subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Borders of Language Variety Tolerance

body:
You said, and I quote, "It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia
to every single person on the planet in their own language."

"In their own language" is unambiguous. Ngugi wa Thiong'o's "own
language" is Gikuyu. He can read English very well, and Swahili very
well. He would be able to read those Wikipedias. But they are not "in
his own language".

Mark

On 09/06/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> (Wouter asked me privately to please personally comment on this thread,
> so I will.)
>
> Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> > Could requests
> > for wikipedias in Zeelandic and Town Frisian be granted.
>
> Not knowing anything about these two particular variants, I am unable to
> make a proper guess or judgment.
>
> This thread has done a very good job I think of discussing some or most
> of the factors that should properly go into a decision such as this.
>
> We are currently inconsistent in our treatment of different linguistic
> situations.  I do not think this inconsistency is good, but I also do
> not think it is a grave crisis.  I am not even certain that consistency
> is desirable -- there may not be a "one size fits all" solution to this
> question.
>
> One thing I think we can all agree upon: there is a difference between
> us *needing* a certain language in order to fulfill our global vision of
> a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet (in a language
> they can easily enough understand) and us *wanting* a certain language
> in order to fulfill a secondary goal of language preservation and
> support for minority communities.
>
> "Every single person on the planet" is a bit of rhetoric, but a serious
> bit of rhetoric.  I will feel that this mission is complete if we have
> an encyclopedia written in enough languages so that 99.99% of all people
> _who are able to read in some language_ can read a Wikipedia.
>
> Let me take as an example Welsh.  I am happy that we have a Welsh
> wikipedia.  But it is all true that virtually every Welsh reader can
> also read English.  Therefore, to meet our *central* mission, English
> does the trick for Welsh speakers.  And for this *secondary* goal, Welsh
> is a nice thing to have too.
>
> Are all people who could read Zeelandic and Town Frisian also people who
> can read standard Dutch?  Then we don't *need* them for our primary
> mission, but they would be a nice thing to have as well, if it makes
> social sense for the community.  (Meaning, if there are enough people
> who want to do it, etc.)
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Somsak Lim

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Is it possible to make mirror site server in my
	country?

body:
Dear all,

Is it possible to make mirror site server in my country?
And what is minimum requirement to do that.

I wanna to setup mirror server for wikipedia site in Thailand. (read only)
To reduce outbound traffic.
Thanks in advanced.

Regards,
Somsak Lim

--


list: wikien-l

from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
On 6/9/05, michaelturley at myway.com <michaelturley at myway.com> wrote:
>
> I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
>
> Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall.  Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing.  Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
>
> The only real solutions are:
> 1. to recruit more intelligent, reasonable editors by offering a welcoming, respectful community atmosphere,
> 2. to cite our sources more thoroughly and properly, and let the reader decide their individual credibility
> 3. to recruit as many editors as possible to make use of the watchlist feature for each contended article
> 4. to use NPOV tags and their derivatives to warn readers of disagreements over content.
>
> Our mistakes at this time may be not giving the readers a full sense of just how much disputed Wikipedia articles can change over short time periods, and not making clear enough just what NPOV means.
>
> Perhaps we need a stronger, more explicit NPOV tag, or variants thereof, for some articles.  We could also make it more clear that our readers can browse the history of any article to gain insight by reviewing its creation process.  We can also slow the process of the change even more, to encourage a more thoughtful process, like was done with the introduction of the 3 revert rule, and like is done every day with temporary edit locks.
>
> But attempting to vet content through a review board of any kind is folly for a wiki encyclopedia.  The active community IS the review board on a wiki.
>
> The only oversight that is proper is that which is necessary to ensure that everyone participates fairly and generally on equal terms according to behavior rules.
>
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused

With all respect, I think you're missing the point. Firstly, I don't
believe anyone - in all the different proposals - has endorsed any
form of committee that would endorse a particular revision of an
article, making that point entirely redundant. But I also think this
debate over a review committee is beside the issue.

The problem is that we have a whole bunch of cases that are currently
being heard by the arbitration committee - such as the climate change
dispute, which *do* need to be dealt with, but why I - and others -
believe shouldn't be dealt with by a system of paroles, bans,
limitations and punishment. What Unfocused suggests is effectively
just the status quo - which, in my book, is going to see good editors
leave because we end up having to limit their editing rights instead
of solving the blasted dispute, once it has gone on for long enough.

I'm *not* necessarily in favour of any form of content committee - in
fact, I think it's probably the wrong way to go about it - partly for
the reasons Unfocused mentions. There *are* alternatives, however -
and I urge those reading to help us out in determining how we might
get around this one. Attacking a system that nobody's suggested and
nobody wants really doesn't help anyone much.

-- ambi


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

body:
 It's always that last one percent that bites me in the ass, too.   The Echo is a failure, and is being discontinued.   http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/B02-58761.htm Your local dealerships are pretty good at hiding this kind of fact from their customers.  Their livelihood often depends on it.   Best regards,Michael TurleyUser:Unfocused --- On Thu 06/09, < dpbsmith at verizon.net > wrote:From: [mailto: dpbsmith at verizon.net]To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.orgDate: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:11:16 -0500 (CDT)Subject: [WikiEN-l] Some Wikipedian misinformation got temporarily lodged in my brainThis is NOT a big deal, but it occurred to me that I should mention it. My car had about 140,000 miles on it and I was about ready for a new one. I like Toyotas and I wanted good mileage, and I checked Consumer Reports and, for me, the choice sort of came down to a $14,000 Echo or a $22,000 Prius. A colleague at work owns _two_ Echoes and likes them.But... I had recently run across this
item in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_commercial_failures&oldid=12519168"List of commercial failures: Toyota Echo - Sales of the US version of the Yaris subcompact car fell from 50,000 in 2000 to just 3400 in 2004. Sales in Canada of both the sedan and hatchback versions remain strong." The referenced article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Vitz , says:"The initial year of almost 50,000 sales was promising, but after the Echo sold just half that many for 2003, the product was no longer stocked at dealerships. Sales for much of 2004 have reached just 3,593, with another year of production left before the product is replaced."So... I crossed the Echo off my mental list. I remember my wife saying to me at one point "Weren't you thinking about the Echo" and replying "Well, I was, but I guess it was a big flop and is probably not even available this year."As I started to get more serious about the car-shopping process I did a little more
checking. As nearly as I can tell, that statement is just plain wrong. Consumer Reports said nothing about the product being replaced. As of 2005 a local Toyota dealer had them in stock, and other dealers were advertising them. There were no firesale prices to get rid of them. There is a 2005 Toyota Echo website at www.toyota.com/echo/ and a review at http://cars.about.com/od/2001/fr/05_echo_tst.htm that gives no hint of it being replaced or not stocked.I removed the item from the Flops article and left a query on the talk page, so far unanswered. (I suppose I should do something in the Toyota Vitz article too).I'm 99% sure it's misinformation. (Possibly a result of confusion between the sedan and hatchback models?)It's not like it ruined my life or even affected my buying decision. Hey, it was really the Prius I wanted, anyway. Having the Echo still available just meant I needed to work harder to find a rationalization for the Prius.But it does give me pause to realize that
a little tidbit of Wikipedian misinformation actually got past my BS filter and lodged itself in my brain, even if only briefly.How many bits of Wikipedian misinformation have gotten past my BS filter and _stuck,_ I wonder?Oh, well, in my life I'm sure I've absorbed quite a bit of misinformation (it's dangerous to go swimming for thirty minutes after you eat... you need to drink 64 ounces of water every day... suntans are healthy... the continents don't drift...). A little bit more can't hurt._______________________________________________WikiEN-l mailing listWikiEN-l at Wikipedia.orghttp://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

body:
Fastfission (fastfission at gmail.com) [050609 12:57]:

> With this understanding of NPOV, then NOR falls into a similar spot
> (and almost becomes No Original Opinions as well). If a source is not
> accessible, it is likely not part of the mainstream understanding,

No Original Opinions is a useful corollary. One really annoying form of
original research is to present an idiosyncratic and novel opinion then
supply a pile of references for the facts but not the opinion. Cranks have
references out to *here*, but it's still original work. That's really not
an encyclopedia's job.

- d.


body:
michaelturley at myway.com (michaelturley at myway.com) [050609 14:47]:

> I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
> Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall.  Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing.  Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.

Mediation is between the disputing editors; that can work well on a
per-conflict basis. But I agree on the arbitration of content. That's
my other concern - when does it get reviewed, if ever?

- d.


from_name: Dan Johnson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Some Wikipedian misinformation got temporarily lodged
	in my brain

body:
dpbsmith, I had little knowledge about this myself, but I asked my
father, who has been a Toyota salesman for 26 years, to shed light on
this subject:

"Toyota itself has been wavering about whether they will continue the Echo line.

Whether or not you can get an Echo depends on what part of the country
you're in. They don't bring more than a handful into New England. Even
information we get from the region leaves us unsure whether there will
be any more.

Look at a Scion xA. It's more car for less money -- same chassis, same
engine, and standard equipment that would be optional on the Echo."

My own searching brought up these helpful links:
http://www.scionlife.com/scion/xa/
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/B02-58761.htm

You may wish to reinstate the "Flops" entry on the Echo; it's not a
huge flop as such, so it's up to you.

Cheers,
Dan Johnson (User:Greentryst)

ADDENDUM: I checked the list before sending this, and saw responses.
Michael Turley was on the ball for the DetNews.com link, and Matt
Brown wrapped it up quite nicely, but I am sending this anyway to back
up their comments with a comment from a professional in the field.
Wikilove! -- Dan

On 6/9/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> This is NOT a big deal, but it occurred to me that I should mention it.
>
> My car had about 140,000 miles on it and I was about ready for a new one. I
> like Toyotas and I wanted good mileage, and I checked Consumer Reports and,
> for me, the choice sort of came down to a $14,000 Echo or a $22,000 Prius. A
> colleague at work owns _two_ Echoes and likes them.
>
> But... I had recently run across this item in Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=List_of_commercial_failures&oldid=12519168
>
> "List of commercial failures: Toyota Echo - Sales of the US version of the
> Yaris subcompact car fell from 50,000 in 2000 to just 3400 in 2004. Sales in
> Canada of both the sedan and hatchback versions remain strong." The
> referenced article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Vitz , says:
>
> "The initial year of almost 50,000 sales was promising, but after the Echo
> sold just half that many for 2003, the product was no longer stocked at
> dealerships. Sales for much of 2004 have reached just 3,593, with another
> year of production left before the product is replaced."
>
> So... I crossed the Echo off my mental list.
>
> I remember my wife saying to me at one point "Weren't you thinking about the
> Echo" and replying "Well, I was, but I guess it was a big flop and is
> probably not even available this year."
>
> As I started to get more serious about the car-shopping process I did a
> little more checking.
>
> As nearly as I can tell, that statement is just plain wrong. Consumer Reports
> said nothing about the product being replaced. As of 2005 a local Toyota
> dealer had them in stock, and other dealers were advertising them. There were
> no firesale prices to get rid of them. There is a 2005 Toyota Echo website at
> www.toyota.com/echo/ and a review at http://cars.about.com/od/2001/fr/
> 05_echo_tst.htm that gives no hint of it being replaced or not stocked.
>
> I removed the item from the Flops article and left a query on the talk page,
> so far unanswered. (I suppose I should do something in the Toyota Vitz
> article too).
>
> I'm 99% sure it's misinformation. (Possibly a result of confusion between the
> sedan and hatchback models?)
>
> It's not like it ruined my life or even affected my buying decision. Hey, it
> was really the Prius I wanted, anyway. Having the Echo still available just
> meant I needed to work harder to find a rationalization for the Prius.
>
> But it does give me pause to realize that a little tidbit of Wikipedian
> misinformation actually got past my BS filter and lodged itself in my brain,
> even if only briefly.
>
> How many bits of Wikipedian misinformation have gotten past my BS filter and
> _stuck,_ I wonder?
>
> Oh, well, in my life I'm sure I've absorbed quite a bit of misinformation
> (it's dangerous to go swimming for thirty minutes after you eat... you need
> to drink 64 ounces of water every day... suntans are healthy... the
> continents don't drift...). A little bit more can't hurt.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Jimmy:
>
>> That is not to say that polls/votes can't play any role in the process,
>> nor is it to say that we don't need to advance the state of the art in
>> dealing with such cases.  But introducing binding votes destroys some of
>>  what is most essential about the interaction between the wiki process
>> and the generation of high quality neutral content.
>
> What we have here is a belief. I would like to see some arguments in
> support of that belief. "Binding vote" doesn't mean "cannot ever be
> questioned for all eternity." But there should be good reasons for
> doing so. And when you define these conditions and processes, the
> distinction between votes and polls becomes less clear, and what you
> think is "something you will never support" might actually turn out to
> be something you already support, albeit in a less formally defined
> manner.

When votes are frequent enough people soon lose track of which ones are
important.  The distinction between a binding vote on major policy, and
a casual poll of personal preferences tend to get lost.  We have _Votes_
for Deletion; we have votes whenever someone wants to become a sysop,
etc., etc. A vote was announced on the AD/CE issue, but when I followed
the annoucement about that I found out that the vote would not begin for
a few days.  I have no idea about the level of officialdom that would
apply to that, and I can't spend all my wiki time looking for places to
exercise my franchise.  What charecterizes an important vote besides the
fact that the person who starts the process says that it is.

Ec


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> In general, we have gone with ISO-639 in deciding what is a language
> and what a dialect, only Allemanish and Aromanian have been accepted
> without such a code. However, that too is not an official policy, just
> a "the way we have done it till now".

And it is worth noting in this context that deference to ISO codes was
primarily done as a convenience, to avoid having to have a lot of
complex arguments inside the community.  The thought was that the ISO
codes are defined by a neutral, standard body, and that we could just
defer to their judgment.

As it turns out, in my opinion, the ISO codes are only really "correct"
for the major languages.  In terms of the question of dialect vs.
language, they are highly politicized and quite often wrong.

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: skins/php: inserting a 2'nd page by name

body:
> I want to replace the navigation-menu by a fixed article (e.g. mywiki:menu).
> Therefor i just would like to replace the navigation part ("<?php
> foreach($this->data['navigation_urls']  ... " by a function, which inserts the
> article called "mywiki:menu".
> This would make the changing of the navigation-menue much more easier.

Take a look at the CVS history, It used to be like that between the
1.4 handling and the current system but I replaced it with the current
format because the former was too slow, however if you don't need the
speed you might want to backport it.


body:
(Wouter asked me privately to please personally comment on this thread,
so I will.)

Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
> Could requests
> for wikipedias in Zeelandic and Town Frisian be granted.

Not knowing anything about these two particular variants, I am unable to
make a proper guess or judgment.

This thread has done a very good job I think of discussing some or most
of the factors that should properly go into a decision such as this.

We are currently inconsistent in our treatment of different linguistic
situations.  I do not think this inconsistency is good, but I also do
not think it is a grave crisis.  I am not even certain that consistency
is desirable -- there may not be a "one size fits all" solution to this
question.

One thing I think we can all agree upon: there is a difference between
us *needing* a certain language in order to fulfill our global vision of
a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet (in a language
they can easily enough understand) and us *wanting* a certain language
in order to fulfill a secondary goal of language preservation and
support for minority communities.

"Every single person on the planet" is a bit of rhetoric, but a serious
bit of rhetoric.  I will feel that this mission is complete if we have
an encyclopedia written in enough languages so that 99.99% of all people
_who are able to read in some language_ can read a Wikipedia.

Let me take as an example Welsh.  I am happy that we have a Welsh
wikipedia.  But it is all true that virtually every Welsh reader can
also read English.  Therefore, to meet our *central* mission, English
does the trick for Welsh speakers.  And for this *secondary* goal, Welsh
is a nice thing to have too.

Are all people who could read Zeelandic and Town Frisian also people who
can read standard Dutch?  Then we don't *need* them for our primary
mission, but they would be a nice thing to have as well, if it makes
social sense for the community.  (Meaning, if there are enough people
who want to do it, etc.)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] dumps

body:
>  Would there be technical or human limitations to this ?

mysqldump(1) doesn't allow selective dumps of table contents.


subject: [Wikitech-l] substr vs mb_substr

body:
On 6/9/05, ????????? ??????? <alexander.sigachov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sal'
>
> If summary field text is in multi-byte encoding and we want to grep
> the first 150 chars of comment then a slightly strange char sometimes
> appears in history
>
> Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Venera-7_diagram.jpg&action=history
> ==============
>  (==????????/Description== *ru:???????????? ?????????????? ???????
> ???????-7?: 1 ? ?????? ????????? ???????; 2 ? ?????? ???????????????;
> 3 ? ???????? ?)
> ==============
>
> I think,  It's first byte of truncated two-byte char. So, we have to
> use "mb_substr" instead of "substr", is'nt it?
>

Without having actually looked at the code but it should be using the
truncate() function from the language class, however the Language.php
version of that function is not Unicode aware so stuff like this will
continue happening until bug 2069 is solved
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2069)


subject: [WikiEN-l] My views on policies and debates over content

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
>>>encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
>>>way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
>>>they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
>>>There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
>>>decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
>>>enforced (arbitration).
>>>
>>>--
>>>Stephen Bain
>>>
>>>
>>If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
>>support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
>>unpopular views.
>>
>>* We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
>>  scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
>>  disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
>>  are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
>>
>>
>That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):
>
>* 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
>substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
>* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
>easy to name prominent adherents;
>* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
>minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
>ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
>regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
>
>So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
>anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
>The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
>and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
>this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
>warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
>#3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
>
So who is claiming that it is caused by aliens?  It's easy to invent an
argument that is supported by no-one and use that as an argument that
the position is not verifiable.

>I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
>extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
>
This is still treating truth as a numbers game.  Sometimes great
scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
their opinions on a discovery.  Verifiability is a more important
criterion than being the position of a small minority.  Some people who
held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went around the sun
were severely persecuted at one time.

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Compulsory Mediation,	Was Arbitration Commitee
	Seeking Comment

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 6/7/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a
>>requirement/obligation.
>>
>>
>I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on
>my request).  The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to
>report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation.
>Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the
>report.  (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the
>other we agreed on nothing.)  I think it's important that those acting
>as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting
>only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if
>anything, during the mediation.  If either party refuses to mediate in
>good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a
>close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining
>why.
>
Although I largely agree with you, when only one of the parties is
clearly not negotiating in good faith that should be made clear in the
report.  This does not mean that this should be explained in great detail.

Ec


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Namespace in Friulian Wiki

body:
On 09/06/05, A. Decorte <klenje at adriacom.it> wrote:
> Thanks, that was useful, I've copied succesfully messages from Allmesages. I
> have still a couple of questions:
> Where is Wikipedia: namespace defined? And the wgSitename variable? Cuz I would
> like to change them to Vichipedie. And also a small request: could you test my
> translation when it's ready? Because I can't install php (so Wikipedia) on my pc

$wgSitename and $wgMetaNamespace (which I believe is what sets the
"Wikipedia:" namespace) are set in LocalSettings.php on the server; as
far as I know, they can only be changed directly by a developer with
access to the Wikimedia servers.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Jack Lynch

body:
I own a 2000 Echo, and its a great car, btw.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/9/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> This is NOT a big deal, but it occurred to me that I should mention it.
>
> My car had about 140,000 miles on it and I was about ready for a new one. I
> like Toyotas and I wanted good mileage, and I checked Consumer Reports and,
> for me, the choice sort of came down to a $14,000 Echo or a $22,000 Prius. A
> colleague at work owns _two_ Echoes and likes them.
>
> But... I had recently run across this item in Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=List_of_commercial_failures&oldid=12519168
>
> "List of commercial failures: Toyota Echo - Sales of the US version of the
> Yaris subcompact car fell from 50,000 in 2000 to just 3400 in 2004. Sales in
> Canada of both the sedan and hatchback versions remain strong." The
> referenced article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Vitz , says:
>
> "The initial year of almost 50,000 sales was promising, but after the Echo
> sold just half that many for 2003, the product was no longer stocked at
> dealerships. Sales for much of 2004 have reached just 3,593, with another
> year of production left before the product is replaced."
>
> So... I crossed the Echo off my mental list.
>
> I remember my wife saying to me at one point "Weren't you thinking about the
> Echo" and replying "Well, I was, but I guess it was a big flop and is
> probably not even available this year."
>
> As I started to get more serious about the car-shopping process I did a
> little more checking.
>
> As nearly as I can tell, that statement is just plain wrong. Consumer Reports
> said nothing about the product being replaced. As of 2005 a local Toyota
> dealer had them in stock, and other dealers were advertising them. There were
> no firesale prices to get rid of them. There is a 2005 Toyota Echo website at
> www.toyota.com/echo/ and a review at http://cars.about.com/od/2001/fr/
> 05_echo_tst.htm that gives no hint of it being replaced or not stocked.
>
> I removed the item from the Flops article and left a query on the talk page,
> so far unanswered. (I suppose I should do something in the Toyota Vitz
> article too).
>
> I'm 99% sure it's misinformation. (Possibly a result of confusion between the
> sedan and hatchback models?)
>
> It's not like it ruined my life or even affected my buying decision. Hey, it
> was really the Prius I wanted, anyway. Having the Echo still available just
> meant I needed to work harder to find a rationalization for the Prius.
>
> But it does give me pause to realize that a little tidbit of Wikipedian
> misinformation actually got past my BS filter and lodged itself in my brain,
> even if only briefly.
>
> How many bits of Wikipedian misinformation have gotten past my BS filter and
> _stuck,_ I wonder?
>
> Oh, well, in my life I'm sure I've absorbed quite a bit of misinformation
> (it's dangerous to go swimming for thirty minutes after you eat... you need
> to drink 64 ounces of water every day... suntans are healthy... the
> continents don't drift...). A little bit more can't hurt.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: www.biography.ms is illegally using Wikipedia
	content

body:
On 09/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> /me is astonished. I just did not *think* of adding the "pdf" in the
> search area. This is perfect. Thanks :-)

Of course, if you want to go one step further, you can use
"filetype:pdf" (which also eliminates any need to exclude Wikipedia
and its mirrors since they don't host PDFs) :D

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] User permissions fail

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> # Granting user permissions...
> Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot
> contact the database server.
>
> It shows the same behaviour for MySQL 4.1 running on either Windows or
> Linux. On the Windows box, it recently killed the working MediaWiki 1.4
> by trashing the MySQL wikiuser permissions.

There's a section in the RELEASE-NOTES about compatiblity problems with
MySQL 4.1's changes to the authentication protocol if your PHP is linked
against older MySQL client libraries (as most distributions are). This
has a link to a page on MySQL's web site about the topic.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050610/7f8daf0f/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Fastfission

body:
The idea that a NPOV policy based on "significance" (however fuzzy)
would necessarily translate into one based on "majority rule" (as if
only one POV could be represented in any given article, anyway) would
lead to a destruction of all articles on religion and the creation of
a wholly "liberal POV Wikipedia" is a pretty sad strawman...

FF

On 6/9/05, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> > > encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
> > > way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
> > > they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
> > > There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
> > > decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
> > > enforced (arbitration).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Bain
> >
> > If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> > support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
> > unpopular views.
> >
> > * We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
> >   scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
> >   disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
> >   are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
> >
>
> That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):
>
> * 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
> substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
> * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
> easy to name prominent adherents;
> * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
> minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
> ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
> regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
>
> So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
> anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
> The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
> and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
> this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
> warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
> #3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
>
> I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
> extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] addind new language into wikipedia

body:
...anyhow I would like to add that wanting to avoid possible legal
problems is indeed a motivator in many situations; also that in most
cases where there is a translated form of the name Wikipedia, that
translation is not trademarked (for example, the Armenian name).

Also, I don't know if you realise this but Wikipedia is really a very
generic name and I don't think we should be allowed to hog it as we
do.

A cheeseburger is a hamburger with cheese. A Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia using wikiwiki software... well not really, it only
means a specific one (!). That just doesn't make sense - Wikipedia is
a very generic name.

Mark

On 09/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, there is no objection, and I don't think there ever has been.
>
> The same seems to be true with Amis, except that Amis doesn't have a
> suitable language code.
>
> If it would be OK, an agreement was reached among the involved parties
> that amis.wiktionary.org would be suitable. (they wanted a Wiktionary
> created, and maybe a Wikipedia at some future date).
>
> Otherwise, xxx-amis, i-amis, x-amis, or anything like that might be OK.
>
> Amis will actually have a code in the new version of the ISO
> three-letter codes, but it hasn't been finalised yet (I for one think
> it's horrible -- it's based almost entirely on the Ethnologue, which
> means they combine languages which shouldn't be combined and divide
> languages which shouldn't be divided, and exclude some languages
> altogether).
>
> There haven't been any objections to the Sa--whatsit Wikipedia, but
> then there are no good code suggestions either.
>
> Also, a Scots Wikipedia (among others) has been requested and has a
> test Wikipedia that seems to be working a bit. I  don't recall any
> objections to Scots either, and it has an iso code, sco:
>
>
> Mark
>
> On 08/06/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Os.wikipedia was requested around the same time as the V?ro kiil`
> > > Wikipedia, but it was created sooner. One possible reason is that they
> > > had an off-site Ossetic version of Wikipedia that they set up, which
> > > might've helped increase the apparent urgency for a developer (the
> > > sooner you set it up, the less likely they are to remain at a separate
> > > website, etc).
> >
> > Since V?ro is already being edited as part of the Test-wp on meta, I
> > don't think a separate site would help here.
> >
> > > I don't know if it's exactly legal to use the name "wikipedia" for an
> > > off-site version, in fact I'm betting it's not, but the foundation has
> > > plenty of more important things to worry about than costly legal
> > > battles over whether or not such sites should be able to use the name,
> > > especially if it's only temporary.
> >
> > Please don't do this. Violating the Foundation's trademarks is hardly
> > a good start to getting your wiki accepted within the project. If it
> > needs to be off-site, you should choose another name for it until it
> > is officially a Wikipedia.
> >
> > Is there actually any objection to V?ro being created now at fiu-vro?
> >
> > Angela.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Jimmy:

> That is not to say that polls/votes can't play any role in the process,
> nor is it to say that we don't need to advance the state of the art in
> dealing with such cases.  But introducing binding votes destroys some of
>  what is most essential about the interaction between the wiki process
> and the generation of high quality neutral content.

What we have here is a belief. I would like to see some arguments in
support of that belief. "Binding vote" doesn't mean "cannot ever be
questioned for all eternity." But there should be good reasons for doing
so. And when you define these conditions and processes, the distinction
between votes and polls becomes less clear, and what you think is
"something you will never support" might actually turn out to be
something you already support, albeit in a less formally defined manner.

Erik


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

subject: [Wikitech-l] substr vs mb_substr

body:
Sal'

If summary field text is in multi-byte encoding and we want to grep
the first 150 chars of comment then a slightly strange char sometimes
appears in history

Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Venera-7_diagram.jpg&action=history
==============
 (==????????/Description== *ru:???????????? ?????????????? ???????
???????-7?: 1 ? ?????? ????????? ???????; 2 ? ?????? ???????????????;
3 ? ???????? ?)
==============

I think,  It's first byte of truncated two-byte char. So, we have to
use "mb_substr" instead of "substr", is'nt it?

==
Cxion la plej helan,
meta:ajvol


from_name: Stephen Adair

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion lag times

body:
Thank you, Brion.  The difference is amazing.  Deletions occur almost
instantaneously now.  Out of 38 deletions tonight, I only had to retry
*once* -- that is the inverse of how things were a day ago.  Thank
you.

Stephen W. Adair
User:SWAdair

On 6/8/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> I haven't figured out the root problem yet, but I have localized it to
> one part of the deletion operation, and put in place a workaround which
> seems to have relieved the pressure. I'm doing some debug logging on
> deletions, and haven't seen any breaking halfway through in the hour-ish
> since I put it in place.
>


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] New Creative Commons Licenses - version 2.5

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

As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others,
version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all
new works.

In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and
[[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].

- --
Alphax
OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCqIG//RxM5Ph0xhMRAmf2AJ9mkctAurY5EOqbNFidL2jg6QzQ6gCgq8p8
vyniXVJBK9v33gREGSAHfeM=
=fM3Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help me figure something out

body:
On 6/10/05, Taco Deposit <tacodeposit at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Never mind, it was my spelling error.  I have now created redirects.

Don't you just hate it when that happens? It's as if the act of
hitting the [Send] button spurs the problem-spotting and solving imps
into action. They laze around, resting on pillows of sub-cortex,
chuckling amongst themselves: 'I wonder if he'll spot THAT?'

Then as soon as the thing is sent, they pick up the neurophone and
call Supreme Command: 'Hey ya dummy, you spelt "six" as "sex" - what
is it with you, one Freudian slip after amother?'

--
Pete, carefully checking his work before hitting the tit


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] User permissions fail

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

I asked this on mediawiki-l some time ago, but wasn't clear enough I
guess, so here it goes again:

When setting up MediaWiki 1.5alpha2, I get

...
# Granting user permissions...
Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot
contact the database server.

It shows the same behaviour for MySQL 4.1 running on either Windows or
Linux. On the Windows box, it recently killed the working MediaWiki 1.4
by trashing the MySQL wikiuser permissions.

Unless I'm messing something up big time here, this looks like a serious
bug. I remember the version before alpha2 to work in that regard, so it
is likely something that was introduced since then.

Any ideas?

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

iD8DBQFCqT0iCZKBJbEFcz0RAh/0AJ9O/JhFBoenbw6ciW1iz4BJmsStjACfdIh3
UKaTISGQe3dPRUY0or3q0zY=
=CIbS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Foundation-l] Board question

body:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 02:01:58AM +0200, Angela wrote:
>
> > I would therefore appreciate assurance that any community members of the
> > Board will be again chosen by the community in an election should such a
> > situation arise
>
> I'd be happy for that to happen as long it was more than three months
> before the following election. If you want real assurance of this, the
> bylaws would need to change since they currently specify that the
> Board would make an appointment in such a situation. Asking for
> assurance from the current Board without changing the bylaws won't
> give you much of a guarantee since two of those members could be
> replaced in the upcoming election.

On the other hand, a "poll" (effectively an election) might be held to
pick who will be "appointed" by the board, if the board so chooses.
Just a thought.  The bylaws place ultimate veto authority in the hands
of the board, but don't (as far as I'm aware) actually preclude the
allowance of community involvement in the selection process.

These statements are mine alone and at least as likely to be based on
mistaken impressions as anyone else's interpretation(s).

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


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Board question


body:
Additionally, I, and assumably many others, read encyclopedias, and
esp. the wikipedia, as a source of extremely obscure and bizarre info
not to be found elsewhere.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/10/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
>
> >On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> >>>encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
> >>>way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
> >>>they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
> >>>There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
> >>>decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
> >>>enforced (arbitration).
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Stephen Bain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> >>support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
> >>unpopular views.
> >>
> >>* We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
> >>  scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
> >>  disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
> >>  are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
> >>
> >>
> >That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):
> >
> >* 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
> >substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
> >* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
> >easy to name prominent adherents;
> >* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
> >minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
> >ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
> >regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
> >
> >So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
> >anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
> >The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
> >and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
> >this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
> >warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
> >#3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
> >
> So who is claiming that it is caused by aliens?  It's easy to invent an
> argument that is supported by no-one and use that as an argument that
> the position is not verifiable.
>
> >I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
> >extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
> >
> This is still treating truth as a numbers game.  Sometimes great
> scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
> their opinions on a discovery.  Verifiability is a more important
> criterion than being the position of a small minority.  Some people who
> held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went around the sun
> were severely persecuted at one time.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: Namespace in Friulian Wiki

body:
Ok, thanks so I need to find out a developer... do you know someone I can
contact? Thanks


from_name: Heinz

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab <at> gmail.com> writes:

>
> Take a look at the CVS history, It used to be like that between the
> 1.4 handling and the current system but I replaced it with the current
> format because the former was too slow, however if you don't need the
> speed you might want to backport it.
>

Thanks a lot

I use this solution. The only disadvantage is, that it works only in
skin/MonoNook.php

from
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Arcy#MediaWiki_anpassen_(1.4.4)

in my Wiki
----------

a new page called MediaWiki:MenuNavigation

In Monobook.php
---------------

<?php $this->msg('navigation') ?>

  <?php $this->msgWiki( 'MenuNavigation' ) ?>


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> > encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
> > way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
> > they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
> > There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
> > decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
> > enforced (arbitration).
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Bain
>
> If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
> unpopular views.
>
> * We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
>   scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
>   disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
>   are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
>

That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):

* 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
#3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.

I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: dumps

body:
> For our own private backups, we'd be better off copying the whole data directory from a slave. That allows the fastest restoration.

I would stilll like to have sql dumps as last resort. ;-)

Domas


from_name: Lane, Ryan

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Email authentication on Wikimedia wik
	is + Single user sign-on

body:
This has been mentioned before, but can't we resolve naming conflicts by
putting the wiki name in front of the username. For instance, two different
users have the name Monk, one on en: and one on fr:.

This wouldn't be overly complicated in an LDAP designed SSO world. Each
different wiki could get their own ou:

                      o=wikimedia
                               |
      -------------------------------------------
      |                |                |               |
  ou=fr         ou=en       ou=etc.      ou=etc.
      |                |
cn=Monk    cn=Monk

In all reality. In this case, you could have the same username on every
single wiki, or even be able to create new users with the same name (when
you create a new user on en, it gets put into en's ou). A design like this
could complicate things a little though, because a user would have to
remember where their user account was created, or they would have to type
their username as en:Monk, or fr:Monk. It could be a good way to resolve
conflicts.

A better design would be to use something just like above, but only allow
the same username for currently conflicting names. New usernames that
conflict will not be allowed, so users who do not have conflicting usernames
would not have to use the en:User, fr:User type syntax.

This type of design would also limit the amount of security hazard you'd
have if a single wiki was compromised (it only has permission to affect the
users it created, not the users other wikis created).

Of course, I have no clue if you plan on going with an LDAP solution or not,
but I'm guessing this kind of design would work in other systems as well.

V/r,

Ryan Lane

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent:	Friday, June 10, 2005 6:02 AM
> To:	wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject:	Re: Re[2]: [Wikitech-l] Re: Email authentication on
> Wikimedia wikis + Single user sign-on
>
> > Hello Magnus,
> >
> > Monday, June 6, 2005, 10:49:28 AM, you wrote:
> >
> >> I think I suggested this some time ago, but here it goes again:
> >> * Create "global" users for all unique user names in wiki(pedia)-land
> >> * Merge all users which carry same name and password hash (and maybe
> >> email), where all instances across wiki-land match perfectly
> >> * Block creation of all conflicting user names, both locally and
> >> globally * Work the conflicting ones out one-by-one manually, while
> >> keeping them active locally
> >
> >> This seems like the only fair way to me.
> >
> > what should I do if someone has different usernames on different wikis?
> > for example username "Monk" on en: is taken by someone (was inactive
> > for a long time). I will be unable to create global user name "Monk" at
> > all, if your proposal is implemented.
> >
> > It seems not too fair way to me.
>
> I think this is unresolvable unless we expire old accounts (which would
> work for you but perhaps not for others where there are two active users
> with the same name on different wikis).
> I happen to think it's bad practise to encourage editors to assume that
> accounts with the same name on different Wikis are held by the same
> person--there really is not way of being sure unless the editor puts a
> link to his other accounts on his userpage.  This can be validated
> manually by the reader simply by looking at the history of the userpage to
> make sure the information was added by the account owner.  I think that's
> good enough for Wiki.
> Another possibility which would require development work would be to
> permit editors to list their identities on alternate wikis in preferences.
>  To set this up the editor should be required to validate by entering his
> password on the foreign wiki, which is then checked by some suitable
> method (xml-rpc? SOAP? or else screen scraping) on the foreign Wiki, which
> must be up and running at the time the validation is carried out.
> Personally I don't think the benefit of this development-heavy solution
> would justify the cost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


body:
Nobody is talking about "truth" here. "Truth" is fought on the
vanguards, in little communities which do nothing but spend their time
producing "facts" and "knowledge" and "understanding", all fitting
into their own sets of standards of what counts as valid and reliable
("regimes of truth"), some of which brutally disagree with each other.

We don't want to play *that* game. That's not the role of an
encyclopedia. We digest those battles and report on them. We sit above
it all. We don't take part in that battle.

You don't turn to Encyclopedia Brittanica to get cutting-edge
information on the latest scientific research. You turn to it for the
basics of what is reasonably established, or the range of opinions
which the reasonably established people in the world consider
possible. You also turn there for references to sources for further
reading, if you want a more comprehensive view of things, or if you
want to take part in those battles for truth.

Our advantages over EB? We can update things considerably easier and
faster -- if tomorrow's patent clerk becomes today's Einstein, all the
better! We'll update it when it happens, but not a moment sooner. And
though I *loathe* the phrase "Wikipedia is not paper" (which never
called out to defend anything I find truly interesting in the world),
it is worth noting that another advantage we have is that we can say a
whole lot about a whole lot more. The "cut" of notability to get into
WP is significantly lower than with EB -- and I think that's a good
thing. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a cut at all.

Paul Feyerabend's famous critique of the scientific method was that it
-- and all "methods" -- restrained investigations into the truth,
restrained the ways to which one could approach the world. On that
observation, I think he was dead right.  But I think he errs in
thinking this a scandal: it's that way on purpose! Limiting inquiry to
what are thought to be "solvable" problems at the time using
"reliable" methods (however much they will be laughed at in the
future) allows one to focus manpower, energy, and resources towards
things which are likely to pan out.

Is it a "numbers game" of truth? No more than the world already is one
-- it is about who says what, how much you trust them, and one hopes
that if someone starts saying something "true", it will catch on with
others (though it is generally only "others in their same regime of
truth"). Does it work that way in real life? Only roughly. But
Wikipedia's pretension should only be to accurately summarize and
report on "real life" -- never to create "real life".

We need to ditch the pretension that Wikipedia is the place to
negotiate "truth" -- it isn't, it never has been, it never will be.
Time has shown it difficult enough to simply report on it!

FF

On 6/10/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This is still treating truth as a numbers game.  Sometimes great
> scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
> their opinions on a discovery.  Verifiability is a more important
> criterion than being the position of a small minority.  Some people who
> held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went around the sun
> were severely persecuted at one time.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Jack Lynch wrote:

>Additionally, I, and assumably many others, read encyclopedias, and
>esp. the wikipedia, as a source of extremely obscure and bizarre info
>not to be found elsewhere.
>
Absolutely!  And I hope we can add much more.  If it's verified as
having been proposed by somebody (which does not mean verifying that the
guy's theories make any sense),  and properly sourced what more can we
ask for.

I just acquired a volume of "Popular Science" from1872.  Wow!!

Ec


body:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:09:38PM +0200, Guaka wrote:
> > "Every single person on the planet" is a bit of rhetoric, but a serious
> > bit of rhetoric.  I will feel that this mission is complete if we have
> > an encyclopedia written in enough languages so that 99.99% of all people
> > _who are able to read in some language_ can read a Wikipedia.
>
> African language Wikipedias aren't very useful for this goal. Most
> Africans who are able to read are able to read in some colonial language
> (fr, en, pt, es, ar). In Bamako you have to look hard to find books,
> papers, or anything written not in French...
>
> I think actually that the mission is complete if people who are not able
> to read in some language are included. By using text-to-speech synths
> and voice recognition anybody who can either read or hear could access
> Wikipedia. Otherwise some 80% of Mali's population is excluded from the
> mission.
>
> The fact that there is more information available in people's mother
> tongue will be an incentive to actually learn to read (and write) in
> that language. But the same would count for Zeelandic or Limburgish,
> actually. The difference is the literacy rate and the (dis)similarity
> between the written and non-written languages.

On the other hand, I think it's worth noting that if promoting literacy
and delivering encyclopedia content to the illiterate (worthy goals to
be sure, but primary goals for other projects, or for the future after
Jimbo's stated primary goal is already met) actually hinders the goal
Jimbo has elucidated here, it's something that should probably be on the
back burner.  The Wikipedia project can't be everything to everyone: we
should ensure that it's successful at being something for someone,
though, and that requires a certain narrowing of focus.

The originally intended focus of it strikes me as a good choice.

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


from_name: Rebecca

body:
On 6/10/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Exactly. All I want are groups of people that the ArbCom can consult to help it
> determine just who is and is not following our content-related policies like
> NPOV and NOR. Going back to an old example; I simply don't know enough about
> advanced mathematics to know if a person is pushing a POV in that area or is
> engaging in original research except in the most blatant of cases. It would
> help arbitration a great deal if the ArbCom could ask a panel of non-involved
> and vetted users who *could* tell one way or the other.

You mistake what I'm saying. Take the climate change dispute as an
example. We *could* solve the dispute by getting in an advisory
committee to tell us who is pushing a POV (which would indeed be
helpful as we currently do things); but we would still be having to
resolve the dispute - even though it involves some long-standing and
generally perfectly good contributors - with punitive measures. It's
this that I really don't like - I maintain that unless someone is a
serious pest, we shouldn't be hearing their case in the first place.

-- ambi


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Email authentication on Wikimedia wikis +
	Single user sign-on

body:
> Hello Magnus,
>
> Monday, June 6, 2005, 10:49:28 AM, you wrote:
>
>> I think I suggested this some time ago, but here it goes again:
>> * Create "global" users for all unique user names in wiki(pedia)-land
>> * Merge all users which carry same name and password hash (and maybe
>> email), where all instances across wiki-land match perfectly
>> * Block creation of all conflicting user names, both locally and
>> globally * Work the conflicting ones out one-by-one manually, while
>> keeping them active locally
>
>> This seems like the only fair way to me.
>
> what should I do if someone has different usernames on different wikis?
> for example username "Monk" on en: is taken by someone (was inactive
> for a long time). I will be unable to create global user name "Monk" at
> all, if your proposal is implemented.
>
> It seems not too fair way to me.

I think this is unresolvable unless we expire old accounts (which would
work for you but perhaps not for others where there are two active users
with the same name on different wikis).
I happen to think it's bad practise to encourage editors to assume that
accounts with the same name on different Wikis are held by the same
person--there really is not way of being sure unless the editor puts a
link to his other accounts on his userpage.  This can be validated
manually by the reader simply by looking at the history of the userpage to
make sure the information was added by the account owner.  I think that's
good enough for Wiki.
Another possibility which would require development work would be to
permit editors to list their identities on alternate wikis in preferences.
 To set this up the editor should be required to validate by entering his
password on the foreign wiki, which is then checked by some suitable
method (xml-rpc? SOAP? or else screen scraping) on the foreign Wiki, which
must be up and running at the time the validation is carried out.
Personally I don't think the benefit of this development-heavy solution
would justify the cost.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: New Creative Commons Licenses - version 2.5

body:
Shouldn't we have multi-licencensing templates for that as well?

--Mgm

On 6/9/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others,
> version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all
> new works.
>
> In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and
> [[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].
>
> - --
> Alphax
> OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
> and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
> Lewis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCqIG//RxM5Ph0xhMRAmf2AJ9mkctAurY5EOqbNFidL2jg6QzQ6gCgq8p8
> vyniXVJBK9v33gREGSAHfeM=
> =fM3Z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion lag times

body:
--- Stephen Adair <swadair at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Brion.  The difference is amazing.
> Deletions occur almost
> instantaneously now.  Out of 38 deletions tonight, I
> only had to retry
> *once* -- that is the inverse of how things were a
> day ago.  Thank
> you.

I agree.  Thank you, Brion.

RickK

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


from_name: Elihu Falk

subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Cross-project vandal

body:
On Thu Jun 2 21:12:41 UTC 2005, kelvSYC wrote:
> I'm here to post a warning of a vandal that spans multiple projects.
> Here's a synopsis of how it went down from my POV:

> [[b:User:Ivyboy]] and possible sockpuppet [[User:Dittoboy]] have been
> causing disruptive behavior while trying to impersonate
> [[User:Bulbaboy]] on at least en.w and en.b and possibly others.  I
> was alerted to this when I saw the user trying to wikify a copyvio
> page (ripped from GameFAQs), then trying to delete subsequent vfd and
> copyvio notices and discussion from [[b:WB:VFD]] and the pages in
> question.
>
> As I was the person who took notice, I had to let another admin do
> the work.  [[User:User142]] and [[User:Frazydee]] (also an admin)
> have also been involved in this situation (as well as, of course,
> [[User:Bulbaboy]]).  Ivyboy and Dittoboy have since resorted to
> vandalism in various parts of en.w and en.b, ostensibly in an attempt
> to prevent users at their university, [[Bar Ilan University]] in
> Israel, from accessing the Wikimedia projects (it's also to note that
> User142 also attends the university).

I have a number of comments:
1)  Yestersay, [[User:Dittoboy]] started vandalising the other 7 wikis.
After having been blocked indefinitely from Wikibooks, and periodicly
signing in and clicking "Edit" in order to make sure no one else can do so
from [[Bar Ilan University]], he came up with a new method of getting
himself blocked. This method is simple - vandalise the user pages and talk
pages of admins, and one of them will decide to block him. This method
worked.

2)  I think that [[b:User:Ivyboy]] and [[User:Dittoboy]] are NOT the same
person. Until after [[b:User:Ivyboy]] was blocked at Wikibooks, it looked
like he just wanted to get up that stolen walkthrough and make it look
like he was [[User:Bulbaboy]]. His goodbye message, which warns about his
"friends", is different - I think [[User:Dittoboy]] tried to convince him
to try and block [[Bar Ilan University]], but [[b:User:Ivyboy]] refused.
He decided, however, to leave a message with [[User:Frazzydee]], saying
that he wasn't defeated (even though he was!). [[User:Dittoboy]] was
clearly a vandal from the beginning.

3)  [[User:Dittoboy]] at Wikibooks didn't say why he was doing what he was
doing - he vandalised the page of [[User:Jimmy Wales]] and a few other
pages, and reported himself on the Vandalism in Progress page. He later
reported himself on same page at Wikipedia. When I reverted that, he tried
a different method - he blanked most of the page, left a request to be
blocked so he can block Bar Ilan, with the title "Important Message To All
Administrators At Wikimedia". His edit comment was: "IF DELIBERATE
VANDALISM OF THIS PAGE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO YOUR BEING **BLOCKED** FROM
EDITING WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT WARNING, THEN BLOCK ME". This is clearly copied
from a comment on the page, with the word IF stuck before it and 3 words
added after it. He left that comment on the page, as the Backlog tag to
attract them to it. A user named Kelly Martin asked him not to vandalise
Wikipedia saying "If you do continue, your account and/or IP will be
blocked." His response was to replace her page with the message he was
placing everywhere ("I've been vandalising, and will continue vandalising,
pages in order to be blocked indefinitely. After that, I can keep Bar Ilan
University blocked indefinitely, in accordance with a political boycott
which I am forcing on Wikipedia against Bar Ilan University.") with a
different title: "I think you understand what I'm trying to do" (I just
added spaces where I think Dittoboy meant to put them)

       User142


body:
By the way, I fail to see any difference between 2.0 and 2.5 Can some
more law-savvy people explain the difference. I'm almost sure it's in
the legal version of the license.

--Mgm

On 6/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't we have multi-licencensing templates for that as well?
>
> --Mgm
>
> On 6/9/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others,
> > version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all
> > new works.
> >
> > In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and
> > [[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].
> >
> > - --
> > Alphax
> > OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
> > and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
> > Lewis
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFCqIG//RxM5Ph0xhMRAmf2AJ9mkctAurY5EOqbNFidL2jg6QzQ6gCgq8p8
> > vyniXVJBK9v33gREGSAHfeM=
> > =fM3Z
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


from_name: Guaka

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The Borders of Language Variety Tolerance

body:
> "Every single person on the planet" is a bit of rhetoric, but a serious
> bit of rhetoric.  I will feel that this mission is complete if we have
> an encyclopedia written in enough languages so that 99.99% of all people
> _who are able to read in some language_ can read a Wikipedia.

African language Wikipedias aren't very useful for this goal. Most
Africans who are able to read are able to read in some colonial language
(fr, en, pt, es, ar). In Bamako you have to look hard to find books,
papers, or anything written not in French...

I think actually that the mission is complete if people who are not able
to read in some language are included. By using text-to-speech synths
and voice recognition anybody who can either read or hear could access
Wikipedia. Otherwise some 80% of Mali's population is excluded from the
mission.

The fact that there is more information available in people's mother
tongue will be an incentive to actually learn to read (and write) in
that language. But the same would count for Zeelandic or Limburgish,
actually. The difference is the literacy rate and the (dis)similarity
between the written and non-written languages.


from_name: Delirium

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

>On the other hand, I think it's worth noting that if promoting literacy
>and delivering encyclopedia content to the illiterate (worthy goals to
>be sure, but primary goals for other projects, or for the future after
>Jimbo's stated primary goal is already met) actually hinders the goal
>Jimbo has elucidated here, it's something that should probably be on the
>back burner.  The Wikipedia project can't be everything to everyone: we
>should ensure that it's successful at being something for someone,
>though, and that requires a certain narrowing of focus.
>
>
This I agree with---we shouldn't try to become some vertically
integrated organization that solves all the world's problems, but
instead a focused grass-roots organization that does a good job at a
narrow set of problems.

There are a number of problems in the world somewhat related to our
mission---illiterate people can't read a written encyclopedia in any
language; people in countries with no internet access can't edit
wikipedia; people in poverty don't have time to work on a wiki
encyclopedia; people living under oppressive governments can't edit
wikipedia freely; etc.

I certainly don't think we should try to solve all those.  We can try to
mitigate problems where it's not that hard to do so (e.g. by producing
paper versions to distribute to non-internet-connected areas), but some
of them---like solving the "digital divide" or world hunger, or
overthrowing oppressive governments---are somewhat out of our areas of
core competence.

-Mark


from_name: James D. Forrester

body:
On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 07:28, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
wrote:

> Stephen Bain wrote:
>
> > On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> >
> > [> Stephen Bain wrote:]
> > > > The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> > > > encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded.

[Snip]

> > > If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> > > support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip
> > > of unpopular views.
> > >
> > > * We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
> > >  scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
> > >  disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
> > >  are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
> > >
> >
> > That's not what I meant.

[Snip]

> > So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
> > anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
> > The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
> > and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
> > this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
> > warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
> > #3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
>
> So who is claiming that it is caused by aliens?  It's easy to invent an
> argument that is supported by no-one and use that as an argument that
> the position is not verifiable.

OK, perhaps a different argument (and this is, as ever, subject to context):

The identity of 'the God', 'a god', or 'the gods' is one that a great number
of people have differing views upon. A sub-example of this is the concept of
the r?le of 'the God' - a large number of people consider the Palestinian
Jew "Jesus" to have been this figure. Other religions and traditions have
different views - "Rastafarians believe that Haile Selassie is both God the
Father and God the Son", to quote our article [[God]]. Yet further ones
insist that he is yet to come forth, but will do at some point - Jews, for
instance (IIRC). All of these are opinions held by (at least) millions of
people, and we would (and do) given them time in an article on the subject
(we would probably go through them in rough descending order of believers,
by past memory - this gives more prominence to widely-held opinions without
prejudicing the readers' opinions of or promoting some judgement on them).
OTOH, [[Sollog]] believes himself to be the son of God (AIUI, or God
himself, or something), and there are very few, perhaps no, people who hold
this opinions of him; thus, we would not mention his claim in the article,
as it is inappropriately giving time and hence credence to a cause that does
not warrant it. This, indeed, is exactly what we do do. Common sense seems
to have triumphed. :-)

> > I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
> > extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
>
> This is still treating truth as a numbers game.  Sometimes great
> scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
> their opinions on a discovery.  Verifiability is a more important
> criterion than being the position of a small minority.  Some
> people who held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went
> around the sun were severely persecuted at one time.

So? It's not our job to trumpet minor views "just in case" they turn out to
be correct all along. Yes, we're "treating truth as a numbers game": it's
called showing editorial judgement.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: substr vs mb_substr

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Without having actually looked at the code but it should be using the
>> truncate() function from the language class, however the Language.php
>> version of that function is not Unicode aware so stuff like this will
>> continue happening until bug 2069 is solved
>> (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2069)
>
>
> I don't understand this claim. The LanguageUtf8 truncate *is* already
> UTF-8 aware; 2069 is a code layout issue only and does not affect
> functionality.
>
> If there's a bug here, it's from failing to call the function in the
> first place and letting the database crop the field.

Right, to put it another way, LanguageUtf8 is the base class for every
language class except LanguageLatin1. $wgLang->truncate() will always
use the correct encoding for the wiki, it's only if you call it with
Language::truncate() that you'll run into trouble.

Note that you can use mb_substr() in MediaWiki if you like, I
implemented a simulation of it for systems without mbstring, using the
/./u trick.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Lee Daniel Crocker

subject: [Wikitech-l] New syntax proposal

body:
I decided to release my new syntax for comment before I
finished the formal definition.  I'd like to get opinions
about it; in particular:

1) Is there any current mediawiki feature--including those
   relying on embedded HTML--that can't be done with this new
   syntax in a cleaner way?

2) Are there any ways to simplify this further without
   sacrificing functionality?

Note: I'm not married to the exact characters used; I'm
not so much interested in the minute details as the overll
structure, though suggestions about details are welcome too.

Start here: <http://piclab.com/lee/index.php/Wiki_syntax_examples>

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>  <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>


body:
Guaka wrote:

>>The originally intended focus of it strikes me as a good choice.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe the goal should be "one of people's mother tongues" instead of any
>language they can read. This would exclude Zeelandic and other European
>regional languages but would definitely include many African languages.
>
>
But if our core purpose is to get information to people, isn't simply
any language they can read well the proper criterion?

(And what is a "mother tongue" anyway?  There are definitely people who
claim some European regional language as their only "mother tongue", and
say they only read/write/speak the "mainstream" language out of necessity.)

-Mark


from_name: Dominic McDevitt-Parks

subject: [Wikitech-l] Transwiki

body:
Okay, this is my first post here, and I'm not really sure this is the best place to put my question. I'm hoping some of you know how to make bots. Here's my situation: a while back, Kevin Rector (who has since left Wikiedia) made me a bot to do assisted transwikis to Wiktionary. It's been a great help (Check out WP:TL) and whereas once there was a backlog of articles tagged for transwiki of >1000, now it is essentially zero as I clean out the category every day. So, I'd like a similar bot that can do transwikis to all the other sister projects. Wikibooks and Wikisource, in particluar, both have backlogs of over 100, some of which have been waiting around, even after VfD decisions, for months without transwiki. And some minor bugs in the current bot could do with some fixing. I'm hoping that someone can make this bot (I'll still run it). You can contact me on my WP talk page (I'm Dmcdevit). And thanks a lot.

Dominic


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> You said, and I quote, "It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia
> to every single person on the planet in their own language."
>
> "In their own language" is unambiguous. Ngugi wa Thiong'o's "own
> language" is Gikuyu. He can read English very well, and Swahili very
> well. He would be able to read those Wikipedias. But they are not "in
> his own language".

If you can competently read a language, it's "your own language".

In terms of an actual practical definition of success, we have to use
something like 99.9% or 99.99%, because there will always be a handful
of quirky situations leftover.

Let me put it this way.  If I die young (100 years from now ;-)) having
only gotten a free encyclopedia to 99.99% percent of the people in the
world, I won't feel that I've failed.

--Jimbo


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

body:
Following, & participating in, the various threads about Original
Research, I've noticed that a couple of points have not been
touched upon. And I think we should consider them while we are all
trying to develop a consensus on this matter.

1. Original research leads to the problem that some editors think
that they "own" an article. One of the exciting things about
writing for Wikipedia is being able to say "I put that text there!"
And while we are aware of the problems surrounding people who do
not want their purple prose to be deleted, the problems can only
increase if we allow people to put their own research in Wikipedia
& say "Wikipedia has something I discovered."

The Wiki way (as I understand it) is that one person adds their
input, and another may change or add to it; the result is that
the content of Wikipedia inevitably changes over time, gradually
(hopefully) moving between viewpoints in search of a balance.
Because original research is such a personal thing, it can only
disrupt this desirable changing.

2. Original research is inevitably POV; allowing original research
thus makes it easier for POV-pushers. I hope I'm not the only
one who has noticed that if a person performs research & discovers
a fact, they believe it to be true; they will not be receptive to
permitting other POVs intrude on their research. As a tangible
example, if I were to set forth my original research stating that
cats are better than dogs[*], I would obviously do so only if I
am convinced that it was true, & that anyone who disagreed with
me were either ignorant or in denial of the obvious facts.

And if we were to look at the motives of many POV-pushers, I
believe that they are acting in good faith, but are under the
same misconceptions that are linked to people who insist on
inserting some forms of original research.

3. To write some articles with a desirable quality, it is almost
impossible not to resort to what can be called, in good faith,
original research. And this point makes the matter a hard one.

To write about any literary work beyond the bare facts of its
creation & its characters & plot easily leads to original research.
After all, the Wikipedian is asked to explain perhaps the most
important things about the work -- what is it about, why is it
important, what does it mean -- based all too often on a personal
interpretation of the primary source. I wouldn't be surprised
that this is the reason why many articles about literature, music,
cinema & the plastic arts are in need of more material. While in
many cases there exists a usable amount of secondary literature
about a work -- a prime example being the plays & poetry of
William Shakespeare -- for a lot of authors who should have
articles in Wikipedia, there is little or nothing. Looking at my
own bookshelf, I'd be hard-pressed to think of critical literature
on Craig Lesley, Kazuo Ishiguro, James Branch Cabel, Toni Morrison,
L. Sprague de Camp, Harry Harrison, Hunter S. Thompson or Chinua
Achebe.[**] And even some topics that should not be hard to
find abundant secondary literature for -- say a history of the
influence Homer's _Iliad_ had on Western Literature -- would
be difficult to complete without doing research & drawing
conclusions (e.g., just how far was Elias Loennrot influenced
by the _Iliad_ in his compilation of _The Kalevala_?).

Another instance is the creation of lists on Wikipedia; in some
categories, the compilation & sorting would involve some kind
of POV, whether conscious or accidental. The example I had in
mind was the project of compiling a list of Mayors of Addis
Ababa, the largest city in Ethiopia. I hope we can all agree that
this is a list worth having in Wikipedia; but can we be
assured that the people listed weren't included or excluded on
an NPOV basis? Or that if there is a conflict of opinion over
the order of 2 or more Mayors, that the right opinion was
followed?[***]

If I may be allowed to answer my own question, I think there
is a way to allow original research into Wikipedia without also
allowing its problems in. One way would be to present the
conclusions of orignial research overtly as one, non-exclusive
POV. To do this requires the use of some despised weasel-words like
"based on this evidence, it appears that" or "it may be true that"
or "this suggests". After all, even if the evidence screams that
a given conclusion is the only conceivable one, further research
or peer review may show that some of the evidence can be explained
away or be shown to support an entirely different conclusion.

Another approach -- & these are not exclusive -- is to admit
that even though we are Neutral Point of View, sometimes because
no article on Wikipedia is every truly complete we are only able
to present one of many POVs. That is, the original editor adds
her/his research with the full knowledge that another editor may
drastically rewrite it to add other material. In a way, this is
identical to current policy -- well, as I understand current
policy; but this not only reinforces the idea that no one
Wikipedian owns an article (avoiding issue #1 above), but also
it may be useful for everyone to occasionally step back in a
dispute & determine whether our arguments are based on a myopic
& enthusiastic embrace of our own POV (avoiding issue #2 above).

This is all meant as more material to chew on. The [[No original
research]] policy helps in a lot of different ways, but clearly
it has a few problems that require some tweaking with it.

Geoff

[*] I selected this example not necessarily because I believe it
is true, QED, but because I live with 3 cats who would shred me
into hamburger were I to argue the opposite opinion. Let's not
debate this topic.

[**] Just a selection of fiction writers from the shelf next to
my desk, nothing more.

[***] I've encountered a similar problem in compiling a list of
the Patriarchs of Antioch -- an article I've likely left unfinished,
& hampered by countless cases of umarked POV content, but at the
end I grew tired of the subject, & decided it was time to leave
the article for someone else to work on.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: dumps

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
>>> Would there be technical or human limitations to this ?
>>
>>
>> mysqldump(1) doesn't allow selective dumps of table contents.
>
>
> Actually, it does -- you can supply a where clause as an option.
>
> We won't be using mysqldump for main content dumps under 1.5, though;
> we'll be generating dumps from dumpBackup.php. Adding a restricted-
> namespace cur-only dump to the others would be easy.
>

It's not even clear we can use mysqldump anymore for Wikipedia in 1.4.
We'd have to dump both the small tables in the main DB cluster and the
bulk storage tables in srv28-30. Then the person importing the dump
would have to create two separate instances of MySQL, with two data
directories listening on two ports, and import one old table to each
one. Then they'd set up MediaWiki with $wgExternalServers specifying the
location of cluster1. It's a complicated procedure, probably too
complicated for most users.

I've often thought that some sort of synchronisation script, capable of
downloading the whole database in small chunks, would be better for most
people than periodically downloading large files. For our own private
backups, we'd be better off copying the whole data directory from a
slave. That allows the fastest restoration.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Enciclopedia Libre

body:
If they're so innocent, why would they be hurt by "half-sung songs"?

Mark

On 10/06/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> On June 5, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> > I was thinking of another non-English semifork of Wikipedia which has
> > way more articles than the Wikipedia version, and whose owner is
> > deeply involved in Wikipedia but while bragging in private e-mails and
> > on-list about how much work he/she does compared to others to put more
> > free content online, does not consider allowing the corresponding
> > language version of Wikipedia to share content.
> >
> > *cough*
>
> Now that you brought this up, why can't you spell the names out?
> Innocent people might feel accused and hurt by half-sung songs
> like this.
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


body:
It's not "their own language".

I can read, write, and speak Japanese to a sufficient degree that I
can read articles in Japanese, but it's not "my language".

For example, do you think Anthere considers English to be her
language? Definitely not.

Similarly Ngugi wa Thiong'o (formerly known as James Ngugi), winner of
a nobel prize for his writing, would tell you that neither English nor
Swahili -- his language is Gikuyu (ki.wikipedia.org, which just
recently got its mainpage translated, but still has 0 pages... it has
redlinks to pages about television, democracy, and the like though),
the language of his mother, his father, his home.

The language of former Japanese Diet member Shigeru Kayano is
similarly not Japanese nor English. If you ask him what his language
is, he will tell you that his language is Ainu without taking a moment
to think.

Susan Aglukark (Inuktitut "Susan Aglukkaq"), famous Canadian singer,
will tell you that "her language" is Inuktitut -- not English or
French -- the language of her hearth, of her family, of the arctic.

Patrick Pearse would've told you "his language" was not English but Irish.

Joseph Stalin (Georgian "Ioseb Jugashvili") may not be admired by
everybody, but nevertheless he is a well-known figure and "his
language" was not Russian but Georgian -- the language of his family,
his ancestors.

Joe Shirley, president of the Navajo Nation, will tell you that
English is not "his language" -- although he can speak it well, "his
language" and the language of his people is Dine bizaad, "the language
of the humans".

Vivian Juan-Saunders, the first ever female leader of the Tohono
O'odham Nation (the US part of which is about the size of
Connecticut), will tell you that "her language" and the language of
the Nation is 'O'Odham Ni'ok -- again "the language of humans".

"their language" could've been a bit ambiguous, but you said "their
own language" -- their OWN language -- which goes deeper and implies
more strongly that it truly belongs to them.

Mark

On 10/06/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > You said, and I quote, "It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia
> > to every single person on the planet in their own language."
> >
> > "In their own language" is unambiguous. Ngugi wa Thiong'o's "own
> > language" is Gikuyu. He can read English very well, and Swahili very
> > well. He would be able to read those Wikipedias. But they are not "in
> > his own language".
>
> If you can competently read a language, it's "your own language".
>
> In terms of an actual practical definition of success, we have to use
> something like 99.9% or 99.99%, because there will always be a handful
> of quirky situations leftover.
>
> Let me put it this way.  If I die young (100 years from now ;-)) having
> only gotten a free encyclopedia to 99.99% percent of the people in the
> world, I won't feel that I've failed.
>
> --Jimbo
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Sj

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Supreme Court justices, Academy Award winners,
	and Wikipedia founders...

body:
Sandwiched in-between Sharon Stone and Jada Pinkett-Smith, and
assorted political playmakers, persuaders, and pundits :

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/06.09/53-timeline.html

--
+sj+