wikipedia,
but it's just not a requirement and I hope it never is. See "Proposed
policy for Wikis in new languages" or whatever the page title is on
meta: for arguments for and against the proposed policy, and
ultimately the emphasis that it is still a PROPOSED policy.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:26:57 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
>
> > Message as sent by Slavik:
> >
> >> From: "V. Ivanov" <amikeco at gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: "V. Ivanov" <amikeco at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >> To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + smaller
> >> languagewikipedias in general
> >> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:18:35 +0300
> >>
> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:09:25 +0100, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Most of these Wikipedias were requested by people who had the notion
> >> > > "I have heard of this language. There is no Wikipedia in it. It
> >> should
> >> > > be created." but were never followed up after their creation.
> >> >
> >> > That's perfectly right. And that's why I think that some native
> >> speakers should
> >> > express their interest in starting their edition of wikipedia
> >> before we do anything.
> >>
> >> What are you talking about? Wikipedia has now exactly that mechanism
> >> for starting new Wikipedias: 5 speakers of language must express their
> >> interest, then the application is discussed in this list during a
> >> month or more -- and only after that test the new language appears.
> >>
> >> Slavik
> >>
> >> --
> >> Esperu cxiam!
> >
> >
> > AFAIK, this is just the *proposed* policy for new wikipedias, not the
> > current one.
> >
> > Wouter
> >
> You are wrong. Slavik described the current policy for new projects.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
>> There have been hundreds of messages about small language wikipedias,
>> and a handful about the social structure and credibility of
>> wikipedai. Starting a wikipedia in (fill in the blank language) is
>> far less important than dealing with credibility issues, and with the
>> interaction problems in wikipedia, and with ideas to promote
>> wikipedia to the larger world.
>
>
> Perhaps when we can deal with our *current* status as a Top 200
> website,
> with peaks yesterday at No. 71. For a site popular purely through word
> of mouth, I think we're having problems coping with the amount of
> credibility we already have.
>
>
> - d.
>

More than you are aware of, in that so far wikipedia has only had to
deal with "natural" challenges of software, social organization and
server load factor. Wait until you start having to deal with the
problems of organized attempts to extract value from wikipedia, it will
generate server loads and social problems which are, if the experience
of e-tailers like EBay and Amazon are any indication two to four orders
of magnitude above current peak loads. And I am not kidding.

More over, the current size is based on link equity, not merely "word
of mouth". That link equity is something that people pay money for, and
therefore exploiting wikipedia's link equity is already happening, and
doing so on a systematic basis is a matter of time.

As well, the problems of retention and wider recruitment need to be
dealt with now, otherwise by the time people realize there is a problem
it will be too late.


body:
Again, Stirling, I am going to tell you: quit whinging about the
lopsidedness of the discussion and f'ing fix it yourself. If you think
we need to talk about something, post a message about it. Nobody's
holding you back. We talk about things that are at least a little bit
relevant to Wikipedia as a whole on this ml, and we have been doing
exactly that. We are not restricted to talking about "major" issues.

But if you feel we should talk more about these issues, YOU are
welcome to start discussions on these issues. Go ahead. Nobody's
stopping you.

Now, please quit whinging about this and either post the messages you
think we need, or go and pout.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:20:09 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > Stirling Newberry wrote:
> >
> >> There have been hundreds of messages about small language wikipedias,
> >> and a handful about the social structure and credibility of
> >> wikipedai. Starting a wikipedia in (fill in the blank language) is
> >> far less important than dealing with credibility issues, and with the
> >> interaction problems in wikipedia, and with ideas to promote
> >> wikipedia to the larger world.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps when we can deal with our *current* status as a Top 200
> > website,
> > with peaks yesterday at No. 71. For a site popular purely through word
> > of mouth, I think we're having problems coping with the amount of
> > credibility we already have.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
>
> More than you are aware of, in that so far wikipedia has only had to
> deal with "natural" challenges of software, social organization and
> server load factor. Wait until you start having to deal with the
> problems of organized attempts to extract value from wikipedia, it will
> generate server loads and social problems which are, if the experience
> of e-tailers like EBay and Amazon are any indication two to four orders
> of magnitude above current peak loads. And I am not kidding.
>
> More over, the current size is based on link equity, not merely "word
> of mouth". That link equity is something that people pay money for, and
> therefore exploiting wikipedia's link equity is already happening, and
> doing so on a systematic basis is a matter of time.
>
> As well, the problems of retention and wider recruitment need to be
> dealt with now, otherwise by the time people realize there is a problem
> it will be too late.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Me vs. The Recycling Troll, for starters.
> >
> > That does not appear to be a case that is currently
> > in arbitration or ever was.
> > Please explain.
> >
> > -- mav
>
> Exactly.  As I said, I did not bring the case because
> of the fear of retribution against me by the arbcom,
> as has happened in the past.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that is has happened and yet continue to
state it as if it were fact.

Please either stop or demonstrate the truthfulness of the statement.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/