body:
Indeed, I couldn'tve put it better myself.

Also, please keep in mind that whatever the outcome, Cantonese
speakers don't number in the hundreds or thousands or hundreds of
thousands, but rather there are something like over 30 million of
them. (Personally, I don't think this means the language should be
treated any differently, but some others do.)

Mark

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:08:53 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Jiaqing Bao wrote:
>
> > I believe there has to be some principles in minor language
> > Wikipedias. Setting up an encyclopedia is not just about self
> > expression, it has to serve public good. Moreover, proposals and
> > actual performances have to stand some very basic prima facie scrutiny.
> >
> > If a language has 1000 speakers. Only 100 can read (most of them use
> > another mainstream language). And only 10 of them can write (the
> > writing system could be difficult, e.g. Egyptian hieroglyph). And only
> > 5 of them sre active contributors. The five of them would become the
> > de facto knowledge controllers.
>
> In that case having a wikipedia in that living language becomes more
> important.  Egyptian relates to a dead language which is probably not in
> trouble.  The writing systems are not an issue.  Many of these languages
> were pre-literate, and the writing that they adopted was based on that
> of a more dominant language, or was imposed on them by visiting priests
> and anthropologists.
>
> > If each user of that language uses a mainstream language Wikipedia, it
> > will be good. However, to those who consult that minor Wikipedia, he
> > or she could be mislead by inaccurate information (e.g. bias, mistake,
> > outdated materials ...). Because that minor Wikipedia is written most
> > by a handful of people (possibly friends of similar backgrounds), it
> > becomes much more unlikely that a mistake could be corrected.
>
> An isolated language like Kutenai with only 222 speakers world-wide
> would likely benefit from having a Wikipedia.  We need to avoid the urge
> to become cultural imperialists.
>
> > Even if that user knows there's a mistake, he or she may not be able
> > to correct it. Many minor languages users are not fluent speakers.
> > Some may not know how to type that particular script.
> >
> > And the limited active contributors also may have a very restricted
> > knowledge base. The five of them may not know much about astronomy for
> > example. They may translate. They could make mistakes. They could also
> > selectively translate less important parts of an article because they
> > may not know much about the mathematics, physics, chemistry, history
> > ... about that subject. Unless they can ask others to join, their
> > works may not be trusted.
>
> Minor language Wikipedias should not feel the need to do everything.
> Developing articles that are of cultural importance to the speakers
> would be the most important task.  An important part of First Nations'
> claims to aboriginal rights have been based on the unwritten record of
> their history that has been passed on by word of mouth.
>
> > In case the user knows how to double check, it may not be a problem.
> > However, if a user still has to consult a mainstream language source,
> > it makes that minor Wikipedia less relevant. And if the user cannot
> > read another language and failed to find another minor language
> > source, the bug-ridden Wikipedia could do more harm than good. An
> > encyclopedia has to serve a public good to justify its existence.
>
> Verification is much less important in cases where cultural preservation
> is at issue.  There will be inaccurate information provided, but it is
> up to the members of that culture to p[olice themselves.
>
> > It is a bad idea to setup encyclopedias in so many languages. I don't
> > mind if anyone wants to start a Wiki in Pig Latin or Nadsat. You can
> > easily auto translate English into these two artificial languages. But
> > for many minor languages, it may be not feasible. The few articles
> > could be untrustworthy. Wikipedia is not a language conservation
> > project. The reason why people trust English Wikipedia is because of
> > the number of contributors and fact checkers. We don't want this site
> > to become the largest source of rumor.
>
> I'm not familiar with Nadsat, but I would oppose a Pig Latin Wiki.
> Artificial or constructed languages are a different issue than minor
> languages.
>
> > Besides the number of active regular contributors, they may need
> > sources of reference materials and public domain sources. In English,
> > you have the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, Project Gutenberg, CIA Fact
> > Book and many other online materials. It is easy to build many pages
> > without much efforts and mistakes in most major languages. They have
> > so many printed reference materials. To many minor languages, they
> > have very few books other than a language textbook, the Bible or an
> > out-of-print dictionary. It is really not a very good idea that they
> > start an encyclopedia project at this moment.
>
> Quite the contrary.  These scanty resouces need to be treasured and
> preserved.  I am a non-believer but I think that the Bible translators
> did a tremendous service for many of these languages, even if it was for
> the wrong reasons.
>
> All that being said, a wiki in any of these minor languages still needs
> someone who understands the language to start it, manage it and do the
> work.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Seperate list to discuss issues related to languages

body:
Gerard, this list actually existed previously.

Assuming people like Jimbo, Anthere, and Angela would be subscribed to
it, I don't see why important issues couldn't be discussed on it.

People who are interested in contributing to a consensus are welcome
to join, obviously. If they don't, that's their choice, as is the case
with any consensus reached at Wikipedia.

So if there is a consensus on intlwiki-l and it isn't opposed by the
board, I don't see what's wrong with it having effect on real issues
(ie, splitting Wikis, merging Wikis, script conversion, new language
Wikis, problems arising in interlanguage situations).

If you are concerned that you won't be a part of this consensus, then
you are welcome to join this list (if it is in fact created).

The purpose of this isn't to create some place where everybody will
agree with me (on the contrary, there are quite a few people who would
definitely be interested in the list that probably wouldn't agree with
my opinion a lot of the time), but rather to solve the problem of
people getting e-mails that they don't want.

Mark

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:18:27 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Mark,
> On the one hand I favour the idea of a seperate mailing list about
> languages and all the huha that goes with it. It would mean that some
> people could talk to each other endlessly. FINE.
>
> However, however much is discussed there, what does it amount to except
> for things having been discussed on this list. What do you expect that a
> "consensus" reached on this list means outside of this list ?? The
> wikipedia-l is about issues that transcend the concerns of any
> particular wikipedia project and therefore things NOT discussed on this
> mailinglist and/or on META do not have enough exposure to amount to
> something that signify a relevant and adequate consensus.
>
> So, have this list if you must but do consider its worth.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: nas ral

subject: [WikiEN-l] block/unblock hello

body:
my original block:

17:34, 22 Dec 2004, Mirv blocked Nasrallah (expires 17:34, 24 Dec 2004)

now:

17:52, 25 Dec 2004, Mirv blocked #13186 (expires 17:52, 26 Dec 2004)

thats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist

? I clicked on a red link (actually a users name without a userpage) and bang!

Please can an admin unblock me? this is cruel and unusual...

my block was for 48 hours, not 96hrs...

17:34, 22 Dec 2004 Mirv blocked Nasrallah (talk) (contributions) with
an expiry time of 48 hours - thats at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log/Final_archive

thanks


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Propose to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

body:
On Dec 25, 2004, at 5:57 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> Stirling, I have a minor question here,
>
> With this "conversion", do you mean conversion of terms between
> different dialects of Cantonese?

I believe that wikimedia should make this capability available, and
then let the communities decide how it is to be used within their own
context. It would allow editors in Cantonese to decide to edit in the
standard written Chinese wikipedia, but include Cantonese as an
enrichment, it would also allow dialectical differences within a
Cantonese wikipedia should one be established. It doesn't mandate
either solution.


from_name: Benjamin Esham

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Perhaps there needs to be a separate intlwiki-l
	again?

body:
On Dec 25, 2004, at 6:01 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> I remember earlier somebody brought up the issue of bringing back
> intlwiki-l.
>
> Currently, language discussions seem to dominate here, and I think
> that frankly there are some people here who don't want to get those
> discussions in their inbox.

I like this idea, FWIW.

--
Benjamin D. Esham       {        http://bdesham.net
bdesham at gmail.com        }       AIM: bdesham 1 2 8
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
                                   -- Ambrose Bierce


body:
On Dec 25, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> I agree that this is a good idea, and in certain cases it could be
> done automatically for all occurances of a word (that's how it works
> on zh.wikipedia right now; you can do exclusions though if you want).
>
> For example:
>
> K'?i4 pei3 sa:m1-pun3 s?1 ngo4. = Ta1 gei3 wo3 san1ben3 shu1. ("He
> gave me three books.")
>

Which could be handled by bracketing: Ta1 gei3 [[dialect: wo3 | gd: ]]
san1ben3 shu1 [[dialect: | gd: ngo4]].

Which would probably be macro'd since it is common. {{wo3}} and
{{ngo4}} would do it as a pair.


body:
On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:16 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> The problem is is that language isn't 100% predictable.
>

That's not an objection to providing the ability for people to mark
dialectical material.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks

body:
Abe Sokolov (abesokolov at hotmail.com) [041225 18:36]:

> Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not
> computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing
> scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I
> wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to
> realize what you are bringing up above.

If they aren't, they'll have friends who are. It's the same reason Digital
Rights Management and copy-protection on CDs doesn't work - if one person
breaks it, it's broken for all.

- d.


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA on VFD for the fifth time

body:
[[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]

-Snowspinner

On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM, csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:

> Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this
> abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on
> votes for deletion and that sucks.
>
> It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I
> would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be
> listed every again.
>
> If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back
> on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to
> place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put
> Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
>
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: John Lee

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [041226 00:12]:
>
>
>
>>Your suggestion was appropriate and appreciated. I suspect our more
>>technically inclined mailing list posters greatly exaggerate the ease with
>>which the average vandal (after all, their average age must be about 8)
>>could create numerous accounts. Our experience at Wikinfo since requiring
>>that they at least create an account has resulted in a number of dead
>>accounts, but still a major reduction in drop-in vandalism. (But perhaps we
>>have lost some helpful edits too).
>>
>>
>
>
>Vandals are a real problem, but the really persistent pains in the backside
>will observably go to some technical lengths to prove we can't beat 'em.
>It's a social problem that isn't susceptible to a quick technical fix.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
Indeed. The problem isn't those vandals who blank a few pages and then
leave. The problem is people like Irismeister and POV pushers/trolls.
These people have nothing better to do than waste their own and others'
time persistently.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Charles Fulton

body:
Well, as a member of the Peerage Cabal (or "Team Peerage") I'm hardly
a deletionist, but I voted for its deletion. I do this because the
behavior of the GNAA sickens me, particularly the manner in which they
harrassed those who favored deletion the last time.

When I was a moderator at Slashdot (and I suppose I still accure mod
points now and then), the GNAA comprised the sorts who thought it was
the height of hilarity to make nonsense racist posts (e.g. YOU LOSE
FAGGORT) or showcase their latest efforts at obscense ASCII art. They
were notable only--ONLY--if you read at a 0 or -1 threshold. They are
notable on Wikipedia only because of their repeated trollings,
particularly on VfD. Is ass-hattery notable, in and of itself? If it
is, then we should set up an article about Willy on Wheels, because
he's been a far greater thorn in our side then the sainted members of
the GNAA (don't take that wrong SPUI, I admire your contributions to
railroading articles).

The GNAA is a passing, and adolescent, phenomena. They deserve mention
in the Slashdot trolling phenomena article, which I believe still
exists, but not in their own article. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make
a point, right? Do we reward them with their own article for a
flagrant violation of policy?  The situation is similar to Sollog,
except that Sollog is the real deal.  He has money and influence.
He's been arrested by the Secret Service.  If the GNAA could actually
get themselves into real trouble, I might be impressed.

-Charles Fulton (aka Mackensen)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
<csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
> Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse
> of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for
> deletion and that sucks.
>
> It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would
> like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed
> every again.
>
> If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on
> VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place
> GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove
> movement on there till we get rid of it.
>
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
<csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
> It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would
> like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed
> every again.

I'm a self-professed deletionist, and I voted to keep the article. We
"deletionists" aren't a bloc, as is true for almost all groups. There
isn't some shadowy order of deletionists out to slash and burn
Wikipedia.

--Slowking Man


from_name: John Collison

body:
On 25 Dec 2004, at 23:01, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> I remember earlier somebody brought up the issue of bringing back
> intlwiki-l.
>
> Currently, language discussions seem to dominate here, and I think
> that frankly there are some people here who don't want to get those
> discussions in their inbox.
>
Yes, yes, yes. Please. Separation would be brilliant. I read the
mailing list with interest, but often skip through the language
discussions. Intlwiki-l would be _very_ handy.

John (Ludraman)


body:
You are saying that we will be able to mark linguistic patterns. I
also gave other objections in that message, did you read any of them?

Marking linguistic patterns has been tried before. It takes a lot of
effort and doesn't produce satisfactory results. And I believe the
word is "dialectal".

Why have one Wikipedia and write two sentences separately tagged in
the same article? That makes no sense. It's more trouble for
everybody.

Mark

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:29:32 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:16 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > The problem is is that language isn't 100% predictable.
> >
>
> That's not an objection to providing the ability for people to mark
> dialectical material.
>
>


body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

>
>>
>> The Cantonese dialect does have unique colorful phrases and a
>> different linguistic culture that manifests itself in Cantopop, film
>> and cartoons. Some would seem foreign to "Mandarin" speakers. It would
>> be great to have these Cantonese-isms captured in some way that could
>> be done in a combined ZH Wikipedia.
>>
>> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
>>
>
> I'm again going to suggest that some sort of "dialectical bracketting"
> be implemented, which would allow for phrases to be marked as being in
> a dialect of the language. Syntax would be something like [[dialect:
> base phrase | dialect: dialect phrase | dialect: dialect phrase]] and
> then allow users to pick the dialect of the language they are using.
> This would allow for everything from the differences between British
> and American English, to far more distant written dialects.

IIRC there was stiff opposition for this last time because it'd confuse
newcomers too much.

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Block

body:
sandyweill at hotmail.com sandyweill at hotmail.com
Sun Dec 26 07:18:23 UTC 2004 wrote:

213.66.119.190 was blocked for reason: "posting
copyvios, removing copyvio
notices, was warned and continued". Would anyone look
into especially the
last two reasons? They are completely made up.

No they are not. Sandyweill/[[User:Jerryseinfeld]]
posted a series of copyvios. I posted on his talk page
and asked him to stop and started to tag the pages. He
removed the copyvio tags from a number of pages.  I
warned him to stop on his talk page.  I know he read
the warning because he replied to the message.  He
also continued to remove the copyvio tags.  After he
was blocked he sent me the following email: "Hi. I
just signed up for the mailing list, and it looks like
YOU are about to be blocked. For acting irresponsibly,
making false claims, and attacking a star
contributor."  Not exactly how I wanted to spend my
Christmas, nor what I wanted to talk about on my first
post to this list, but there you go.

Gamaliel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

> It's a trade off between reader confusiong, from dialectical
> inconsistencies, and editor confusion. Of these two, the latter is
> easier to solve, because educating editors is within the reach of
> Wikimedia, where as changing readers is not. This syntax is no more
> difficult than the use of macros, image links and considerably less
> complex than tables.
>
The problem is that in English it will be greatly confusing and
irritatingly convoluted. Even simple words will have to be written using
the syntax (i.e. centre or center? Billion or millard? Flavour or
flavor?). Imagine editing an article with this sort of thing. I don't
think the trade-off is worth it, at least for different English "dialects".

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: GNAA on VFD for the fifth time

references:
<cql40o$4rl$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e8c618c804122519104d582b2f@mail.gmail.com>
	<cqlanc$dol$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
>
> My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted
> page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to
> make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various
> users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!
>

Well, it's been listed four times by my count--surely we aren't
counting May 1st, which occurred during the first VfD debate. As far
as I know, it has not been repeatedly listed by the same person,
group, or cabal (Tony Sidaway admits he had no idea that it had been
listed so many times, and I see you've pestered him on his talk page
about that). What this suggests to me is that a number of people found
the group--and the article--troubling enough to merit deletion. I
don't regard that as disruption to make a point.

When it was up back in late September/early October, I suggested that
it be merged with Slashdot trolling phenomena, and I would still
endorse such a measure. That's because they're a footnote, nothing
more. I mean, are we really writing an encyclopedic article about the
exploits of a trolling group? Who's verifying the information? Is this
original research? What value or utility is there to chronicle the
efforts of such a group? I mean, the bums haven't even been threatened
with legal action, I don't think.

I truly do not regard the GNAA as notable enough for their own
article. So they've crapflooded a server or three, trolled Slashdot,
and raised hell on VfD. Big deal, anyone can do that. We give them an
article, we have to have an article on every half-assed sockpuppet
army that attacks VfD. That's not a precedent I like much.

-Charles Fulton


body:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [041226 00:12]:

> Your suggestion was appropriate and appreciated. I suspect our more
> technically inclined mailing list posters greatly exaggerate the ease with
> which the average vandal (after all, their average age must be about 8)
> could create numerous accounts. Our experience at Wikinfo since requiring
> that they at least create an account has resulted in a number of dead
> accounts, but still a major reduction in drop-in vandalism. (But perhaps we
> have lost some helpful edits too).

Vandals are a real problem, but the really persistent pains in the backside
will observably go to some technical lengths to prove we can't beat 'em.
It's a social problem that isn't susceptible to a quick technical fix.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Block

body:
sandyweill at hotmail.com wrote:
Sun Dec 26 07:50:45 UTC 2004

> I wouldn't complain if Gamalium wrote a public
explanation of this block.

I already did in my last email.

Gamaliel

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


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>But do we have a major problem with anon vandals, as opposed to
>trolls?  That's the real question, isn't it?  If we were being overrun
>by anon vandals, I'd say absolutely, we shut off anon logins.  But
>those "on the frontlines" tell me that this anon vandals isn't the
>problem -- it's that complete trolls can't be blocked due to our
>(excessive?) due process.
>
>--Jimbo

I think you're right, the issue is more with trolls and POV warriors.  And
in my experience, the persistent ones create regular sockpuppets to continue
pushing their agenda, even when banned.  Is there no easy way of
ascertaining whether a User is actually a sockpuppet?

Jay.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Mark,
On the one hand I favour the idea of a seperate mailing list about
languages and all the huha that goes with it. It would mean that some
people could talk to each other endlessly. FINE.

However, however much is discussed there, what does it amount to except
for things having been discussed on this list. What do you expect that a
"consensus" reached on this list means outside of this list ?? The
wikipedia-l is about issues that transcend the concerns of any
particular wikipedia project and therefore things NOT discussed on this
mailinglist and/or on META do not have enough exposure to amount to
something that signify a relevant and adequate consensus.

So, have this list if you must but do consider its worth.

Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: Abe Sokolov

body:
Sean,

This dialogue just started with me asking a question and trying to be
helpful. Try to be less of a prick. The mailing list is for all users, not
just your small clique of regular users.

-172

Abe Sokolov stated for the record:

>I have just as much right to post something on this site giving you the
>perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like
>it, I'll just do it more frequently.

The very fact that you try to make a distinction between "the general
editors" and "you people" makes it clear you have no idea who "the
general editors" are or what they want.

And when presented with the fact that the consensus of the Wikipedia
community doesn't like it, you state your intention to annoy that
community "more frequently."  I personally don't think that's a good way
to persuade people, but please don't let my opinion cause you to
hesitate.  Annoy the community as frequently you want.

--
Sean Barrett     | Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
sean at epoptic.com | That alone should encourage the crew.
                  | Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
                  | What I tell you three times is true.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement


from_name: sandyweill @hotmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block

body:
213.66.119.190 was blocked for reason: "posting copyvios, removing copyvio
notices, was warned and continued". Would anyone look into especially the
last two reasons? They are completely made up.

Thanks

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Block

body:
That certainly was a quick response. As I said, would anyone take a look at
this? There are 400 administrators, acting at their own discretion, someone
might make a rash decision on his own.

I wouldn't complain if Gamalium wrote a public explanation of this block.

Thanks

>From: Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Block
>Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:39:32 -0800 (PST)
>
>sandyweill at hotmail.com sandyweill at hotmail.com
>Sun Dec 26 07:18:23 UTC 2004 wrote:
>
>213.66.119.190 was blocked for reason: "posting
>copyvios, removing copyvio
>notices, was warned and continued". Would anyone look
>into especially the
>last two reasons? They are completely made up.
>
>No they are not. Sandyweill/[[User:Jerryseinfeld]]
>posted a series of copyvios. I posted on his talk page
>and asked him to stop and started to tag the pages. He
>removed the copyvio tags from a number of pages.  I
>warned him to stop on his talk page.  I know he read
>the warning because he replied to the message.  He
>also continued to remove the copyvio tags.  After he
>was blocked he sent me the following email: "Hi. I
>just signed up for the mailing list, and it looks like
>YOU are about to be blocked. For acting irresponsibly,
>making false claims, and attacking a star
>contributor."  Not exactly how I wanted to spend my
>Christmas, nor what I wanted to talk about on my first
>post to this list, but there you go.
>
>Gamaliel
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think you're right, the issue is more with trolls and POV warriors.  And
> in my experience, the persistent ones create regular sockpuppets to continue
> pushing their agenda, even when banned.  Is there no easy way of
> ascertaining whether a User is actually a sockpuppet?

Under Phase II any logged-in user could see the IP address of any other
logged-in user. I would like to see that feature in MediaWiki for admins.

-- mav

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


body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 1:26 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> You are saying that we will be able to mark linguistic patterns. I
> also gave other objections in that message, did you read any of them?
>
> Marking linguistic patterns has been tried before. It takes a lot of
> effort and doesn't produce satisfactory results. And I believe the
> word is "dialectal".
>
> Why have one Wikipedia and write two sentences separately tagged in
> the same article? That makes no sense. It's more trouble for
> everybody.
>

Lot's of sensible things make no sense to you Mark, so I am not
surprised.

More trouble? Less trouble than forking. And less trouble for readers
who will be presented with information which is consistent in spelling
and diction to their dialect.

And it is the readers who would find this the most useful, since it
would make wikis with as large an editor base as possible.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Miscellaneous Comments

body:
1. It would be helpful to create a new position in Wikipedia, with
the powers to investigate charges of sockpuppety, & provide an answer
within a short period of time -- say 12 or 24 hours. Currently, one
has to attract the attention of a developer (who obviously is more
interested in adding or fixing the Wikimedia code), who then must
investigate before the relevant logs are purged.

What I'm envisioning is someone who does nothing more than receives
an allegation that "X is a sockpuppet of Y", checks the logs, & reports
whether the 2 accounts come from the same IP number, or a subnet
belonging to the same ISP. (I don't know exactly how nuch info is
captured in the logs, & whether it is possible for one to determine
if a given IP address is a dial-up connection or a proxy address.)
There has been some objections about making this kind of information
even partly available because it would violate contributor's privacy.

2. I think it would be proper to put a waiting period between successive
nominations for VfD, say 1 month between the 1st & 2nd nominations, 3
months between the 2nd & 3rd, 6 months between the 3rd & 4th, & 1 year
thereafter. It appears to me that VfD is increasingly being used by
POV warriors over articles & their contents -- & not in the case of
[[GNAA]].

3. Quality or quanitity of contributions do not inherently give an
editor any special standing or privileges on Wikipedia. One should be
required to defend or justify a controversial edit or comment by the
same standards whether one is a newbie making her/his 1st edit, or
someone in the top 100 list. Nor do these contributions give anyone
permission to be a potty mouth on either Wikipedia or any of its mailing
lists.

Geoff


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Abe Sokolov (abesokolov at hotmail.com) [041225 18:36]:
>
>
>>Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not
>>computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing
>>scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I
>>wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to
>>realize what you are bringing up above.
>>
>>
>If they aren't, they'll have friends who are. It's the same reason Digital
>Rights Management and copy-protection on CDs doesn't work - if one person
>breaks it, it's broken for all.
>
The average vandal is probably more likely to be interested in computers
than history.  History is may be too boring for him, but he may have
some experience with computer games.  His online presence is just
another way to have "fun".

Copy protection on CDs is treated as one more challenging puzzle.  It's
another "boss" at a deeper level of the game.  The people who produce
copy protection systems want you to believe that they will work for the
obvious reason that their income depends on it.

Ec


body:
John Lee wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
>> It's a trade off between reader confusiong, from dialectical
>> inconsistencies, and editor confusion. Of these two, the latter is
>> easier to solve, because educating editors is within the reach of
>> Wikimedia, where as changing readers is not. This syntax is no more
>> difficult than the use of macros, image links and considerably less
>> complex than tables.
>
> The problem is that in English it will be greatly confusing and
> irritatingly convoluted. Even simple words will have to be written
> using the syntax (i.e. centre or center? Billion or millard? Flavour
> or flavor?). Imagine editing an article with this sort of thing. I
> don't think the trade-off is worth it, at least for different English
> "dialects".

Though I still do not support the idea in English, if the Chinese
language wikipedians want it it should be their choice.

Ec


body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

> On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:16 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> The problem is is that language isn't 100% predictable.
>
>
> That's not an objection to providing the ability for people to mark
> dialectical material.

Hmm!
    Dialectic (adj.) = relating to dialectics
    Diatectic (noun) = "the art of investigating or discussing the truth
of opinions" etc. (per OED)
    Dialectical (adj.) = relating to logical discussion, etc.

The adjective that derives from "dialect" is "dialectal"

Ec


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

body:
Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse
of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for
deletion and that sucks.

It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would
like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed
every again.

If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on
VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place
GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove
movement on there till we get rid of it.

Ta bu shi da yu


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
As I said before, tagging of terms is one thing, but when you get to
changing around grammar and word order, that is full-fledged machine
translation and it won't work, no matter how many times you attack me
personally.

Mark

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:08:17 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 1:26 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > You are saying that we will be able to mark linguistic patterns. I
> > also gave other objections in that message, did you read any of them?
> >
> > Marking linguistic patterns has been tried before. It takes a lot of
> > effort and doesn't produce satisfactory results. And I believe the
> > word is "dialectal".
> >
> > Why have one Wikipedia and write two sentences separately tagged in
> > the same article? That makes no sense. It's more trouble for
> > everybody.
> >
>
> Lot's of sensible things make no sense to you Mark, so I am not
> surprised.
>
> More trouble? Less trouble than forking. And less trouble for readers
> who will be presented with information which is consistent in spelling
> and diction to their dialect.
>
> And it is the readers who would find this the most useful, since it
> would make wikis with as large an editor base as possible.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
The latest listing was my idea, and I want to make it clear that it was
made on the merits in my ignorance of all but the inconclusive results of
the previous VfD nomination three months ago.  I did not know that it had
been nominated several times in the past and I have stated in the VfD
article that I would not have knowingly nominated an article that had
withstood so many attempts at deletion, whatever I thought of it.  I have
also put my money where my mouth is and voted KEEP.
I do not consider myself a deletionist.  I nominated the article for
deletion because it is self-evidently a vanity article about a minor
phenomenon that would be better covered under the heading of Slashdot
trolling.  I am a longtime Slashdot user and no doubt thanks to that
site's excellent anti-troll system I have never encountered these people's
posts.  I most likely bumped into the article by scanning either Random
Page or Recent Posts.


body:
Machine translation is unworkable to the degree that it is still not
reasonable to use it to provide multilingual content and expect it to
be reasonably correct.

If you believe otherwise, then where's your proposal to integrate all
language Wikipedias using these recent advances in MT?

I may be a member of teh UNDL foundation, but even such dream systems
as UNL only claim to be accurate 99% of the time (and so far, UNL has
its fair share of problems), and even when they are accurate the
things they produce often sound unnatural or awkward.

Mark

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:10:33 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > As I said before, tagging of terms is one thing, but when you get to
> > changing around grammar and word order, that is full-fledged machine
> > translation and it won't work, no matter how many times you attack me
> > personally.
> >
> > Mark
>
> You made your credibility an issue, and therefore my questioning of
> your credibility is appropriate. As for "machine translation" being
> unworkable - you should really catch up with the developments in the
> field of machine translation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fwd: Interviews

body:
I agree with everything that Jimbo wrote. You do excellent work!

Ta bu shi da yu

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> Jesse the man wrote:
>
>>Yup, he was the guy who asked if I wanted to be interviewed or not.
>
>
> The reason is that a bunch of us who are huge huge HUGE fans of your
> work were going on and on about it in New York.  I think you are
> perfectly right to decline the interview if you don't want to do it,
> but at the same time, I think your parents would be quite proud --
> it's going to be a very favorable writeup of you and your work, I'm
> sure.
>
> Could make for a nice thing to slip into a college application, too,
> if you care about that sort of thing.
>
> --Jimbo


body:
Charles,

I agree that the GNAA are immature twerps, however they are significant
enough to have survived VfD this many times. And they will survive again
this time because MANY of us object to the amount of times that they're
article have been on VfD and we think they are notable enough.

My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted
page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to
make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various
users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!

Ta bu shi da yu

Charles Fulton wrote:
> Well, as a member of the Peerage Cabal (or "Team Peerage") I'm hardly
> a deletionist, but I voted for its deletion. I do this because the
> behavior of the GNAA sickens me, particularly the manner in which they
> harrassed those who favored deletion the last time.
>
> When I was a moderator at Slashdot (and I suppose I still accure mod
> points now and then), the GNAA comprised the sorts who thought it was
> the height of hilarity to make nonsense racist posts (e.g. YOU LOSE
> FAGGORT) or showcase their latest efforts at obscense ASCII art. They
> were notable only--ONLY--if you read at a 0 or -1 threshold. They are
> notable on Wikipedia only because of their repeated trollings,
> particularly on VfD. Is ass-hattery notable, in and of itself? If it
> is, then we should set up an article about Willy on Wheels, because
> he's been a far greater thorn in our side then the sainted members of
> the GNAA (don't take that wrong SPUI, I admire your contributions to
> railroading articles).
>
> The GNAA is a passing, and adolescent, phenomena. They deserve mention
> in the Slashdot trolling phenomena article, which I believe still
> exists, but not in their own article. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make
> a point, right? Do we reward them with their own article for a
> flagrant violation of policy?  The situation is similar to Sollog,
> except that Sollog is the real deal.  He has money and influence.
> He's been arrested by the Secret Service.  If the GNAA could actually
> get themselves into real trouble, I might be impressed.
>
> -Charles Fulton (aka Mackensen)
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:26:47 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
> <csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this abuse
>>of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on votes for
>>deletion and that sucks.
>>
>>It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I would
>>like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be listed
>>every again.
>>
>>If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back on
>>VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to place
>>GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put Childlove
>>movement on there till we get rid of it.
>>
>>Ta bu shi da yu
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>


body:
Again, your proposal is nothing short of machine translation because
it includes using a machine to convert between different syntaxes,
grammars, vocabularies, etc. Apparently you already realise this and
think there's nothing wrong with that.

But the fact remains that machine translation is not as reliable as
you say. If you have some sort of working model, then perhaps people
will be willing to trust you, but I checked with some Wikipedians
(both those I agree with most of the time and those I usually disagree
with) and the general consensus is that in this proposal you're off
your rocker.

Mark

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:00:49 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > Machine translation is unworkable to the degree that it is still not
> > reasonable to use it to provide multilingual content and expect it to
> > be reasonably correct.
>
> Nothing in your rant is reponsive to the proposal, and much of it is
> inaccurate, even given the strawman that it is attacking.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recent language changes

body:
Hi Andre.

The answer to the first question, I do not know.

But I think it's safe to remove separate links to zh: (remember to
make sure it doesn't remove links to zh-min-nan though), although
perhaps it would be better if somebody made sure they were linking to
the same article.

Mark

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:25:37 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently, the tokipona Wikipedia has been loced and moved, as has been
> the Klingon one. There has also been done something about automatic
> conversion between zh-tw and zh-cn.
>
> Being active with interwiki-bots, including programming, I would like
> to have opinions on the following:
>
> * Should interwiki links to tokipona: be removed?
> * Should interwiki links to zh-cn and zh-tw be changed into single links to zh?
>
> Andre Engels
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
"> As I said before, tagging of terms is one thing, but when you get to
> changing around grammar and word order, that is full-fledged machine
> translation and it won't work, no matter how many times you attack me
> personally.
>
> Mark

You made your credibility an issue, and therefore my questioning of
your credibility is appropriate. As for "machine translation" being
unworkable - you should really catch up with the developments in the
field of machine translation."

Converting grammar and syntax between two different "systems" of
grammar and syntax is machine translation. How does your proposal
differ?

Mark


body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

> On Dec 26, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:16 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is is that language isn't 100% predictable.
>>>
>>> That's not an objection to providing the ability for people to mark
>>> dialectical material.
>>
>> Hmm!
>>    Dialectic (adj.) = relating to dialectics
>>    Diatectic (noun) = "the art of investigating or discussing the
>> truth of opinions" etc. (per OED)
>>    Dialectical (adj.) = relating to logical discussion, etc.
>>
>> The adjective that derives from "dialect" is "dialectal"
>
> Since people are down to mere proofing of the proposal, clearly there
> are no further objections to it.

This is a non-sequitur.  I was just translating your comment so that
English speakers would understand it. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Stirling Newberry

body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> As I said before, tagging of terms is one thing, but when you get to
> changing around grammar and word order, that is full-fledged machine
> translation and it won't work, no matter how many times you attack me
> personally.
>
> Mark

You made your credibility an issue, and therefore my questioning of
your credibility is appropriate. As for "machine translation" being
unworkable - you should really catch up with the developments in the
field of machine translation.


body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Stirling Newberry wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:16 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is is that language isn't 100% predictable.
>>
>>
>> That's not an objection to providing the ability for people to mark
>> dialectical material.
>
> Hmm!
>    Dialectic (adj.) = relating to dialectics
>    Diatectic (noun) = "the art of investigating or discussing the
> truth of opinions" etc. (per OED)
>    Dialectical (adj.) = relating to logical discussion, etc.
>
> The adjective that derives from "dialect" is "dialectal"
>
> Ec
>

Since people are down to mere proofing of the proposal, clearly there
are no further objections to it.


from_name: Rebecca

body:
> I agree that the GNAA are immature twerps, however they are significant
> enough to have survived VfD this many times. And they will survive again
> this time because MANY of us object to the amount of times that they're
> article have been on VfD and we think they are notable enough.

No, they haven't survived because they're significant. They've
survived because they've proven very effective at sockpuppetry and
abusing Wikipedia's good faith in regard to VFD votes.

Seeing as it looks like an attempt is being made to minimise
sockpuppetry on both sides this time around, it seems that the odds of
it being deleted have gone up markedly. Furthermore, it's about damn
time.

-- ambi


body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> Machine translation is unworkable to the degree that it is still not
> reasonable to use it to provide multilingual content and expect it to
> be reasonably correct.

Nothing in your rant is reponsive to the proposal, and much of it is
inaccurate, even given the strawman that it is attacking.


body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:

> Again, your proposal is nothing short of machine translation

I would appreciate it if you stop lying about what is under discussion,
making unsupported and inaccurate ex-cathedra statements and
mischaracterizing what has been proposed.


body:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>
> This is a non-sequitur.  I was just translating your comment so that
> English speakers would understand it. ;-)
>
> Ec
>

Oh it was a spelling flame. Forgive me, I assumed good faith. My error.


from_name: ipodstar

subject: [WikiEN-l] can an admin help me? why no action?

body:
could an admin unblock me?

the block has lasted too long!

why won't anyone do anything? I have posted 3 times now to this
mailing list, and had no response! I am willing to try some good faith
if anyone else out there wants to!

User:Nasrallah

yours hopefully!


body:
So, what is the appropriate procedure now? A poll on meta?

Mark

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:40:00 -0500, Benjamin Esham <bdesham at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2004, at 6:01 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > I remember earlier somebody brought up the issue of bringing back
> > intlwiki-l.
> >
> > Currently, language discussions seem to dominate here, and I think
> > that frankly there are some people here who don't want to get those
> > discussions in their inbox.
>
> I like this idea, FWIW.
>
> --
> Benjamin D. Esham       {        http://bdesham.net
> bdesham at gmail.com        }       AIM: bdesham 1 2 8
> "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
>                                    -- Ambrose Bierce
>
>


from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24

body:
Dear Stirling Newberry:

You wrote:
>Lot's of sensible things make no sense to you Mark, so I am not surprised.

Is such an ad hominem attack really necessary/constructive?
(Please consider that a rhetorical question -- the answer should be obvious...)

-Olve Utne

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


references:
<cql40o$4rl$1@sea.gmane.org>	<e8c618c804122519104d582b2f@mail.gmail.com>	<cqlanc$dol$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<e8c618c8041225210370a7ca41@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Wrong. They also forced 4chan.org to shut down. They forced CowboyNeal
to delete ALL his comments from his talk page. They have a last measure
script. They caused a kerfuffle when they released fake OS X 10.4
screenshots. They are a regular pain in the neck on Slashdot.org. Heck,
these guys have their own IRC server! They COORDINATE their attacks. I
think the fact that they shut down a site to be VERY significant.

I don't like them, but these guys are notable.

Ta bu shi da yu

Charles Fulton wrote:
>>My question stands: just how many times are we doing to list the dratted
>>page before we give up entirely? You speak of "disrupting Wikipedia to
>>make a point" - how exactly is the listing on VfD 5 times by various
>>users who are offended by the GNAA not violating this principle?!
>>
>
>
> Well, it's been listed four times by my count--surely we aren't
> counting May 1st, which occurred during the first VfD debate. As far
> as I know, it has not been repeatedly listed by the same person,
> group, or cabal (Tony Sidaway admits he had no idea that it had been
> listed so many times, and I see you've pestered him on his talk page
> about that). What this suggests to me is that a number of people found
> the group--and the article--troubling enough to merit deletion. I
> don't regard that as disruption to make a point.
>
> When it was up back in late September/early October, I suggested that
> it be merged with Slashdot trolling phenomena, and I would still
> endorse such a measure. That's because they're a footnote, nothing
> more. I mean, are we really writing an encyclopedic article about the
> exploits of a trolling group? Who's verifying the information? Is this
> original research? What value or utility is there to chronicle the
> efforts of such a group? I mean, the bums haven't even been threatened
> with legal action, I don't think.
>
> I truly do not regard the GNAA as notable enough for their own
> article. So they've crapflooded a server or three, trolled Slashdot,
> and raised hell on VfD. Big deal, anyone can do that. We give them an
> article, we have to have an article on every half-assed sockpuppet
> army that attacks VfD. That's not a precedent I like much.
>
> -Charles Fulton


from_name: Henry H. Tan-Tenn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Propose to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales ti 2004/12/24 EP 05:17 sia-kong:
> Andr? M?ller wrote:
>
>>I completely agree with Alex Kwan. Having a Wikipedia in both
>>Mandarin/simplified Chinese and Cantonese/traditional Chinese seems
>>redundant to me as well. One could perhaps compare it with setting up
>>extra Wikipedias for British and American English (I doubt that the
>>differences are much bigger; except for the trad/simp issue).

"Redundancy", depending on how it's conceptualized, may well be a valid
point.  But certainly the linguistic distance between Cantonese and
Mandarin is by no means insignificant, as evident by the fact that many
quite basic, everday words are non-cognates. On the other hand, British
and American English dialects share virtually all basic words ("man",
"woman", names of body parts, etc.).  There are also, to a lesser
extent, grammatical differences.

That is not to say that Cantonese has not developed a tradition of
_formal_ writing strongly influenced by early 20th-century Mandarin
movement.  This is akin to educated English speakers of the past
moulding their grammar after Latin ("don't split the infinitive") and
preferring Latinate words to native ones.  The use of Chinese character
further constructs a sense of (formal) Cantonese as "merely Mandarin
pronounced differently".  At the same time, Cantonese has also developed
  a colloquial written tradition.  While hardly as prestigious, it does
serve sociolinguistic functions.  Whether that includes writing
encyclopedia articles is for the native speakers to decide.

> I tend to agree.

Which part?

>Node is well known as an activist for forking
> Chinese into multiple projects, and so his comments should be
> considered in that full context.
>
> --Jimbo


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recent language changes

body:
Recently, the tokipona Wikipedia has been loced and moved, as has been
the Klingon one. There has also been done something about automatic
conversion between zh-tw and zh-cn.

Being active with interwiki-bots, including programming, I would like
to have opinions on the following:

* Should interwiki links to tokipona: be removed?
* Should interwiki links to zh-cn and zh-tw be changed into single links to zh?

Andre Engels


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting up a Wikipedia in _______ (what ever
	language)

body:
In addition to agreeing with the thrust of Ec's refreshingly nuanced
treatment of the subject, I also add the following comments:

Jiaqing Bao ti 2004/12/25 ChS 03:37 sia-kong:
> I believe there has to be some principles in minor language Wikipedias.
> Setting up an encyclopedia is not just about self expression, it has to
> serve public good. Moreover, proposals and actual performances have to
> stand some very basic prima facie scrutiny.

"Public good", but which public?  Be careful that public good does not
mean the welfare of the dominant-language population, the State, or your
local police department.  Quite often speakers of "minority languages"
have a complex relationship with the dominant-language speakers, whose
dominant status often extends into social, economic and political
domains, all of which are interwined with language issues.

> If a language has 1000 speakers. Only 100 can read (most of them use
> another mainstream language). And only 10 of them can write (the writing
> system could be difficult, e.g. Egyptian hieroglyph). And only 5 of them
> sre active contributors. The five of them would become the de facto
> knowledge controllers.

In this hypothetical scenario, the 1% who are writers control only what
they write; the strictly non-literate are not influenced by Wikipedia at
all and can't care less if it's all wrong (the language being strongly
associated with this particular group, with no possibility of misleading
outsiders).  It is only the hypothetical readers/non-writers who are at
a disadvantage:  they may pick out mistakes (or worse, errors) but lack
the orthographic means to correct them.  On the other hand, such a
scenario is hardly representative:  the vast majority of lesser-used
languages are no more difficult to write than they are to read.
Moreover the hypothetical readers/non-writers, having detected the
mistakes, errors, or bias in the writers' product, may well be spurred
to remedy their status as non-writers, particularly once they find out
the writers do not really control the medium of knowledge production
(Wikipedia).

> If each user of that language uses a mainstream language Wikipedia, it
> will be good. However, to those who consult that minor Wikipedia, he or
> she could be mislead by inaccurate information (e.g. bias, mistake,
> outdated materials ...). Because that minor Wikipedia is written most by
> a handful of people (possibly friends of similar backgrounds), it
> becomes much more unlikely that a mistake could be corrected.

The depiction of "mainstream language Wikipedia" as "good" is a bit too
rosy (not to mention, vague), and the characterisation of "minor [sic.]
Wikipedia" as likely to be "inaccurate", "misleading" is unfair.  While
I agree more eyeballing is better than no eyeballing, I think it's fair
to claim that errors and bias have sources that are not all related to
number of eyeballs (see
[[en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_countering_systemic_bias]] for such a claim).
  So while your concern regarding similar backgrounds has a point, it is
one that is likely applicable to all WPs.

> Even if that user knows there's a mistake, he or she may not be able to
> correct it. Many minor languages users are not fluent speakers. Some may
> not know how to type that particular script.

However, since all users of this hypothetical community share the same
dominant language(s), nothing prevents the reading non-writers from
raising the issues with the writers.  Or the larger WP community if the
writers choose to monopolize discourse.

> And the limited active contributors also may have a very restricted
> knowledge base. The five of them may not know much about astronomy for
> example. They may translate. They could make mistakes. They could also
> selectively translate less important parts of an article because they
> may not know much about the mathematics, physics, chemistry, history ...
> about that subject. Unless they can ask others to join, their works may
> not be trusted.

Bad translations, selective translations, mistakes...these are all part
of the WP process.  For large WPs the process is accelerated; for
smaller ones, the cycle may be slower.  The difference is quantitative,
not qualitative.

> In case the user knows how to double check, it may not be a problem.
> However, if a user still has to consult a mainstream language source, it
> makes that minor Wikipedia less relevant. And if the user cannot read
> another language and failed to find another minor language source, the
> bug-ridden Wikipedia could do more harm than good. An encyclopedia has
> to serve a public good to justify its existence.

Every WP article is based on a source or a set of sources.  If the
source is correctly informative, it is a good source, regardless of what
language it is in.  So the idea that a "minor [sic.] Wikipedia" article
drawing on a mainstream language source is somehow redundant or "less
genuine" reflects more of a condescending attitude toward "minority
things" than a reasoned argument.  It also reflects a mistaken view that
  a good translation is a non-creative work and that "information"
exists independently of language.

> It is a bad idea to setup encyclopedias in so many languages. I don't
> mind if anyone wants to start a Wiki in Pig Latin or Nadsat. You can
> easily auto translate English into these two artificial languages. But
> for many minor languages, it may be not feasible. The few articles could
> be untrustworthy. Wikipedia is not a language conservation project. The
> reason why people trust English Wikipedia is because of the number of
> contributors and fact checkers. We don't want this site to become the
> largest source of rumor.

Wikipedia may not be a language conservation project, but it is surely a
language _amplification_ project.  If you allow for the amplification of
all European state languages plus a few East Asian languages, it would
be reasonable to offer the rest of the world's written, Internet-using
languages a chance at doing the same.  This would not necessarily be out
of any sense of guilt or "we owe you" but a gesture of fairness, good
will and even solidarity.  This is public good on a global scale, or at
least has that potential.

As for English WP being trustworthy, no doubt many trust it.  But it is
only because not enough people trust it that it has continued to
improve.  The moment all of us trust it entirely would be the time for
Wikipedia to shut down.

And if the English WP is trustworthy by virtue of the size of its
community, does that mean the Japanese WP is less trustworthy?  Meta has
this honest self-assessment about Ja:  "Over 100 users are very active
but 40%-50% of edits are done by anonymous users."  It'd appear that 100
editors are responsible for quite a big chunk of the 90,000 articles.
Do you trust it?  As a very minor editor of ja, my inclination is to
trust my fellow Wikipedians are editing in good faith without
necessarily trusting the correctness of the content.

> I think it will be good if they contribute to the Wiktionary.
>
> Besides the number of active regular contributors, they may need sources
> of reference materials and public domain sources. In English, you have
> the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, Project Gutenberg, CIA Fact Book and
> many other online materials. It is easy to build many pages without much
> efforts and mistakes in most major languages. They have so many printed
> reference materials. To many minor languages, they have very few books
> other than a language textbook, the Bible or an out-of-print dictionary.
> It is really not a very good idea that they start an encyclopedia
> project at this moment.

All the more reason to have an on-line, FREE encyclopedia.  Sure, it
won't be perfect but Wikipedians prefer asymptotic improvement to
pseudo-perfection.  Small and tiny WPs have a slower cycle but the
process is not fundamentally different.

> Jiaqing Bao


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
I've unblocked you. It seems as if blocks are not expiring properly. I
assume this has something to do with the new media wiki software. Will
somebody in the know please fix this. In the meantime will all admins
keep an eye on the list of blocked IP's and manually unblock all
blocks whose time has expired.

Theresa

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:12:51 +0000, ipodstar <jewishneoconipod at gmail.com> wrote:
> could an admin unblock me?
>
> the block has lasted too long!
>
> why won't anyone do anything? I have posted 3 times now to this
> mailing list, and had no response! I am willing to try some good faith
> if anyone else out there wants to!
>
> User:Nasrallah
>
> yours hopefully!
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Ah. Well, that clears up that mystery :) Thanks for clarifying Tony.

TBSDY

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> The latest listing was my idea, and I want to make it clear that it was
> made on the merits in my ignorance of all but the inconclusive results of
> the previous VfD nomination three months ago.  I did not know that it had
> been nominated several times in the past and I have stated in the VfD
> article that I would not have knowingly nominated an article that had
> withstood so many attempts at deletion, whatever I thought of it.  I have
> also put my money where my mouth is and voted KEEP.
> I do not consider myself a deletionist.  I nominated the article for
> deletion because it is self-evidently a vanity article about a minor
> phenomenon that would be better covered under the heading of Slashdot
> trolling.  I am a longtime Slashdot user and no doubt thanks to that
> site's excellent anti-troll system I have never encountered these people's
> posts.  I most likely bumped into the article by scanning either Random
> Page or Recent Posts.


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] VfD relistings are not a deletionist conspiracy.

body:
>> Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto
>> VfD
>>  as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So
>> then  a precedent is set.

What does occur to me is that it would be a really good idea to have a
nice, conspicuous template that could be used to tag Talk pages of
articles that have survived VfD, saying something along the lines of
"This article survived VfD on (date)." And good practice to put such a
notice at the TOP of the Talk page for relisted articles.

Now. As for the flaming... couldn't we have a little bit of "assume
good faith?"

Hypothetically, systematic VfD relistings _could_ be used as a
deliberate strategy by some deletionist conspiracy trying to impose
their beliefs against the consensus of the community. But I don't think
there's any evidence at all that anyone has yet done such a thing
intentionally.

I believe there's a good working consensus that once an article has
survived VfD it should not relisted for a decent period of time, three
to six months. And because of the _possibility_ of abuse I believe
that's a good custom. But I don't think there's any actual abuse, I
don't think there's any need for formal mechanism or policy, and the
solid string of "keeps" I've seen on inappropriately relisted articles,
is more than enough to keep any problem in check. There is a
significant segment of the Wikipedian population that will vote "keep"
on inappropriately relisted articles _even if they voted delete_ on the
original listing.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting up a Wikipedia in _______ (what
	ever language)

body:
The problem is political. One China, One language, One Wikipedia, and so on.
May I suggest that the Wikipedia be allowed and left to sink or swim. If you
don't like it, don't contribute to it.

Fred

> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:40:35 +1100
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting up a Wikipedia in _______ (what ever
> language)
>
>
> On Cantonese: there are (a) a minor language which is noticeably different
> to the local major language (b) books and newspapers published in a
> reasonably fixed script in said minor language that are distinctly not in
> the major language (c) people asking for the Wikipedia. Given these, what's
> the remaining problem? That the local major language is Chinese?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: can an admin help me? why no action?

body:
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:56:35 +0000
From: "sandyweill @hotmail.com"
<sandyweill at hotmail.com>

>I may have the same problem, and to make matters
worse, >I'm not even guilty of the charges

I suppose some enterprising hacker hijacked your
account and used it to remove the copyvio notices you
were specificially warned to stop removing.

In any case, I've unblocked you as the block should
have expired some hours ago.

Gamaliel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au said:
> Snowspinner wrote:
>> [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
>
> Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD
>  as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So
> then  a precedent is set.
>
You have to take into account intent.  I nominated GNAA for the fifth
time.  I nominated what appeared to me to be a clear candidate for
deletion.  Had I known its full history I would not have done so.  If a
more experienced editor had done so, I think you'd have a good point about
disruption to make a point.  With me, the intent to disrupt was not there.


from_name: sandyweill @hotmail.com

body:
I may have the same problem, and to make matters worse, I'm not even guilty
of the charges

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist

07:07, 26 Dec 2004, Gamaliel blocked Jerryseinfeld (expires 07:07, 27 Dec
2004) (contribs) (posting copyvios, removing copyvio notices, was warned and
continued)

10:51, 27 Dec 2004, Gamaliel blocked #13444 (expires 10:51, 28 Dec 2004)
(Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Jerryseinfeld". Reason
"posting copyvios, removing copyvio notices, was warned and continued".)

>From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] can an admin help me? why no action?
>Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:45:38 +1100
>
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:53:43 +0000, Theresa Knott
><theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've unblocked you. It seems as if blocks are not expiring properly. I
> > assume this has something to do with the new media wiki software. Will
> > somebody in the know please fix this. In the meantime will all admins
> > keep an eye on the list of blocked IP's and manually unblock all
> > blocks whose time has expired.
>
>24 hours are added on to the sentence each time the same IP address is
>used to access Wikipedia, even innocently.
>
>--
>Peter in Canberra
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Miscellaneous Comments

body:
>Geoff Burling wrote:
>
>>1. It would be helpful to create a new position in Wikipedia, with
>>the powers to investigate charges of sockpuppety, & provide an answer
>>within a short period of time -- say 12 or 24 hours. Currently, one
>>has to attract the attention of a developer (who obviously is more
>>interested in adding or fixing the Wikimedia code), who then must
>>investigate before the relevant logs are purged.
>>
>>What I'm envisioning is someone who does nothing more than receives
>>an allegation that "X is a sockpuppet of Y", checks the logs, & reports
>>whether the 2 accounts come from the same IP number, or a subnet
>>belonging to the same ISP. (I don't know exactly how nuch info is
>>captured in the logs, & whether it is possible for one to determine
>>if a given IP address is a dial-up connection or a proxy address.)
>>There has been some objections about making this kind of information
>>even partly available because it would violate contributor's privacy.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>YES. We absolutely need this. I think this would be perfect for
>Bureaucrats. They could help out with other chores that require developer
>work, although I'm not sure on the feasibility of this (would changing
>usernames and helping reattribute edits be too complicated?).
>
>John Lee

This seems like a good idea to me as well.  The other proposed solution,
having everyone's IP address visible to every editor, might seem like an
invasion of privacy to some.

Jay.


body:
Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that GNAA can go onto VfD
as many times as people want, then that's not disruption, right? So then
a precedent is set.

Snowspinner wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM,
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
>> Guys, how many times are we going to list this before we stop this
>> abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the article has been on
>> votes for deletion and that sucks.
>>
>> It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop till it's gone. I
>> would like to propose that after this vote, we never allow it to be
>> listed every again.
>>
>> If we don't, then I'm considering putting [[Childlove movement]] back
>> on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly if we're allowed to
>> place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be fine to put
>> Childlove movement on there till we get rid of it.
>>
>> Ta bu shi da yu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>


from_name: nas ral

body:
Is there no way to change it from 24 hrs to something less punitive?
To be honest, I don't see that if an admin passes down a so-called
"sentence", that it keeps being extended is fair at all. However, just
as its true no-one who has ever been blocked has agreed with it, so
its true that almost all admins think their block is justified, and
see nothing wrong with their actions.

If a person wants to circumvent a block, they can and do. The
extending block is overly harsh. 24hr block should mean 24 hours, not
48...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:45:38 +1100, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:53:43 +0000, Theresa Knott
> <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've unblocked you. It seems as if blocks are not expiring properly. I
> > assume this has something to do with the new media wiki software. Will
> > somebody in the know please fix this. In the meantime will all admins
> > keep an eye on the list of blocked IP's and manually unblock all
> > blocks whose time has expired.
>
> 24 hours are added on to the sentence each time the same IP address is
> used to access Wikipedia, even innocently.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: BRIOSCHI Elfrida Consultant

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bot status

body:
Hi,
I'm urgently searching someone who can give to the it.wiki user
[[Utente:ZeroBot]] the bot status.
Anyone can help me?
Thanks,
Frieda


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Ian Monroe

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Religious intolerance

body:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:22:51 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> For the nl:wiktionary we have over 300 sound files with pronunciations
> of words in the Dutch language alone. They are much easier to use than
> phonetic notations. As such it would be cool to have the standard
> pronunciations recorded and available from Commons for all wiktionary words.

I agree, the only phonetic notation I understand is Spanish.

> As to the project. There are many more projects in wiktionary that are
> more important than also having wishes for ramadan, chanukka just to
> satisfy this false sense of "equality" of some. When someone starts to
> record these wishes in wiktionary, I will be happy to lend a hand.
>
> On the English wiktionary there is a project to have the 1000 "most
> important" words defined and translated to many languages. There are
> people experimenting with bots that may automagically copy content from
> one wiktionary to another. There are the many thousands of words that we
> would like to add to the wikitonaries and have in files on our local
> harddisks. There are the phrases that people may want to know when they
> go abroud. There are the ideas about a next generation wiktionary. There
> is the GEMET data that we really want to include in the wiktionaries.
> There is so much more going on than just this project that was intended
> as a fun thing to do.
>
> The "Buon Natale" project was a small fun project with an intentional
> small scope. We love it. It was and is fun. But it is what we made it
> and not what someone else wants it to be. I am not aware of people
> sending cards at chanukka or ramadan. I also do not know if and how you
> say "Happy Ramandan". We have written several times during the last
> month or so about our project and everytime we asked people to
> contribute and expand the project by writing about the traditions that
> they know. Not only but also about their christmas.

Ramadan is one of those meaningful holidays, not the happy kind (like
TV news anchors won't tell people to have a Happy Yon Kippur). There's
probably some Arabic greeting used throughout much of the Islamic
world, so its probably not as interesting of a project.

> So again, do write about channuka and ramandan in wikipedia and do add
> relevant phrases and words in wiktionary. Inform us about the difference
> times of the start of ramadan. About the three days of the birth of
> Jezus. About the differences in the way a christmastree is decorated in
> Italy compared to Germany. About the carp as a traditional dish at
> easter in Poland. But  other people do have different sensibilities and
> do not make what you believe override everything and everyone else
> believes and values. To me the censorship of the "Bon Natale" project
> was a nasty surprise, to me it shows an intolerance that I had not
> expected from the wikipedia crowd.
>
> There will be other projects and other moments, that will be mo
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

People are overly sensitive on the subject. You stumbled into a
dispute which has already occurred regarding whether to turn the
Wikipedia ball into a Christmas ornament (as the Italian Wikipedia did
this year). I did think it was kind of odd that my boss wished us all
a Merry Christmas even though about a 1/4 of my co-workers are Muslim.
 But, at the same time, who cares, I'm sure they didn't.

Ian


from_name: Peredelcu Cristian

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wcp 412

body:
Hello!
Sorry for my english, but I need some help in a
problem regarding my boss xerox machine,please.
I moved the machine from one location to another and
after two weeks i had a problem with it because after
a scaning it prints the page scaned and a white page..
I consulted some specialists which tell me that if i
upgrade the flash the problem will disappear but they
don't tell me how to do this.

PLEASE if you could help me i need to know how i can
upgrade the machine firmware version throw a paralel
cable from my computer, and from where could i get the
binary file for the upgrade.

THANKS A LOT! Best regards from Romania !

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Workcentre pro412

body:
Hello!
Sorry for my english, but I need some help in a
problem regarding my boss xerox ,please.
I moved the machine from one location to another and
after two weeks i had a problem with it because after
a scaning it prints the page scaned and a white page..
I consulted some specialists which tell me that if i
upgrade the flash the problem will disappear but they
don't tell me how to do this.

PLEASE if you could help me i need to know how i can
upgrade the machine firmware version throw a paralel
cable from my computer, and from where could i get the
binary file for the upgrade.

THANKS A LOT! Best regards from Romania !

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Mark Richards

body:
Deliberate disruption of WP by rampant deletionists
seems to be tollerated for now. I guess it will have
to cause even more damage before anything is done.
Mark

--- "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
wrote:

> Ya, I know. But if it's officially sanctioned that
> GNAA can go onto VfD
> as many times as people want, then that's not
> disruption, right? So then
> a precedent is set.
>
> Snowspinner wrote:
> > [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a
> point]]
> >
> > -Snowspinner
> >
> > On Dec 25, 2004, at 7:26 PM,
> > csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> >
> >> Guys, how many times are we going to list this
> before we stop this
> >> abuse of process? This is now the fifth time the
> article has been on
> >> votes for deletion and that sucks.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the deletionists won't stop
> till it's gone. I
> >> would like to propose that after this vote, we
> never allow it to be
> >> listed every again.
> >>
> >> If we don't, then I'm considering putting
> [[Childlove movement]] back
> >> on VfD until I can gather enough support. Clearly
> if we're allowed to
> >> place GNAA on VfD unlimited times then it will be
> fine to put
> >> Childlove movement on there till we get rid of
> it.
> >>
> >> Ta bu shi da yu
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Undeletion: new ability and policy on its use

body:
When is the ability to view deleted pages going to be
made available to all users?
Mark

--- Charles Podles <charles.podles at gmail.com> wrote:

> When undeleting pages, sysops now have to ability to
> restore selected
> revisions rather than the full deleted history. I
> have posted some
> questions about the use of this feature to
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Undeletion_policy
> and
> would appreciate comments there. The feature seems
> useful but has
> potential for abuse; a policy discussion is needed.
>
> I have also added an explanation of what I figured
> out by testing the
> feature to [[Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted
> pages by sysops]]
> (
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages_by_sysops&diff=8781571&oldid=8754475
> ); I would be grateful if the technical team would
> make sure I've
> explained it properly.
>
> --Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:

> Jiaqing Bao ti 2004/12/25 ChS 03:37 sia-kong:
>
>> I believe there has to be some principles in minor language
>> Wikipedias. Setting up an encyclopedia is not just about self
>> expression, it has to serve public good. Moreover, proposals and
>> actual performances have to stand some very basic prima facie scrutiny.
>
> "Public good", but which public?  Be careful that public good does not
> mean the welfare of the dominant-language population, the State, or
> your local police department.  Quite often speakers of "minority
> languages" have a complex relationship with the dominant-language
> speakers, whose dominant status often extends into social, economic
> and political domains, all of which are interwined with language issues.

"Public good" like "national security" can often be used as an excuse
for all manner of sins.  Democracy too has its dark side.

>> And the limited active contributors also may have a very restricted
>> knowledge base. The five of them may not know much about astronomy
>> for example. They may translate. They could make mistakes. They could
>> also selectively translate less important parts of an article because
>> they may not know much about the mathematics, physics, chemistry,
>> history ... about that subject. Unless they can ask others to join,
>> their works may not be trusted.
>
> Bad translations, selective translations, mistakes...these are all
> part of the WP process.  For large WPs the process is accelerated; for
> smaller ones, the cycle may be slower.  The difference is
> quantitative, not qualitative.

I've frequently tended to visualize the entire 'pedia as expressive of
some kind of fractal geometry with new bits popping up all over the
place, and gradually merging into a coherent and cohesive whole.  If too
much effort is put into criticizing and excising the bits the final
result shows a lot of scar tissue.

>> In case the user knows how to double check, it may not be a problem.
>> However, if a user still has to consult a mainstream language source,
>> it makes that minor Wikipedia less relevant. And if the user cannot
>> read another language and failed to find another minor language
>> source, the bug-ridden Wikipedia could do more harm than good. An
>> encyclopedia has to serve a public good to justify its existence.
>
> Every WP article is based on a source or a set of sources.  If the
> source is correctly informative, it is a good source, regardless of
> what language it is in.  So the idea that a "minor [sic.] Wikipedia"
> article drawing on a mainstream language source is somehow redundant
> or "less genuine" reflects more of a condescending attitude toward
> "minority things" than a reasoned argument.  It also reflects a
> mistaken view that  a good translation is a non-creative work and that
> "information" exists independently of language.

Saying that an 'encyclopedia "has to" serve a public good to justify its
existence.'  strikes me as unduly utilitarian.  Besides the already
mentioned problem of defining the public good, it tends to ignore the
fact that fun, relaxation and mental health are also a part of the
public good.  Increasingly, the educational community has come to
appreciate that rote repetition may not be the best way to teach
children.  Children learn best when they are having fun, or when the
material being studied has relevence and meaning in their own lives.

I accept that a good translation is a creative work, but are we really
promoting the idea that minor language wikipedias should stress
translations.  I think that it's far more important for these limited
contributor pools to emphasize topics that are significant to their
particualar cultures.  Math and physics may not be the most important
topics to some of these cultures; too much emphasis on translating them
could have the effect of imposing a foreign cultural framework.
Traditional Chinese medicine has an ancient theoretical lineage that has
mostly received peremptory rejection because it does not accord with
3,000 years of Western intellectual development.  I would disagree on
whether information exists independently of language, but that
philosophical discussion would take us too far afield from the immediate
concern.

Each language imparts its own systemic biases on knowledge, but that
problem is not solved by imposing one pre-determined set of biases as
represented by one language.  That would be the path to sterility.  The
dynamic tension between the different paths enriches us all.  Preserving
and cherishing the minor languages is as important as preserving and
cherishing the obscure plant in the Amazon jungle which at some
unspecified "may" give us the key to solve major medical challenges.

>> It is a bad idea to setup encyclopedias in so many languages. I don't
>> mind if anyone wants to start a Wiki in Pig Latin or Nadsat. You can
>> easily auto translate English into these two artificial languages.
>> But for many minor languages, it may be not feasible. The few
>> articles could be untrustworthy. Wikipedia is not a language
>> conservation project. The reason why people trust English Wikipedia
>> is because of the number of contributors and fact checkers. We don't
>> want this site to become the largest source of rumor.
>
>
> Wikipedia may not be a language conservation project, but it is surely
> a language _amplification_ project.

I like the analogy.  Just like a radio takes an otherwise undetectable
signal from the ether, and turns it into something meaningful.

> As for English WP being trustworthy, no doubt many trust it.  But it
> is only because not enough people trust it that it has continued to
> improve.  The moment all of us trust it entirely would be the time for
> Wikipedia to shut down.

Although I mostly work in English, I would not be so vain as to consider
it the most trustworthy.  Trustworthiness tends to support systemic
bias.  Many of our American colleagues tend to work exclusively in
English.  Thus, when it comes to discussing the major political issues
of the day the general middle ground of the American POV will be much
more influential in English language projects.  Similar comments about
other nations in other languages could also be valid.  Nevertheless I
would never take that state of things as excuse enough for promoting the
ideal that corresponding articles in other languages should be perfect
translations of each other.

> All the more reason to have an on-line, FREE encyclopedia.  Sure, it
> won't be perfect but Wikipedians prefer asymptotic improvement to
> pseudo-perfection.  Small and tiny WPs have a slower cycle but the
> process is not fundamentally different.

That's what it's all about.

Ec


from_name: Tim Ahrentløv

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia

body:
Hi ?var,

Thank you for the elaboration.

I still don?t see the problem. The logo is not "unfree". It is very much
free, and even more so than permitted by a traditional GNU license - as I
recall it.

I do find it ironic that companies like Microsoft that has a long tradition
of fighting free licenses with their more commercial and restrictive
approach, are allowed to have their logo on Wikipedia, just because they
belong to some other commercial or "ill-replaced" category.

As for the phrase "Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
it will get deleted [..]", you might as well be telling me that the
Microsoft logos is allowed because they are Microsoft logos and the IPU is
not. It comes very close to telling me that the IPU logo, with the identity
invested in it, pr. definition simply is not allowed.

The way I interpret all this, is that I now have 2 options:

1. Define the IPU logo as a product, so that it would be strictly commercial
and thus belong to a different set of rules.

2. Alter the logo license to allow it to be used for whatever purpose, and
thus totally obliterate the identity for which it was specifically designed.

Neither of the above is fair to the general idea of the IPU logo, and both
would be very unfair (if not legally impossible by now) because there are
people out there that has adopted the logo on the current license - and for
what it represents. So I *cannot* alter the license by now, and based on the
explanation that I've been given so far, this is luckily not something that
I have any reason to regret.

Because...

We are talking about a free encyclopedia service that actively wants to
alter the identity of the very object it sets out to document. It even wants
to purge itself from facts of reality that does not conform to some dogma of
how the reality "should" be like. (It gives me associations to when Libya
removed certain countries from the World Map *LOL*) These matters can hardly
be to be a desirable attributes of a media type from whom, one should be
able to expect objectivity.

As far as I understand you, this is not your doing ;-) You're merely
relaying some facts to me and I'm glad that you brought this matter to my
attention. Thanks.

I will cc this mail correspondence to the mailing list mail address you
provided to me, hoping that this matter can be settled in a prudent and
rational way. Should this process, in contrary to my expectations, result in
the logo being removed, I will also upload our mail correspondence on
www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, urging the visitors to complain about this
unfair and irrational ruling - and in the process I fear - undermining
Wikipedia's credibility.

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Tim Ahrentl?v

-----Original Message-----
From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
Sent: 27. december 2004 13:32
To: ta at ateist.org
Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:34:19 +0100, Tim Ahrentl?v <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> Hi ?var,
>
> A simple search on Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)
shows
> the Microsoft logo. A click on the Encarta link
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Encarta) shows the Encarta logo,
and
> so on.
>
> Are these logos under the GNU license? Can these logos be used for
whatever
> purpose *you* may choose? Can they even be used at all, without
Microsoft's
> written consent? I must admit I do not understand why the IPU license is a
> problem for Wikipedia.
>
> Do you write to Microsoft or many of the other very restrictive license
> holders, informing them that their logos and identities *must* be allowed
to
> be used for any purpose imaginable? I find that hard to believe. I also
find
> it counterproductive to Wikipedia's role of simply relaying facts.
>
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason, please allow me to doubt that your request
actually
> conforms to the standards set by Wikipedia, and please be aware that I
will
> protest to this seemingly unfair and illogical ruling.
>
> Mvh
> Tim Ahrentl?v

Not all images on wikipedia are "free", some, like the ones you
mentioned are fair use logos, and others are under a none-commercial
licence and more others have other terms, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_copyright_status

There is an active movement to purge these images from wikipedia
and/or replace them with free ones which can be used without
restriction, a central staging area for this "operation" is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images , your
image got listed there (not by me) stating that it "imposes condition
that [the] symbol must represent atheism".

Now, since your image is not the Microsoft logo or some
ill-replaceable image like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg it will get deleted
on January 10, 2005 (30 days from the initial listing) unless we can
get a licence for it which is compatible with the GFDL.

The reason for doing this is because wikipedia is not simply a fact
relaying device, but a free encyclopedia, most other languages than
the english version of it do not even accept none-free images and en.
is actively phasing them out.

As for any "official" protest please make them if you desire to do so,
the english mailing list (wikien-l at wikipedia.org) would probably be
the best way to do so, however note that I'm in no way making any sort
of "ruling" on this, I simply saw the listing of the image on Possibly
unfree images and decided to E-Mail the author of it to request that
he grant permission to use it under a compatible licence.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> Sent: 27. december 2004 02:48
> To: ta at ateist.org
> Subject: Re: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:04:37 +0100, Tim Ahrentl?v <ta at ateist.org> wrote:
> > Hi ?var,
> >
> > The IPU license is available here:
> > http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu_logo_license.htm
> >
> > I fail to see what this license lacks in regard to the more formal GNU
> > license. Basically, the license allows *anyone* to use the logo for
*any*
> > purpose (also commercial!) as long as it is used to represent atheism.
The
> > logo no longer belongs to me or www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com, but to a
> > purpose. I don't see that it can get any better or more public domain
than
> > that.
> >
> > Please elaborate on what seems to be missing from this current license,
> > because I don't see any problems.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Tim Ahrentl?v
> >
>
> The problem specifically is the "used to represent atheism" part,
> which does not give permission to use the image for porpoises other
> than the representation of atheism which conflicts with PD and the
> GFDL which allow the use of material for any porpoise.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason [mailto:avarab at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 26. december 2004 23:26
> > To: ta at invisiblepinkunicorn.com
> > Subject: The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on Wikipedia
> >
> > Notice: Consider this a none-private email.
> >
> > The Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo on wikipedia will be deleted on the
> > next few days if it is not placed under a licence compatible with the
> > GNU Free Documentation Licence or similar within the next few days,
> > would you be willing to dual licence the image under the IPU Logo
> > License and the GFDL so that it can be used in the article?
> >
> > URLs:
> > IPU Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
> > IPU Photo:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
> >
> >
>
>