body:
On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> e) Once tagged, there should be no big rush about deleting the
> material, but it should not remain indefinitely, either. How long?
> Assuming that there's no specific reason to doubt the material,
> months and months.
>
> The _only_ objections to this I can think of is that that the tags
> are ugly--which is true but susceptible to a technical fix--or that
> we are not serious about verifiability and don't truly want to
> restrict Wikipedia content to things that are supported by published
> material.

I don't think deleting accurate, high-quality, unreferenced material
is in Wikipedia's best interests. Asking for a source, yes. Adding
sources, yes. But *deleting* good material? No.

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline
 being	treated	as	absolute policy

references:
<f30e42de0611280509o645a2a1g5a554e4a388b922e@mail.gmail.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0611280528p2e5f58ddj6fbff3c4dc59247f@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140611280541r30db09bck6b5562fffd6f3ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<f30e42de0611280549p781614d3hc43c2ae8ca2a10d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2244.63.151.8.141.1164722527.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<bscpm2p0i11u0gga2qec13uc237tbun3u7@4ax.com> <456D30F0.7060800@shaw.ca>
	<7qqrm29onedcsgrlgbfboe05ab8uucsr73@4ax.com> <456E3C2B.4030104@shaw.ca>
	<1d0um2hro7ma93oum14sturmvat8ankm24@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic
>> factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of:
>> "Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his
>> portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV."
>> This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it
>> asserts the subject's notability just fine.
>
> This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played
> in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable
> source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it
> might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make
> vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).

If it's tagged for speedy deletion then it's tagged incorrectly and the
tag should simply be removed. This is my basic point, which still
stands; speedy deletion is not applicable to articles that simply lack
sources. If I take the article you describe and make those [reliable
source] bits vanish that doesn't change the actual assertion of
notability one whit.

If you think the assertion of notability is false or otherwise not
sufficient to warrant keeping the article, that's what PROD and AfD are
for. Not speedy deletion.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061130/4983fc45/attachment.pgp


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new non-stupid wiki-en thread

body:
On 11/30/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed a change in my editing behavior.  Some time ago, if I hit
> a redlink, my assumption was that it was because we didn't have an
> article on that topic yet.  Now, if I hit a redlink, I assume we do
> have the article, and we lack sufficient redirects.

I agree, but not quite this strongly. It's almost a game: "I wonder if
we really have nothing for this redlink?" If, after searching, I find
nothing, I often make a stub.

I like stubs. :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
On 11/30/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> Trouble is: I have checked that my own Erdos number is at most 4. Knowing that it is exactly 4, rather than 3, is equivalent to knowing a huge amount about collaborative papers ... which is a needle-in-haystack search.

No, it's really easy actually. Go to Wikipedia and check out
[[Category:Erdos number 2]]. If you've worked on a paper with any of
the people in it, you're 3. Otherwise, you're 4.

:p

Steve


list: foundation-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Foundation-l] Vandalism and small wikis

body:
> I don't understand you very well here. Many language (mostly
> European)are having nation marks (English, French, German, Russian,
> Albanina, Greek, Italian, ....)
You forgot that German is spoken in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and
Italy all three happily living together on one wiki - and of course:
there are some differences among these four versions of German, but
nevertheless they are ONE language.
French is spoken in France, Canada, Switzerland etc. and they work on
one Wikipedia.
Dutch is spoken in the Netherlands, Belgium and France and they work on
one Wikipedia.
Italian is spoken in Italy and Switzerland and they work on one Wikipedia.
English is spoken in Great Britain, USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. and
they all work on one Wikipedia.

Of course there are slight differences in the usage of certain
terminology, in writing etc., but they all happily work together. There
is the possibility, even now, to handle more than one language on a Wiki
and the smaller the communities of a certain language or variation or
dialect the more sense it makes to co-operate in one wiki for the simple
fact that the project has a better chance to survive - anyway the day is
not all too far that it will become even easier to hav various scripts
and dialects live on one wiki.

A Wiki project is about co-operation and not separation. You want to be
different: well, then show it and co-operate instead of allowing for
political separation. We all have one thing in common: we are human
beings and as such we have something called intelligence that
distinguishes us from other living forms ans as such we have the power
to decide ... the wiki way is co-operation and trying to understand each
other and not separation.

Languages develop over centuries, sometimes you have vowel shifts and
even stronger differences within one language ... well that is about
spoken language ... if you force the writing in a certain different way
that means that you create an artificial version of a language or you
write in a dialect.

Again: please co-operate and show that people, even living in different
nations, are able to work together.

Thank you for your attention and understanding.

Best,

Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Time for preformatted empty articles?

body:
>
> > > Plus it would slow down making redirects to cut boilerplate text. I do a
> lot of redirects ... I do mean thousands.
>
> > I was going to say, it should be possible to disable this feature for
> > experienced users.
>
>
> Maybe. OTOH, just have a look through [[Special:Newpages]] on a Sunday
> afternoon US time. You'll consider hitting Ctrl-A before typing
> #REDIRECT to be a small price to pay.
>
> - d.

Maybe the preformat should appear only when an IP address creates a page...

- another d.


from_name: Tony Jacobs

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:51:19 -0500
>
>On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > >
> > >I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the
>mission
> > of
> > >being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
> > >particular areas of knowledge.
> >
> > I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think
>it's
> > silly to try.  Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of
> > wikis,
> > specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards.  Why not
> > allow
> > for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different
> > ones
> > specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
>
>
>Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
>
>I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they
>shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
>
>One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you
>finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between general
>scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.

I guess one could try that, but the vision of Wikipedia that I've been
working with is that it aims to be an *encyclopedia*, understanding that
word to carry certain connotations about summarizing information from
secondary sources.  I think that's a worthy goal, and I'm not ready to
abandon it yet in favor of something I frankly don't believe in.

Consider Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki.  That's a great resource for all
things Star Wars, I'm sure, and it would be a significantly weaker resource
if they required that all their contributions be sourced in previously
published sources.  They need original research.  At Wikipedia, meanwhile,
our article on the French Revolution would be considerably weaker if we
didn't insist that all material be sourced in other publications.  We need
verifiability.  I'm quite happy to go to one place for original research,
and another for verifiable information.

Consider AboutUs.org, a domain directory Wiki.  They aim to cover every
domain on the web, with directory type information.  Our policies would be
useless for them, and their content is useless to us, for the most part.
Hence, two wikis.

I agree that all of this different information should be available, I just
don't see WP as the top level of the heirarchy; I see us as one of many
wikis.  Like it or not, we're specialists - we specialize in well-sourced
articles on topics for which such sources exist.  Let someone like Wikiindex
take the ceiling; we've got a comfortable niche where we are.

Tony/GTB

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipedia (sry)

body:
Of course, people always tell the truth on the internet... right? Why
would I believe you're a Moldovan speaker when you don't believe I am
one :-p

Mark

On 30/11/06, Liviu Andronic <landronimirc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So what is it? What is your native language? You said it was Moldovan,
> > I guessed it was French, and now you are telling me I have poor
> > English. Make a choice, sir.
> It is interesting how you guessed that I was a native French speaker,
> _after_ I have publicly presented myself as a native Moldovan - hence,
> speaker (my first
> comment<http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#The_Moldovan_section_of_Wikipedia_should_be_deleted>on
> this
> mo.wiki matter). You have a remarkable intuition. Chapeau.
>
> As for English.. English isn't a problem; your attitude is.
>
> Have a nice week
>
> --
> Liviu
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission of
being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
particular areas of knowledge.

On 11/29/06, Laurence Parry <greenreaper at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal
> sources
> >> in
> >> cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader
> >> would
> >> have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's
> contents.
> >> It
> >> might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts,
> >> but
> >> again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.
> >
> > I feel that if I go to Wikipedia to look up something relatively
> > notable, and Wikipedia's response is "We don't have an article on
> > that", then Wikipedia has failed me. If Wikipedia's response is
> > "GNAA's website is X, and we couldn't verify any information beyond
> > that, but here are some blogs", then it has performed much better.
>
> On a similar note . . . a fortnight ago there was a spate of AfDs for
> furry
> fandom articles, including a few furry conventions. Many of these articles
> were little more than "X is a furry convention in Y occuring at Z, it has
> 1000 people attend each year here's their website". Nobody was actually
> disagreeing that this was the case, but there was a lot of "Furrycruft!",
> "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary!" and "if you can't find a reliable 3rd
> party
> published source, you must convict!" flying around.
>
> What I ended up doing was creating [[furry convention]], which is
> essentially "[here's all the stuff we know in general about furry
> conventions from the reliable sources], if you want to know more about
> PafCon in particular, you want to go look at their website and at WikiFur,
> which is an encyclopedia that can contain original research and
> unverifiable
> material".
>
> Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional
> convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about
> topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people
> to
> those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so
> competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information
> they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids
> repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably
> result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our
> most dedicated contributors out).
>
> ---
> Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry
> http://greenreaper.co.uk - http://wikifur.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
>
>On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > >
>
>
>I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
>Age Before Required Sourcing.
>
>You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on topics
>for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
>
>You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia is
>healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
>rather
>than enforcing a Platonic model of the
>perfect Wikipedian.

You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing with is
a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
think Wikipedia should.

GTB

_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I support its deletion, but it's true that [[GNAA]] was useful to people even
> though it wasn't verifiable, and even though they could get the same info from
> other places on the Web. A lot of people find Wikipedia articles useful even
> when they're not supported by sources. "Encyclopedic" style -- you know,
> concise, formal tone, lack of opinionated waffling etc -- is an efficient way
> of getting across the raw facts, and we're usually fairly accurate and neutral
> (at least when measured against the wider Web).
>
> Should Wikipedia accept original research or use less-than-ideal sources in
> cases where there is little or no existing literature? Nope: the reader would
> have no way to establish whether they could trust an article's contents. It
> might work if you had those articles controlled by verifiable experts, but
> again, Wikipedia's not that encyclopedia.

I feel that if I go to Wikipedia to look up something relatively
notable, and Wikipedia's response is "We don't have an article on
that", then Wikipedia has failed me. If Wikipedia's response is
"GNAA's website is X, and we couldn't verify any information beyond
that, but here are some blogs", then it has performed much better.

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re:
	GNAADeleted!)

body:
>From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re:
>GNAADeleted!)
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:58:37 -0500
>
>On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> > >
> > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
>the
> > >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> > >
> > >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> > topics
> > >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> > >
> > >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
>Wikipedia
> > is
> > >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> > >rather
> > >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> > >perfect Wikipedian.
> >
> > You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
>lay
> > off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
>without
> > sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing
>with
> > is
> > a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> > completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> > coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
>comfortable
> > looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way
>I
> > think Wikipedia should.
>
>
>Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
>right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I
>think
>the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
>dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
>exacerbate that conflict.

Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as
saying they were.  However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get
left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily go
down.  It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.

GTB

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:

> What linguistic evidence? I am asking you all this time to give such
> evidence. What are the rules on WMF about this?

No formal rules that I know of but evidence that there is a consensus
of linguists that Montenegrin is a language rather than a dialect
would but a good start.

> Is it the evidence that 200.000 people talk Montenegrin language?
>

No that is how many claim to speak Montenegrin. It is likely that over
300 million speak US english. Doesn't make it a language seperate from
British english.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 30/11/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:

> By changing "links" to "link".  I think it helps to point out that
> more resources are needed, especially if the subject has an adequate
> amount of coverage elsewhere on the Internet.

AIUI there is more than one bot out there changing it back to "links".

- d.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
> Removing it is good with the reasons you gave.  We don't need lists of
> in-jokes.  There's still quite a few on [[4chan]], but luckily we've
> directed a lot of traffic to external sites that, er, specialize in
> that.
>

I'd rather read about 4chan memes on Wikipedia than on who-knows-what
external site like ED, kthx.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061130/9c109fac/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> George Herbert wrote:
<snip>
>>> If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented)
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
>>>
>> (Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from
>> MIT?
>
> I don't know where he went to school, but "Warlord of the West" was Dan
> Kline at (somethingorother).trw.com in the 1991 timeframe.
>

Ok, now that I've read the article, I'm thinking of someone completely
different :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061130/82d9d671/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

references:
<mailman.12918.1164754449.9606.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<456CC545.1090709@earthlink.net>
	<456CE040.6000105@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<f6srm215dks88erf3kjolnmouhdctrmcru@4ax.com>
	<2703.63.151.8.141.1164833294.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<s03sm2d45j6milj8iocjf6qgebcb8tkg22@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:48:14 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond"
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>>> Um.  There are many fewer unreliable magazines, due to the non-zero
>>> bar to publication.
>
>> That's not entirely true, though.  Magazines aren't considered "reliable"
>> due to the said "non-zero bar" factor, but rather because of their
>> history.  People are afraid of blogs, even though there are many blogs
>> that are just as reliable - even perhaps more reliable - than many
>> otherwise "trusted" magazines.  With very little exception, we'd accept a
>> magazine source, with proper attribution, in a non-controverisial
>> instance, and let the reader make the decision regardless of their
>> knowledge of the source.  There's absolutely no reason we couldn't do that
>> with blogs, too.
>
> There are two bars to magazine publication: cost (for the magazine
> itself) and editorial review (for the content).

*cough*

By definition, trash magazines do *not* have decent editorial review.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061130/eb7350cc/attachment.pgp


body:
On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
> That is very specific case, As in Switzerland live Italians, Germans and
> Franks.

No. Switzerland has proved itself to be independent of these rather
firmly for quite a number of centuries.

Switzerland also has a few Romansh speakers.

> Sabine,
> When I come here my idea was to collaborate and cooperate with others.
> If that was not the case we could make our own wikipedia. But that is
> not the case.
> I agree with you about humans but I will add: Human also have
> stereotypes, mis understanding, limited knowledge about specific topics
> and dont judge always the same in same cases.
>

However there is no need for a separate wikipedia unless it can be
shown there is a language barrier.

--
geni


body:
On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
> What linguists?

Hopefuly ones that are experts in the languages of the Balkan Peninsula
--
geni


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid 	material

body:
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
> On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>> What I meant is that _in Wikipedia,_ uncited material is not high-
>> quality material.
>
> What do you mean by "high quality"?

Well, according to the verifiability policy, content is _not supposed
to go into Wikipedia at all_ unless it's sourced.

I'd say that content that isn't supposed to be in Wikipedia at all
can hardly be considered to be "high quality" _for Wikipedia_.

That's going to be my last reply, as it seems to me that basically
you do not agree with the verifiability policy.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] Time for preformatted empty articles?

body:
Wiktionary might be relevant too. They offer some very specific
templates when your search fails:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=word+that+doesn%27t+exist&go=Go

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


from_name: Darko Bulatovic

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Many languages in Europe do not have countries to match the language:
> Galician, Catalan, Frisian, Sardinian ...  And what should happen with
> the Roma?  Other languages are spoken in several countries.  Wikipedia
> is based on languages, not on nations or the evil of nationalism or
> patriotism.
>
> I don't like the artificial languages any more than you do.  Except for
> Esperanto, there is nobody that really speaks these languages on a
> regular basis, and nobody to be the audience for the language games that
> their supporters like to play.  It would be very difficult to get rid of
> them, as the experience with a totally ridiculous language like Klingon
> has shown.
>
> I have no problem with Montenegrin independence, though I have sometimes
> wondered why it was so much slower to break away from Serbia  than the
> other repblics of Yugoslavia.  Many of us from outside the Balkans find
> the persistent chauvinism of the entire area (not just Yugoslavia)
> thoroughly mystifying, and I don't think that Wikipedia should be
> encouraging these separate language in the face of contrary linguistic
> evidence.
>
> Ec
>
What linguistic evidence? I am asking you all this time to give such
evidence. What are the rules on WMF about this?
Is it the evidence that 200.000 people talk Montenegrin language?

And I am not talking about countries I am talking about nation marks
(Country don't always mean nation). I dont see that we follow each other
up on this. You seems talk about something else.

Darko Bulatovic


from_name: Delirium

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com>
>> On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What I meant is that _in Wikipedia,_ uncited material is not high-
>>> quality material.
>>>
>> What do you mean by "high quality"?
>>
>
> Well, according to the verifiability policy, content is _not supposed
> to go into Wikipedia at all_ unless it's sourced.
>
> I'd say that content that isn't supposed to be in Wikipedia at all
> can hardly be considered to be "high quality" _for Wikipedia_.
>
> That's going to be my last reply, as it seems to me that basically
> you do not agree with the verifiability policy.
>

The verifiability policy has never been a hardline policy, but a
guideline and something to aim towards.  When it was first adopted,
nobody thought it meant that we should summarily delete the 80%+ of the
encyclopedia that at the time was unsourced.  Instead what it meant was
that we should begin going through and adding sources to it.

In general some amount of common sense is required.  Claims that are
almost certainly true but uncited should be left in and have a citation
supplied---this is what the {{fact}} tag is for.  Claims that are
surprising or unlikely should be removed or moved to the talk page,
pending some verification that they actually are true.  Claims that are
negative claims about a living individual should be treated in the
second manner by default.  We wouldn't have a living-persons policy, a
{{fact}} template, or any number of other such things if our
verifiability policy were that all unsourced statements should be
summarily deleted.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> "The Cunctator" wrote
>
>> Huh. Just because one can't think of a reason that it would be of
>> interest to have a list of mathematicians of Erdos Number 3 doesn't
>> mean that noone can. Wikipedia ain't paper.
>
> Trouble is: I have checked that my own Erdos number is at most 4.
> Knowing that it is exactly 4, rather than 3, is equivalent to knowing
> a huge amount about collaborative papers ... which is a
> needle-in-haystack search.
>

What's your H-index?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061130/91907370/attachment.pgp


body:
On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:

> Will we ask for it or talk here if we don't thing there is language
> barrier?

It is possible. You are a new country. National pride of some sort is
sure to exist. Perhaps you feel that along with the flag, the seat at
the UN and the votes in the Eurovision song contest your dialect
should be declared a distinct language.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
How many people does a regime have to kill before proclaiming your
association with it is a bannable offense?

It bothers me that we consider it our place to draw that line.  Can we
please just ban political userboxes already, and avoid having to make calls
about why being a Nazi is so much worse than supporting [YOUR LEAST FAVORITE
REGIME HERE]?

Tony/GTB

>From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:32 +0000
>
> > Nobody was banned for being a Nazi. They were banned for proclaiming
> > it on their userpage. Which is disruptive. You are welcome to edit
> > Wikipedia as a Nazi, or as a pedophile, or as anyone else. You are,
> > however, expected not to use Wikipedia as a platform for proclaiming
> > controversial views.
> >
> > What's hard here?
>
>Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_parties
>going to banned?
>
>The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone
>else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning
>someone for being unpopular.
>
>If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for
>breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US
>doesn't have any such law.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends
list.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk


body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
>> I don't understand you very well here. Many language (mostly
>> European)are having nation marks (English, French, German, Russian,
>> Albanina, Greek, Italian, ....)
>>
> You forgot that German is spoken in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and
> Italy all three happily living together on one wiki - and of course:
> there are some differences among these four versions of German, but
> nevertheless they are ONE language.
> French is spoken in France, Canada, Switzerland etc. and they work on
> one Wikipedia.
> Dutch is spoken in the Netherlands, Belgium and France and they work on
> one Wikipedia.
> Italian is spoken in Italy and Switzerland and they work on one Wikipedia.
> English is spoken in Great Britain, USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. and
> they all work on one Wikipedia.
>
That is very specific case, As in Switzerland live Italians, Germans and
Franks. In Montenegrin case in Montenegro lives 45% Montenegrin s, 35%
Serbs, Albanians, Bosnnjaks,...
On other cases those countries was colonies of mayor European empires.
> Of course there are slight differences in the usage of certain
> terminology, in writing etc., but they all happily work together. There
> is the possibility, even now, to handle more than one language on a Wiki
> and the smaller the communities of a certain language or variation or
> dialect the more sense it makes to co-operate in one wiki for the simple
> fact that the project has a better chance to survive - anyway the day is
> not all too far that it will become even easier to hav various scripts
> and dialects live on one wiki.
>
> A Wiki project is about co-operation and not separation. You want to be
> different: well, then show it and co-operate instead of allowing for
> political separation. We all have one thing in common: we are human
> beings and as such we have something called intelligence that
> distinguishes us from other living forms ans as such we have the power
> to decide ... the wiki way is co-operation and trying to understand each
> other and not separation.
>
Sabine,
When I come here my idea was to collaborate and cooperate with others.
If that was not the case we could make our own wikipedia. But that is
not the case.
I agree with you about humans but I will add: Human also have
stereotypes, mis understanding, limited knowledge about specific topics
and dont judge always the same in same cases.

Thank you for joining discussion,
Darko Bulatovic


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
>
>
>> What linguistic evidence? I am asking you all this time to give such
>> evidence. What are the rules on WMF about this?
>>
>
> No formal rules that I know of but evidence that there is a consensus
> of linguists that Montenegrin is a language rather than a dialect
> would but a good start.
>
>
What linguists?

Do you have some quotes about this? I am ready to talk about this.

Regards,
Darko Bulatovic


from_name: john ask me later

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
If the IP address is german or austria then wiki can remove the swastika
image and
any reference to holocaust denial since they violate local laws, otherwise
it's
a personal page; ignore it.

On 11/30/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just came across the following userpage
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14
> which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently,
> depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a
> personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure
> about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense
> against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of
> Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the
> Great Userboxes War.
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Christophe Millet wrote:
>> But there are many articles on wikipedia that promote nationalism with
>> support of some facts or invented ones. Montenegrin related articles are
>> good examples, please see discussion on some of them and you will see
>> what happen there. If you stop Montenegrin wikipedia I don't see how
>> that will help in this effort? I think that will just do opposite. On
>> other languages cold be the same ( As I know it is on some Balkan
>> versions).
>>
>
>
> I thought that mixing different cultures in the same wiki was a way to
> reach NPOV...
> If there are a Montenegrin wp, and a Serbian wp, will we not have
> a Montenegrin version of the history and a Serbian version of the history?
> I don't see how this is NPOV...
>
> Or maybe I didn't understand well (quite possible), then please explain.
>
> Regards,
> Kip.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
Yes,

Montenegro is multicultural and multi etnical society. We will get
Montenegrin history, Islam history in montenegro, we will get ilirs
history in montenegro, we will get helens history in montenegro, ...
Many diversity in Montenegro give rich heritage and it will be very
exiting to work on it.

Darko Bulatovic


from_name: Michael Sha

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Startup looking for Superstar Wiki Developer (SF Bay
	Area)

body:
We are a consumer web startup that's building a lot of really interesting
features on top of an existing wiki platform (Mediawiki is one of the five
we've narrowed it down to) and we're looking for a superstar developer with
wiki experience to join the team.

*We are a company:*

Who wants to use the power of Wiki to solve a big problem for consumers.  Part
of our vision involves extending the functionality of one of the major wiki
platforms with innovative features that pose exciting technical challenges.
Be one of the first people to join a consumer web startup which could put a
lot of large companies out of business.

*You are someone who:*

   - Is *scary smart* and someone we can *trust* will find the *right
   answers* to hard problems you may have never solved before.
   - Is *technically brilliant*, *versatile*, and* creative*.
   - Your * teammates* love working with.  You also have *friends* like
   you who would *love* to *work with you* as we continue to grow.
   - Will *passionately bust your ass* at the prospect of building
   something that will revolutionize a $100B+ industry.

Specifically, we need someone who has a lot of valuable*
experience*building and extending the feature set of wiki platforms.
You also need experience designing and building highly-available and fault
tolerant *consumer web *applications with *performance*, *scalability*, *
stability*, and *security* in mind.  This means you're very adept at:

   - Building and extending the functionality of a wiki platform
   - Database experience (optimizing SQL and writing software that uses
   SQL to access databases)
   - Distributed systems (hands-on experience preferred, academic
   experience is OK)
   - C/C++
   - LAMP (PHP, Python, Perl)

Past experience with the following will make you even better able to
contribute to the team:

   - Innovative approaches to UI design (AJAX, Flex/Actionscript/Flash)
   - Designing and implementing production websites (HTML, CSS, XML,
   Javascript, etc.)
   - Database admin experience (setting up, maintaining and optimizing
   Oracle, MySQL or PostgreSQL databases)

*You will:*

   - Start with ideas, design products and features, architect a
   technical solution, then build, test, and launch it.
   - Help build and grow the engineering team as we expand over time.  If
   you also want to lead this team, that's in the cards, if you show us you
   can.

 *We will:*

   - Be a group of the smartest, most trustworthy, passionate, and
   interesting people you know.
   - Make sure you have what you need to be happy and productive.
   - Compensate you with a flexible mixture of cash and equity.
   - Make great teammates united around a vision of how to solve some
   pretty important problems for people.

Interested candidates should send your resume to
stealth.job at gmail.com<stealth_mode at gmail.com>with Wiki Guru in the
subject line.
Please also include in your email a summary of your past work with wiki
platforms (which ones you've worked with and what your contributions have
been to them).


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
On 11/29/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about things
> I
> > could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy
> pages,
> > but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process
> was
> > wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?
> >
> > How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?
>
>
> It is a cardinal sin.  If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST go
> through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy",
> undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in
> triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that
> goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed).
>
> In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of
> the
> deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of
> process".
> It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the
> discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of
> "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of
> deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have
> commented when you had the chance).
>
> Also, are we trying to get rid of all "list" pages?
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Not totally true. if you have evidence that wasn't brought up in the *fD,
you're allowed to make a DRV.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> >
> >I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission
> of
> >being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
> >particular areas of knowledge.
>
> I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think it's
> silly to try.  Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of
> wikis,
> specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards.  Why not
> allow
> for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different
> ones
> specialize in different things and get good at what they do?

Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?

I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they
shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.

One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you
finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between general
scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.


body:
On 11/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Something like (off the top of my head):
>
>
> '''{{PAGENAME}}''' is ... [one-sentence definition]. It is ...

Presumably you mean {{PAGENAME}} will be substituted with the actual
name by the time the user sees it. I would suggest using <!-- -->
rather than [ ] though. So, they would see something like:

'''Pokemon fan club''' is ... <!-- one-sentence definition -->

>
> ==More detail==

Ever seen one of these? I say leave it out. A stub with no sections is
plenty for a first go.  Maybe just add:

<!-- Add more detail here -->

> ==References==
>
> [List the sources you used in writing this article]

Not ==Sources== ?

> ==External links==

Not ==Further reading== ?

> This shows people how to give us the useful content for a good stub
> article without having to know all about editing wikitext and lovely
> formatting.

You missed two things: Categories and stub templates.

{{stub}} <!-- Go to [[....]] and find a more precise stub template if
you can -->

[[Category:Uncategorized]] <!-- Go to [[...]] and find a couple of
categories that describe your article. -->

(I would try and make these two bits valid Wikicode at least, even if
the user hasn't set them up).

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
>From: Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:47:16 -0500
>
>On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is everyone displaying any of the userboxes on these pages
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRBerry/German_userbox_solution#Political_parties
> > going to banned?
> >
> > The only reason I can see for treating Nazis differently from anyone
> > else is because people don't like Nazis. It boils down to banning
> > someone for being unpopular.
> >
> > If Wikipedia were based in Germany, it would be an obvious ban for
> > breaking the law, but Wikipedia is under US jurisdiction, and the US
> > doesn't have any such law.
>
>Do you believe that the Nazi party is no different from any of those
>other parties, or is this just a cheap rhetorical device?  Be honest.
>
>Do you also not see the difference between free speech in the public
>sphere and in the private sphere?  While the principles of and laws
>regarding free speech should of course apply to Nazis like they do to
>everyone else, Wikipedia is not obligated by those principles and laws
>to provide a soapbox for Nazis.

Isn't it pretty far outside of our purview to be providing a soapbox for
some controversial political parties and not others?  Why do we allow any of
this crap?  What justifies allowing people to proclaim their affiliation
with one party and not another?  I'll agree that Nazi is beyond the pale,
but where, precisely, is "the pale"?

GTB

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version.?Join now.
http://ideas.live.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 11/30/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just came across the following userpage
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14
> which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently,
> depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a
> personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure
> about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense
> against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of
> Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the
> Great Userboxes War.
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has
nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even Naziism,
isn't illegal.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the mission
> of
> > being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
> > particular areas of knowledge.
>
> I agree with you to the extent that verifiable subjects with
> sufficient sources that would be on topic in a specialist encyclopedia
> should be in Wikipedia.
>
> For example, I would hate to see articles on my pet subjects deleted
> off Wikipedia because 'they'd work better in a specialist
> encyclopedia'.  E.g. there's a specialist Wiki encyclopedia for
> cameras, CameraPedia.  I'm dreading the day someone tries to delete
> [[Canon T90]] as "Cameracruft - move to CameraPedia".
>
> Subjects that require original research or are off-topic in other ways
> e.g. being howtos or reviews instead of encyclopedia articles DO fit
> best elsewhere, though.

I agree with you on reviews but I'm not convinced by how-tos.


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
>
>> That is very specific case, As in Switzerland live Italians, Germans and
>> Franks.
>>
>
> No. Switzerland has proved itself to be independent of these rather
> firmly for quite a number of centuries.
>
> Switzerland also has a few Romansh speakers.
>
>
>> Sabine,
>> When I come here my idea was to collaborate and cooperate with others.
>> If that was not the case we could make our own wikipedia. But that is
>> not the case.
>> I agree with you about humans but I will add: Human also have
>> stereotypes, mis understanding, limited knowledge about specific topics
>> and dont judge always the same in same cases.
>>
>>
>
> However there is no need for a separate wikipedia unless it can be
> shown there is a language barrier.
>
>
Will we ask for it or talk here if we don't thing there is language
barrier? This started to look like philosophic question. We already get
proposal from Serbian community, also we wait from Croatian community
and Bosnian community. But for now there is no consensus between them.
If there ever be one we will participate.


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
>
>> What linguists?
>>
>
> Hopefuly ones that are experts in the languages of the Balkan Peninsula
>

Do you have some reference on witch you build up your opinion? Please
share with us.

Darko Bulatovic


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
>
> See [[Cat]]. There is a finite number of pics you can put in one article.

But not in one Wikipedia!


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/30/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/30/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
> >
> > See [[Cat]]. There is a finite number of pics you can put in one
> > article.
>
>
> But not in one Wikipedia!
>

Follow-up to that: [[Cat]] shows the inevitable problem of mergitis. Atomize
articles, I say!


body:
On 11/30/06, Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name> wrote:
> We use a little trick with MediaWiki:Newarticletext on Wikitravel to
> make a little menu of preload options:
>
> http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=A_page_that_does_not_exist&action=edit
>
> It's not beautiful, but it does the job pretty darn well, and most of
> our new articles have the right template selected now.

It's actually pretty elegant, but I can't see it working well for
something as diverse as Wikipedia. Travel is ultimately a pretty
constrained topic. Wikipedia isn't...the structure of articles tends
to be dependent on the theme more than on the category. For certain
very specific classes of articles (hurricanes, members of certain
groups like WWF wrestlers...) templates effectively do exist (dictated
by WikiProjects) but it would be a pretty esoteric list of templates
to choose from. The idea is good, but it would need a slightly
different implementation...

steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > >
> > > >I for one think it's pathetic that Wikipedia is giving up on the
> >mission
> > > of
> > > >being a complete encyclopedia because there exist specialty sites on
> > > >particular areas of knowledge.
> > >
> > > I disagree. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and I think
> >it's
> > > silly to try.  Wikipedia should consider itself one of a community of
> > > wikis,
> > > specifically, the encyclopedic one, with academic standards.  Why not
> > > allow
> > > for there to be multiple sources of information, and let the different
> > > ones
> > > specialize in different things and get good at what they do?
> >
> >
> >Why can't Wikipedia be all things to all people?
> >
> >I have nothing against specialists, but I also see no reason that they
> >shouldn't be subsumed in the gaping maw of Wikipedia.
> >
> >One of the great things about the move to electronic media is that you
> >finally have the opportunity to erase the artificial divide between
> general
> >scope and specific detail that is necessary in the print world.
>
>
> I guess one could try that, but the vision of Wikipedia that I've been
> working with is that it aims to be an *encyclopedia*, understanding that
> word to carry certain connotations about summarizing information from
> secondary sources.  I think that's a worthy goal, and I'm not ready to
> abandon it yet in favor of something I frankly don't believe in.
>
> Consider Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki.  That's a great resource for all
> things Star Wars, I'm sure, and it would be a significantly weaker
> resource
> if they required that all their contributions be sourced in previously
> published sources.  They need original research.  At Wikipedia, meanwhile,
> our article on the French Revolution would be considerably weaker if we
> didn't insist that all material be sourced in other publications.  We need
> verifiability.  I'm quite happy to go to one place for original research,
> and another for verifiable information.
>
> Consider AboutUs.org, a domain directory Wiki.  They aim to cover every
> domain on the web, with directory type information.  Our policies would be
> useless for them, and their content is useless to us, for the most part.
> Hence, two wikis.
>
> I agree that all of this different information should be available, I just
> don't see WP as the top level of the heirarchy; I see us as one of many
> wikis.  Like it or not, we're specialists - we specialize in well-sourced
> articles on topics for which such sources exist.  Let someone like
> Wikiindex
> take the ceiling; we've got a comfortable niche where we are.

I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
Age Before Required Sourcing.

You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on topics
for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.

You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia is
healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors, rather
than enforcing a Platonic model of the
perfect Wikipedian.


body:
On 11/30/06, elvis at chan.de <elvis at chan.de> wrote:
> Quoting geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
>
>
> > However there is no need for a separate wikipedia unless it can be
> > shown there is a language barrier.
>
> a reason could be the conservation of a slowly dying language.
>

And the benifit of doing that would be?

No matter In this case we are not talkina about a dying language. We
are tlaking about something that may or may not be a language.

--
geni


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiMedia layout

body:
On 30/11/06, Florian Fricker <florian.fricker at wyona.com> wrote:
> What (file) is generating the layout resp. the HTML head of a MediaWiki
> page?

1. Question belongs on mediawiki-l
2. The skin

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
I believe France does too, but that's totally off-topic.

On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably
> > legal in the UK.
>
> Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my
> knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we
> might as well let it be.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 30/11/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> I indef blocked and deleted the page.  Why are we even talking about this?
>>
>
> Discussing everything and achieving community concensus, rather than
> acting on the instinct of one particular user, is a tenant of
> Wikipedia.
>
This has been discussed dozens of times before, we don't need to rehash
it yet again.  "Wikipedia home to Nazis" is a juicy news headline we
don't need, "Wikipedia home to PDG-RDA supporters" is never going to
happen. Not purely logical perhaps, but sometimes real life is that way.

Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [18054] trunk/extensions

body:
On 30/11/06, nikerabbit at svn.wikimedia.org <nikerabbit at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Revision: 18054
> Author:   nikerabbit
> Date:     2006-11-30 06:41:08 -0800 (Thu, 30 Nov 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> -----------
> * Trying to make the code used in Betawiki an extension

I smell a paradox...see, in a few minutes, some bright spark will post
a German translation for it, and so on and so forth. So we'll have
i18n for an i18n tool...

...them wikis, they bes alive!

Rob Church


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
On 11/29/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "The Cunctator" wrote
> > Also, are we trying to get rid of all "list" pages?
>
> This is actually a good question.
>
> I'm not trying to rid enWP of lists, though in a sense they have to some
> extent had their day. Their functionality is still much superior to
> categories, in some important respects.

And don't forget the fact that a list means a group of stubby pieces of
information can be joined instead of being dragged out in the separate
articles required for a category.

Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists
in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.

Mgm


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Startup looking for Superstar Wiki Developer (SF
 Bay Area)

body:
My question is - what if my teammates aren't the smartest or most
interesting people I know? Do I get a raise to compensate or something?

Stan

The Cunctator wrote:
> Do you get paid by the asterisk?
>
> On 11/30/06, Michael Sha <sha at deas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> We are a consumer web startup that's building a lot of really interesting
>> features on top of an existing wiki platform (Mediawiki is one of the five
>> we've narrowed it down to) and we're looking for a superstar developer
>> with
>> wiki experience to join the team.
>>
>> *We are a company:*
>>
>> Who wants to use the power of Wiki to solve a big problem for
>> consumers.  Part
>> of our vision involves extending the functionality of one of the major
>> wiki
>> platforms with innovative features that pose exciting technical
>> challenges.
>> Be one of the first people to join a consumer web startup which could put
>> a
>> lot of large companies out of business.
>>
>> *You are someone who:*
>>
>>    - Is *scary smart* and someone we can *trust* will find the *right
>>    answers* to hard problems you may have never solved before.
>>    - Is *technically brilliant*, *versatile*, and* creative*.
>>    - Your * teammates* love working with.  You also have *friends* like
>>    you who would *love* to *work with you* as we continue to grow.
>>    - Will *passionately bust your ass* at the prospect of building
>>    something that will revolutionize a $100B+ industry.
>>
>> Specifically, we need someone who has a lot of valuable*
>> experience*building and extending the feature set of wiki platforms.
>> You also need experience designing and building highly-available and fault
>> tolerant *consumer web *applications with *performance*, *scalability*, *
>> stability*, and *security* in mind.  This means you're very adept at:
>>
>>    - Building and extending the functionality of a wiki platform
>>    - Database experience (optimizing SQL and writing software that uses
>>    SQL to access databases)
>>    - Distributed systems (hands-on experience preferred, academic
>>    experience is OK)
>>    - C/C++
>>    - LAMP (PHP, Python, Perl)
>>
>> Past experience with the following will make you even better able to
>> contribute to the team:
>>
>>    - Innovative approaches to UI design (AJAX, Flex/Actionscript/Flash)
>>    - Designing and implementing production websites (HTML, CSS, XML,
>>    Javascript, etc.)
>>    - Database admin experience (setting up, maintaining and optimizing
>>    Oracle, MySQL or PostgreSQL databases)
>>
>> *You will:*
>>
>>    - Start with ideas, design products and features, architect a
>>    technical solution, then build, test, and launch it.
>>    - Help build and grow the engineering team as we expand over time.  If
>>    you also want to lead this team, that's in the cards, if you show us
>> you
>>    can.
>>
>> *We will:*
>>
>>    - Be a group of the smartest, most trustworthy, passionate, and
>>    interesting people you know.
>>    - Make sure you have what you need to be happy and productive.
>>    - Compensate you with a flexible mixture of cash and equity.
>>    - Make great teammates united around a vision of how to solve some
>>    pretty important problems for people.
>>
>>
>> Interested candidates should send your resume to
>> stealth.job at gmail.com<stealth_mode at gmail.com>with Wiki Guru in the
>> subject line.
>> Please also include in your email a summary of your past work with wiki
>> platforms (which ones you've worked with and what your contributions have
>> been to them).
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletions, lists, etc?

body:
On 11/29/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about things
> I
> > could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy
> pages,
> > but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process
> was
> > wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?
> >
> > How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?
>
>
> It is a cardinal sin.  If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST go
> through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy",
> undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in
> triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that
> goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed).
>
> In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of
> the
> deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of
> process".
> It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the
> discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of
> "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of
> deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have
> commented when you had the chance).

If people say they "never heard of it", the closing admin should've ignored
those comments and "votes". If that didn't happen then it was out of
process. So the merit of the deletion and the process or at least
interconnected.

Mgm


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 11/30/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Debates about Naziism aside, either all political userboxes are allowed or
> > none are, as every political party is considered to be offensive by
> > someone.  One point: we need to watch for mission (anti-user box) creep.
>
> Yes, but the consensus is amongst the vast majority of non-Nazis that
> they are offensive.  There is no need for an all or nothing
> requirement here.

Offensive?  Yes.  Worth blocking over?  No.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of pro-Nazi
sentiment from being expressed publicly.

On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably
> > legal in the UK.
>
> Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my
> knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we
> might as well let it be.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 11/30/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ==References==
> >
> > [List the sources you used in writing this article]
>
> Not ==Sources== ?
>
> > ==External links==
>
> Not ==Further reading== ?

Seeing as we have <ref> tags and since references seems to be the prevailing
name in the articles I visit, ==References== appears the logical choice.
"Further reading" makes people list irrelevant books which are a lot harder
to check than URLs.

Mgm


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being treated as
	absolute policy

body:
On 11/30/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it
> asserts the subject's notability just fine. It is therefore not
> speedyable. If you're considering whether to speedy-delete something on
> the basis of whether it contains an assertion of notability why not
> simply look for whether there's an _assertion of notability_? It should
> be easy to spot.

Yes, I don't get why people seemingly have trouble with this. Even an
implicit assertion of notability is fine: "Barry is one of the main
characters on Neighbours." - if Neighbours looks notable, then Barry
is presumably notable.

(whether a separate article about each character is appropriate is a
separate issue)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
Think of it this way...

Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people.
However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the door?
Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President
Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the
kind of people you'd like to have at a party.

Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles.
However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning
for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem,
what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more
restrictive.

However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with verifiability/reliable
sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is Not,
and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.

On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> >
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
> >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> >
> >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> topics
> >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> >
> >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
> is
> >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> >rather
> >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> >perfect Wikipedian.
>
> You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
> off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
> sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing with
> is
> a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
> looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
> think Wikipedia should.
>
> GTB
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
[WikiEN-l] On Completeness and Restrictiveness (was Re: GNAA
	Deleted!)

body:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> >
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
> >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> >
> >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> topics
> >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> >
> >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
> is
> >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> >rather
> >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> >perfect Wikipedian.
>
> You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
> off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
> sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing with
> is
> a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
> looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
> think Wikipedia should.

Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think
the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
exacerbate that conflict.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
Even if he were editing, we shouldn't do anything about it. People are
allowed to have POVs, even if they don't agree with the vast majority of
Wikipedians (and linked with people who killed millions). Preventing him
from editing Nazi related pages would be like disallowing Democrats from
editing [[Democratic Party (United States)]].

On 11/30/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this user editing nazi-related articles or with a pro-nazi POV?
> If not, I think we can safely ignore them.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 11/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have a feeling that most of central Europe has banned any sort of
> > pro-Nazi
> > sentiment from being expressed publicly.
> >
> > On 11/30/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably
> > > > legal in the UK.
> > >
> > > Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my
> > > knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we
> > > might as well let it be.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: elvis at chan.de

body:
Quoting geni <geniice at gmail.com>:

> However there is no need for a separate wikipedia unless it can be
> shown there is a language barrier.

a reason could be the conservation of a slowly dying language.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
I don't think Wikipedia is like a party. I think Wikipedia is a like a
collectively written interlinked website.

To be a bit less snarky, I think trying to draw lessons for the governance
and rules of Wikipedia from how to throw a good party is, if not a fool's
errand, not really the best endeavor.

Especially if the lesson you draw is that thing you need to do is exclude
the wrong kind of people through the door.

And I fail to see that "the problem is that there were little [sic]
standards at the beginning
for who was let through the door". There doesn't seem to be much evidence of
that.

On 11/30/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Think of it this way...
>
> Wikipedia is like a party. For a successful party you need lots of people.
> However, does that mean you'll indiscriminantly let people through the
> door?
> Like the people prone to violence? The convicted sex offenders? President
> Bush? You may want a lot of people, but the party's only good if it's the
> kind of people you'd like to have at a party.
>
> Wikipedia is proving to be a successful party with 1.5 million articles.
> However, the problem is that there were little standards at the beginning
> for who was let through the door. Now that we've recognized the problem,
> what articles can enter the big party of Wikipedia should be a bit more
> restrictive.
>
> However, as I see it, as long as articles comply with
> verifiability/reliable
> sources, no original research, neutral point of view, What Wikipedia Is
> Not,
> and copyright requirements, then let them through the door.
>
> On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> > >
> > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
> the
> > >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> > >
> > >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> > topics
> > >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> > >
> > >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> > >rather
> > >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> > >perfect Wikipedian.
> >
> > You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
> lay
> > off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
> without
> > sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing
> with
> > is
> > a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> > completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> > coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
> comfortable
> > looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way
> I
> > think Wikipedia should.
> >
> > GTB
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
> >
> >
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Manuel Schneider

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [18007] trunk/extensions

body:
> Probably mean something like this:
> * $m_place = "editFormTextAfterWarn";
> * $m_place = editFormTextAfterWarn();
> * Something else.
fixed that one, thanks.

--
Regards
Manuel Schneider

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


body:
Hi Nick,

> One small request, can we please have log messages describing the general
> intent and thinking behind a commit? e.g. svn commit --message="Adding the
> SelectCategory extension" SelectCategory ... or if you want to write an
> essay, chuck it in a text file (e.g. ../msg.txt ), and commit like so: svn
> commit --file ../msg.txt includes/File-You-Modified.php
> includes/Another-File-You-Modified.php RELEASE-NOTES
yes, I already learned that now ;-)

> //		$m_allCats = array_merge( array( $m_row['title'] => $m_prefix ),
> fnSelectCategoryGetChildren( $m_row['title'], ++$m_prefix ) );
>
> ... with this line commented out, will run without segfaulting, with it
> enabled will segfault.
you just got an old version - you're just pointing on some of the "major bugs"
I'm refering to in the CHANGELOG of v0.2.

Pleas use 0.2 whereas the old version doesn't work correctly.

Greets,

Manuel

--
Regards
Manuel Schneider

Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
www.wikimedia.ch


from_name: Florian Fricker

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiMedia layout

body:
Hello All,

What (file) is generating the layout resp. the HTML head of a MediaWiki
page?

Thanks in advance

Regrads

--
Florian Fricker                          florian.fricker at wyona.com
Wyona Inc.   -   Open Source Content Management   -   Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                       http://lenya.apache.org


from_name: Laurence Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
> You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
> off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
> sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing with
> is
> a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
> looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
> think Wikipedia should.

I think a half-loaf is, for most purposes, better than no loaf at all. If an
article is sourceable, then it should be. It may be that there are no
"reliable" sources on an article, despite honest efforts. There are some
topics that are just not covered by the subset of sources that have been
defined as universally reliable. If Wikipedians are able to look for
themselves from the "unreliable" sources and judge without too much trouble
that, for the purpose of this particular article, those sources are
sufficient, then I think they should do that rather than delete it. The
historic argument against that is that Wikipedians are not experts on the
quality of sources in a particular topic area and cannot make that kind of a
call - but, really, I think this is getting less and less true all the time.

I disagree with your strong linking of "quality" and "better sourcing". For
most users of Wikipedia, quality is going to mean accuracy, combined with
actually covering the topic at all. Using only information from reliable
sources is one way to achieve this, but I feel strongly that is not the
_only_ way, and if Wikipedia's rules are such that it is, then they should
be changed. It is stupid when we have to delete articles that nobody
believes to be inaccurate on the basis of rules set up to ensure accuracy.

None of the above should be construed to imply that I support badly written,
inaccurate articles that don't help users. I just think that there are
plenty of topics out there that can't be "officially" sourced, but which we
could nevertheless be covering, and well. Apply all the warnings you want to
such articles, but give the users their half-loaf.

---
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry
http://greenreaper.co.uk/ - http://wikifur.com/


body:
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius at gmail.com> wrote:
> Same here, and of course I'm usually on the beat for fixing "External
> links" headings that only have one external link. ;)

By adding another one?

Steve


body:
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> > > >
> > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in
> >the
> > > >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> > > >
> > > >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> > > topics
> > > >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> > > >
> > > >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think.
> >Wikipedia
> > > is
> > > >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> > > >rather
> > > >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> > > >perfect Wikipedian.
> > >
> > > You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll
> >lay
> > > off on the idealistic "we".  I don't think Wikipedia is healthier
> >without
> > > sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there.  What we're dealing
> >with
> > > is
> > > a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be.  Do we strive for
> > > completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher
> quality
> > > coverage?  I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm
> >comfortable
> > > looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the
> way
> >I
> > > think Wikipedia should.
> >
> >
> >Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
> >right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I
> >think
> >the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
> >dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does
> grossly
> >exacerbate that conflict.
>
> Clearly, they're not direct opposites, and I hope I didn't come across as
> saying they were.  However, if one raises the quality bar, more things get
> left out, and if one includes certain material, the bar will necessarily
> go
> down.  It's in that give-and-take that the conflict arises.

My take is that you can define the quality of Wikipedia to be a function of
both the depth of coverage (using that as shorthand for the whole
specific/accurate/verifiable/sourced class of concepts) and the breadth of
coverage (i.e. not missing information).

In fact, I would think that one *should* define the quality of Wikipedia as
a function of both.

Then the "quality" of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily go down when you add
more material -- though the average "depth" will go down. Similarly quality
doesn't necessarily go up when you make content rules more restrictive,
since every day the amount of potential information to be included in
Wikipedia increases by some completely unreasonable amount (thus the average
breadth goes down).

If our goal is to consistently have the overall quality of Wikipedia to go
up (or at least stay stable) then that allows us to recognize that we should
have standards for new material, but not to the degree that they overly
restrict the inflow of new material. Where that inflection point exists is
of course a matter of debate, but we can break down the relevant factors:
* what is the average initial depth of included material
* what percentage of the current universe of outside knowledge is
represented on Wikipedia
* at what rate does the depth of included material increase over time (i.e.
how fast does unsourced material get sourced, grammar improved, copyright of
images checked, specificity increase, etc.)
* at what rate does the universe of outside knowledge increase over time
(how much news is there every day?)

Again, these are all pretty damn subjective but it gives us a guide for
understanding how to consider policies or the wisdom of spending energy and
time deleting GNAA from Wikipedia or merging [[franked mail]] into
[[franking]] or [[concept mining]] into [[taxonomic classification]]
or [[Captaincy
General of the Philippines]]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_the_Philippines>into
[[Spanish
East Indies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies>]].


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

references:
<a4359dff0611301328m760c3b8eu91489bbcda57b0d2@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY109-F1313E2E3AD28F2F5FE7AD2CADB0@phx.gbl>
	<7pmum21l9oaiidla29tkqdukq8h39qf2je@4ax.com>

body:
On 11/30/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> We have already wasted more time discussing this than the user is
> worth to the project, on that evidence.  It's worth debating the likes
> of SPUI and nobs01 because they are as productive as they can be
> maddening.  This one?  I think not.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --

I had thought of a userbox that would read, "This user survived 12
months in the Wikigulag", but its not worth all the crap it would
engender.

nobs01


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably
>> legal in the UK.
>
> Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my
> knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we
> might as well let it be.

Bullshit. The only reason to display that userbox is to cause
disruption. Ban the idiot, delete the userpage, no angst required.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
If you ignore it, you won't be disrupted. It takes two to cause a conflict.

On 11/30/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >> Nope totaly legal in the US. PRobably not legal in germany probably
> >> legal in the UK.
> >
> > Indeed, the only country that has laws against being pro-nazi, to my
> > knowledge, is Germany. As long as it isn't in the template space, we
> > might as well let it be.
>
>
> Bullshit. The only reason to display that userbox is to cause
> disruption. Ban the idiot, delete the userpage, no angst required.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] oh joy, oh rapture,
	oh bliss: the userbox wars are reignited

body:
I think I'll be deleting my political-geared userboxes, just to be safe.

On 11/30/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> And what better tie-in than Naziism.
> Mike Godwin would laugh and laugh...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Reliable sources" guideline being
	treated	as	absolute policy

references:
<f30e42de0611280509o645a2a1g5a554e4a388b922e@mail.gmail.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0611280528p2e5f58ddj6fbff3c4dc59247f@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140611280541r30db09bck6b5562fffd6f3ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<f30e42de0611280549p781614d3hc43c2ae8ca2a10d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<2244.63.151.8.141.1164722527.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<bscpm2p0i11u0gga2qec13uc237tbun3u7@4ax.com>
	<456D30F0.7060800@shaw.ca>
	<7qqrm29onedcsgrlgbfboe05ab8uucsr73@4ax.com>
	<456E3C2B.4030104@shaw.ca>

body:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>> Indeed.  Absence of any claim to validity is what is at issue, and the
>> absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors.  very few
>> sourced articles are flagged for A7.

>But even then it's still not not a remotely _reliable_ diagnostic
>factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of:
>"Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his
>portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV."
>This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it
>asserts the subject's notability just fine.

This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played
in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable
source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it
might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make
vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> I just came across the following userpage
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14
> which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently,
> depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a
> personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure
> about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense
> against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of
> Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the
> Great Userboxes War.

I indef blocked and deleted the page.  Why are we even talking about this?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

references:
<mailman.12918.1164754449.9606.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<456CC545.1090709@earthlink.net>
	<456CE040.6000105@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<f6srm215dks88erf3kjolnmouhdctrmcru@4ax.com>
	<2703.63.151.8.141.1164833294.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<s03sm2d45j6milj8iocjf6qgebcb8tkg22@4ax.com>
	<456E3FF3.3060201@gmail.com>

body:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:50:35 +1030, "Alphax \(Wikipedia email\)"
<alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

>By definition, trash magazines do *not* have decent editorial review.

True enough.  Nor are they reliable sources.  The point remains: trash
magazines are less common than trash blogs.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
Hee hee. I love godkings.

On 11/30/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Bimmler wrote:
> > I just came across the following userpage
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blind14
> > which shows a "This user is a nazi"-userbox quite prominently,
> > depicting a swastika in a clearly non-enzyclopedic contect (i.e. as a
> > personal non-scientific reference / symbol of adherence). I'm not sure
> > about legislation in US but I wonder whether this could be an offense
> > against law. Feel free to comment on whether it is a violation of
> > Wikipedia policies, I won't comment this, as I didn't take part in the
> > Great Userboxes War.
>
> I indef blocked and deleted the page.  Why are we even talking about this?
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

body:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:36:05 -0500, "Laurence Parry"
<greenreaper at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Of course, PafCon doesn't have a website because it's a fictional
>convention, but you get the idea. If Wikipedia doesn't want to write about
>topics, a good alternative is to do some kind of portal to direct people to
>those who *do* want to write about it, as long as they are doing so
>competently. That's helpful for the user because they get the information
>they're looking for, and it's helpful for Wikipedia because it avoids
>repeated creation of pages about "non-notable" topics (which inevitably
>result in a certain proportion of angst-filled AfDs that burn some of our
>most dedicated contributors out).

I have absolutely no problem with this.  The same battle is being
fought right now in respect of an article on Star Trek ranks *not*
mentioned in the films and shows.  Is the concept documentable?  May
well be.  Does that mean we should list every one and picture the
insignia?  Hell no.  There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding
in respect of this kind of content; if the concept is verifiable that
does not make every example of it worthy of inclusion, it means we can
have a referenced article on the concept.  And then send people
somewhere the fans can write whatever the hell they like, for more
information.  I don't see any downside to this approach, other than
that "our coverage of foo" becomes less complete.  Which, in many
circumstances, is precisely as it should be.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG