body:
1, 2) Why don't you? It is, after all, a Wiki page.
3) Yes, there are two sections. Please look closer.

Mark

On 29/07/05, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> Might I suggest a few things:
>
> 1. Provide a link to the "heated debate on Wikipedia-l" that you are
> referring to.
> 2. Provide a link to the previous vote that you cite.
> 3. Provide two separate sections for voting on Cantonese and Wu, since you
> say, "If you wish to choose on a case-by-case basis, please vote in both
> sections..." and there are not two sections.
>
> These would all be helpful, regardless of one's stance on the issue. Thanks.
>
> -User:Fuzheado
>
>
> On 7/29/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_Sinitic_linguistic_policy
> >
> > I request that everybody vote.
> >
> > Any comments may be made on the talkpage.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mark
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Bovlb

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Image deletion : policies and technology

references:
<742dfd06050708130249dac746@mail.gmail.com>	<db8v2p$dlo$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<loom.20050715T224255-222@post.gmane.org>
	<dcbo9r$u9t$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi <timwi at ...> writes:
> Bovlb wrote:
>> We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the
>> deletion log and WP:VFD.
>
> But we can't, without changes to the software, display different text
> depending on whether there actually *was* a page that had been deleted
> recently. It's quite unprofessional to go, "This page *MAY* have been
> deleted... go check in the Deletion Log to see if that's the case!"
> Like, as if it was impossible to have the software check for you.

I agree that it's suboptimal not to be able to present a different message if
the page used to exist, but is my suggested wording really that bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Nogomatch

BoVLB


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
--- Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Writing an article which uses technical terms or jargon, afraid that the
> average reader won't know what it is, but don't want to explain it right
> there and then? Insert square brackets here :)

Having too many parenthetical asides does upset the flow of an article. So in
those cases, all the quick explanatory comments should either go in
==Terminology== section at the start of the article, or less ideally, in a
numbered ==Notes== section at the end of it.

See the ==Umlauts and diaereses== section at [[Heavy metal umlaut]] for an
example of the former. I have yet to see a good example of the later.

-- mav

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


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

body:
On 7/28/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/28/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
> > wrote:

> > > Any crank can attach twenty spurious references
> > with no effort at all. But
> > > that hardly makes citing one's sources problematic
> > in itself.
> >
> > Odd you should mention this, David. One particular
> > user attached ten
> > spurious references in a VfD, none of which back him
> > up. But he
> > pretends they do.
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/De_facto_head_of_state&diff=next&oldid=19747977

> Ah, Peter - that was a poke at Jdtrl! How sly.

He bends over, who am I to resist a poke?

But no, it's a poke at spurious arguments from any source. We all know
the logical fallacies and the debating flaws, the argument ad homonym
and so on. If an editor claims to be an expert and then offers up dodgy
references in supposed support, I'm inclined to think the expertise
lies more in the field of self-promotion than shining the light of
knowledge upon Wikipedia.
--
Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Guess who's back

body:
On 7/29/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be pointed to
> > relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
> > source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
> > much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
> > think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
>
> Seconded. Actually I think the whole idea of
> automatically resetting the ban if the user
> "attempts" to edit is silly. "Ooh! You thought
> you were going to be clever and edit even though
> we've told you you can't? Let's see who has the
> last laugh, sucker!"

Resetting a block shouldn't happen automatically. If the editor is
logged in, then he knows he can't edit. If not logged in, then yeah,
it might be an attempt to edit anonymously, but it might be an IP
address shared with others. This needs a human eye cast over it.

Secondly, it is far too easy to "attempt to edit". Sometimes the hand
clicks the mouse before the brain thinks "Shoot, that's something I
shouldn't do now". Clicking on a red link is also seen as "an attempt
to edit". And sometimes you hit the "edit" tab when aiming for the
"history" tab.

This is poor design, if it isn't an outright bug. It's like
withdrawing money from an autoteller. Get the PIN wrong once and it
swallows your card without giving you a second chance. Enter $1000
when you meant to take out $100, and it cancels your card if there's
only $500 in the account.

Both can be seen as obvious attempts at fraud. Punish the bastards!

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: A. Nony Mouse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Worrying trends

body:
Responses inline.

On 7/27/05, Theo Clarke <wiki at tignosis.com> wrote:
> A. Nony Mouse: Your implication that I am arguing a "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something"idea misrepresents my position. Oversimplifying my position and then dismissing it as "pure nonsense" feels like an escalation of your previous dismissal of my suggestion as "ludicrous". I am unclear as to your intention here: you argue against my points at length and then dismiss it all in a sentence.  Do you seek discussion?

Discussion would be good, but I feel I have made my point even as you
backpedal to try to salvage yours. I have not "oversimplified"
anything: your proposal requires no justification for a "yes" vote,
but throws out any "no" vote that does not include justification.
>
> You are right that someone who cites no reason for a opposing a proposal may be seeking a consensus against it.  As I see it, the difficulty for the proposers is that they cannot tell whether the opposition amounts to "not now" or "not ever".

And at the present time, what does that matter? If someone votes "no"
now, and doesn't wish to give a future forecast, then your recourse is
to bring it again later and see if they still have objections.

>
> Was your "Their opinions are no more valid than yours." a suggestion that all opinions are of equal weight or a suggestion that my opinion, specifically, is of comparable weight to that of those who flatly reject certain changes in any form? And, if the latter, what weight are you according this class of opinion?

I am according equal weight to the each of the opinions that X change
should be done, Y change should be done, some blend of X/Y should be
done, or that nothing should be changed. The statement that all
proposed changes are worse than making no change at all is a perfectly
valid statement.

A. Nony Mouse


list: foundation-l

from_name: SJ

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators
	- admins please read and write notes on your beer parlours.

body:
Lovely.  Thanks for this effort, Sabine.   I think the main group we
are currently missing is EN-DE translators; as long as the site is up
to date in English and German, most guests and press will be happy.

SJ

On 7/29/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> First of all: sorry for crossposting to all lists, but I need to reach
> as many people as possible.
>
> There are two things I would like to talk about and maybe this mail is
> going to be quite long.
>
> At this stage I took over part of the translation's organisation (or all
> of it? we'll see ...)
>
> There are some problems involved when it comes to translations for
> wikimania - on one hand we will have people that know how to edit and
> that go simply there and edit an article on the other hand we will work
> with translators who don't know how to do this and therefore they
> receive the article and send it back to me - then their work needs to be
> copied and pasted into the wiki.
>
> Therefore I created a page where to collect the names of people who work
> for wikimania and a yahoogroup to assure that every article is only
> translated once.
>
> The translator's list can be find here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translators_that_are_willing_to_co-operate
> It is organised by language combinations. I also added myself, but
> really I suppose I won't have much time to translate since I will need
> the time for organisational tasks.
>
> The translator's list is on yahoo: wikimaniatrans at yahoogroups.com
> I am inserting all translators there since all articles that need
> translation are posted there. The first translator who answers to the
> list with "I am doing this translation EN-IT" (just to make an example)
> will translate that language combination of that particular article - so
> all other translators know that this work is being done.
>
> So if you are interested in co-operating for translations, please add
> yourself to the list and subscribe to the yahoo-group. If you won't do
> this yourself: just send me a mail indicating
> Language combinations
> Name
> e-mail
> Website (if any)
>
> As to the reporters: to be faster in our work it would be great if you
> sent me a note with the link as soon as your article is online and ready
> for translation. I know that this is not the normal "wiki-way" but we
> have to deal with people that are not used to wikis and we don't have
> the time to teach them how to work there.
>
> Please drop me a note so that I know you before (it would be great).
>
> As to admins: please post the message that we are on search for
> translators in your Beer Parlours and ask people who are interested to
> contact me by e-mail (either sabine_cretella at yahoo.it or
> s.cretella at wordsandmore.it) - I understand German, Italian, English,
> French, Spanish and write German, Italian, English - I approximatively
> understand some more languages, but it is not the case to guess what is
> written in this situation, so please bear with me and accept these
> limits :-)
>
> For now that's all - the more we are the better we will be and the less
> work anyone will do - if there's someone who would like to help with the
> copy/paste upload: please let me know.
>
> Ciao!!!!
>
> Sabine
>
> *****
> Sabine Cretella
> Translations
> s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
> skype: sabinecretella
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
++SJ


list: wikimedia-l


list: wiktionary-l

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators
	- admins please read and write notes on your beer parlours.


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood - thanks for all the fish

body:
>From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
>--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course it is.  Whether or not a fetus is "human",
> > or at what point it
> > becomes "human", is at the heart of the abortion
> > debate.  Stating the
> > anti-abortion/pro-life position as fact is the
> > antithesis of NPOV.
>
>NOT HUMAN: See, you say that, and Meelar has said
>that, but others, Anthere, Slimvirgin, etc. disagree.
>Mav even extended that to human cells, though in
>general he sought to complicate matters. ANY POSITION
>=/= NPOV : This is true, but using the FES example
>again, extreme claims can be marginalised without
>violating NPOV.

In this debate the most commonly heard voices are all "extreme".  *Extreme
minority* positions can be marginalized without violating NPOV, but when
those extreme voices represent a significant number of people (in this case
numbering in the millions), their view must be presented as well.

>Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear
>to be controversial

Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee
fetus") is non-controversial.  Referring to is a "a human", quite obviously
is.

Jay.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of new Meta discussion
	and	vote:"Sinitic linguistic policy"

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:

>"Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote in
>message news:2ed171fb05072905143e48dd5e at mail.gmail.com...
>On 7/29/05, Mark Williamson
><node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>3) Yes, there are two sections. Please look closer.
>>>
>>>
>>I've looked a second and third time. I do not see separate sections
>>for voting for Wu and for Cantonese. I'm willing to be proved wrong.
>>:)
>>
>>
>He means the "Support" and "Oppose" sections. If you want to split your
>vote, annotate your "Support" and "Oppose" votes as to which {of Wu or
>Cantonese} you are "Support"ing or "Oppose"ing.
>
>
I won't be participating in this vote.  It's too hard to know which side
to support with the full force of my ignorance, and I'm too little
involved with the issue to take time to dispel that ignorance.

But I agree with Andrew.  If a person is going to promote voting on
whatever topic it's his responsibility to describe the issue properly.
It should not be up to others to use divination as a tool for doing the
promoter's homework for him.

Ec


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>
>Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun
>and as an adjective.  Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus
>(i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important
>difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is
>human").  The first implies personhood, the second does not.
>
>Is this a viable compromise?
>
>Sam
>_______________________________________________
>
>
Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to imply that the fetus is
a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus is human"? Everyone
knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that you could be taking
the time in an ethics article to explain that chimpanzees do not grow in
the wombs of human females. If you consider it so trivial to say "A
fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it at all. The only
_possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence, therefore, is POV.

- Ryan


body:
>From: Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com>
>
> > >Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear
> > >to be controversial
> >
> > Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee
> > fetus") is non-controversial.  Referring to is a "a human", quite
>obviously
> > is.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun
>and as an adjective.  Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus
>(i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important
>difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is
>human").  The first implies personhood, the second does not.
>
>Is this a viable compromise?

As opposed to "a foetus in a womb is chimpanzee"?  "A foetus in womb is
inhuman"?  Frankly, I can't see a meaningful usage which wouldn't imply
personhood. The example you provide doesn't give any useful information,
and, in fact, if found in an article would appear to be promoting exactly
that, personhood.

Jay.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of new Meta discussion and
	vote:"Sinitic linguistic policy"

body:
"Andrew Lih" <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:2ed171fb05072905143e48dd5e at mail.gmail.com...
On 7/29/05, Mark Williamson
<node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3) Yes, there are two sections. Please look closer.
> I've looked a second and third time. I do not see separate sections
> for voting for Wu and for Cantonese. I'm willing to be proved wrong.
> :)

He means the "Support" and "Oppose" sections. If you want to split your
vote, annotate your "Support" and "Oppose" votes as to which {of Wu or
Cantonese} you are "Support"ing or "Oppose"ing.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators - admins please
 read and write notes on your beer parlours.

body:
First of all: sorry for crossposting to all lists, but I need to reach
as many people as possible.

There are two things I would like to talk about and maybe this mail is
going to be quite long.

At this stage I took over part of the translation's organisation (or all
of it? we'll see ...)

There are some problems involved when it comes to translations for
wikimania - on one hand we will have people that know how to edit and
that go simply there and edit an article on the other hand we will work
with translators who don't know how to do this and therefore they
receive the article and send it back to me - then their work needs to be
copied and pasted into the wiki.

Therefore I created a page where to collect the names of people who work
for wikimania and a yahoogroup to assure that every article is only
translated once.

The translator's list can be find here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translators_that_are_willing_to_co-operate
It is organised by language combinations. I also added myself, but
really I suppose I won't have much time to translate since I will need
the time for organisational tasks.

The translator's list is on yahoo: wikimaniatrans at yahoogroups.com
I am inserting all translators there since all articles that need
translation are posted there. The first translator who answers to the
list with "I am doing this translation EN-IT" (just to make an example)
will translate that language combination of that particular article - so
all other translators know that this work is being done.

So if you are interested in co-operating for translations, please add
yourself to the list and subscribe to the yahoo-group. If you won't do
this yourself: just send me a mail indicating
Language combinations
Name
e-mail
Website (if any)

As to the reporters: to be faster in our work it would be great if you
sent me a note with the link as soon as your article is online and ready
for translation. I know that this is not the normal "wiki-way" but we
have to deal with people that are not used to wikis and we don't have
the time to teach them how to work there.

Please drop me a note so that I know you before (it would be great).

As to admins: please post the message that we are on search for
translators in your Beer Parlours and ask people who are interested to
contact me by e-mail (either sabine_cretella at yahoo.it or
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it) - I understand German, Italian, English,
French, Spanish and write German, Italian, English - I approximatively
understand some more languages, but it is not the case to guess what is
written in this situation, so please bear with me and accept these
limits :-)

For now that's all - the more we are the better we will be and the less
work anyone will do - if there's someone who would like to help with the
copy/paste upload: please let me know.

Ciao!!!!

Sabine

*****
Sabine Cretella
Translations
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
skype: sabinecretella

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


list: textbook-l

subject:
[Textbook-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators - admins please
 read and write notes on your beer parlours.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators - admins please
 read and write notes on your beer parlours.


list: wikitech-l

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators - admins please
 read and write notes on your beer parlours.


subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Wikmania: reporters and translators - admins please
 read and write notes on your beer parlours.


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> But I agree with Andrew.  If a person is going to promote voting on
> whatever topic it's his responsibility to describe the issue properly.
> It should not be up to others to use divination as a tool for doing the
> promoter's homework for him.

There was no single thread. The issue really got out of hand on the
ML, spanning a few threads, with so many posts it's difficult to know
which should be linked. If you want to make a link to every single
post, you're welcome to.

Mark


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood - fish for all the thanks

body:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> >Surely there has to be some difference between
> using human as a noun
> >and as an adjective.  Using "human" as a noun to
> refer to a foetus
> >(i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a
> subtle but important
> >difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a
> foetus in a womb is
> >human").  The first implies personhood, the second
> does not. Is this a viable compromise?

Using the word "viable" in this context is dubious ;)
The problem with making a stink out of the subtle
nuances of the English language should be obvious to
anyone who tries their best to write in ways which are
clearest and most easily translated. "Implication" of
"personhood" seems to be the Crux of the Biscuit
here... Though we agree:
       a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, of
cs..)
    and "human" ~ person...
     yet fetus =/= person, and even:
      "fetus" ~/~ "person,"
...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the
basis for:
        fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence
        fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??

...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see
how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.

Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to
> imply that the fetus is
> a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus
> is human"? Everyone
> knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that
> you could be taking
> the time in an ethics article to explain that
> chimpanzees do not grow in
> the wombs of human females. If you consider it so
> trivial to say "A
> fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it
> at all. The only
> _possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence,
> therefore, is POV.

So, "why say it, if its going to be controversial?"
Even though not saying "human" would be an endorsement
of one view, which de-"human"izes the fetus? The
point, again, is that even ardent pro-Choicers can
agree that a fetus = human, then why say "that would
be POV", "implies personhood" and hence "should be
avoided."

There is some linguistic overlap between the uses of
"human" and "personhood" as social and legal concepts,
and therefore simply avoiding them doesnt really
clarify anything.

Sincere regards,
SV

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


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
> >Referring to a "human fetus" as "human" doesnt appear
> >to be controversial
>
> Referring to it as "a human fetus" (as opposed to, say, "a chimpanzee
> fetus") is non-controversial.  Referring to is a "a human", quite obviously
> is.
>
> Jay.

Surely there has to be some difference between using human as a noun
and as an adjective.  Using "human" as a noun to refer to a foetus
(i.e. "a foetus in a womb is a human"), has a subtle but important
difference to using it as an adjective (i.e. "a foetus in a womb is
human").  The first implies personhood, the second does not.

Is this a viable compromise?

Sam


from_name: Chris Lüer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
At 02:31 PM 7/29/2005, Jon wrote:

>Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome It
>tells me nothing. Not what one is, not why it's important. To me
>(and I guess to anyone else who is unfamiliar with what a chromosome
>really is) it is meaningless.

Agreed, the article is in sore need of an introduction. It starts out
with a technical definition, that's never a good idea. Too many
writers still buy into the mathematical textbook way of structuring
things based on their formal logical structure. But that doesn't work
for an encyclopedia where people jump around between articles.


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Notification of new Meta discussion and vote:
	"Sinitic linguistic policy"

body:
Might I suggest a few things:
 1. Provide a link to the "heated debate on Wikipedia-l" that you are
referring to.
2. Provide a link to the previous vote that you cite.
3. Provide two separate sections for voting on Cantonese and Wu, since you
say, "If you wish to choose on a case-by-case basis, please vote in both
sections..." and there are not two sections.
 These would all be helpful, regardless of one's stance on the issue.
Thanks.
 -User:Fuzheado
  On 7/29/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_Sinitic_linguistic_policy
>
> I request that everybody vote.
>
> Any comments may be made on the talkpage.
>
> Thanks
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

body:
Timwi wrote:
> johny why wrote:
>
>>1.	"Feature Request" feature: [...] It should be easy to find.
>
> No way. We'd be swamped by the requests.

*agree*

The best feature request comes with a patch :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


body:
steve v wrote:

>Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to
>>imply that the fetus is
>>a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus
>>is human"? Everyone
>>knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that
>>you could be taking
>>the time in an ethics article to explain that
>>chimpanzees do not grow in
>>the wombs of human females. If you consider it so
>>trivial to say "A
>>fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it
>>at all. The only
>>_possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence,
>>therefore, is POV.
>>
>>
>
>So, "why say it, if its going to be controversial?"
>Even though not saying "human" would be an endorsement
>of one view, which de-"human"izes the fetus? The
>point, again, is that even ardent pro-Choicers can
>agree that a fetus = human, then why say "that would
>be POV", "implies personhood" and hence "should be
>avoided."
>
>There is some linguistic overlap between the uses of
>"human" and "personhood" as social and legal concepts,
>and therefore simply avoiding them doesnt really
>clarify anything.
>
>Sincere regards,
>SV
>
>
>
Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither does using them. In
fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If you say "a fetus is
a human" in the article, people will read that according to their own
pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A fetus is a human
being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is human tissue". The
sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.

The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this point.
Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and "human" have
linguistic overlap are people who don't know how this sort of thing is
talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference
between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a
rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think
we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think
we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms are clearly
defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial and also meaningful.

- Ryan


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
Chris L?er wrote:

> Agreed, the article is in sore need of an introduction. It starts out
> with a technical definition, that's never a good idea. Too many
> writers still buy into the mathematical textbook way of structuring
> things based on their formal logical structure. But that doesn't work
> for an encyclopedia where people jump around between articles.

Yeah, I think this could solve many of the problems---have an
introduction that's more in layman's terms, rather than insisting that
the first sentence be a lengthy and precise technical definition.  (The
technical definition should still be there, of course.)

I've most often run into this in biology-related articles on plants and
animals.  If I want to know what a certain flower is, I'm usually not
looking for technical information on its method of reproduction as the
first bit of information, even if that's how it's classified.  I'm more
often looking for basic stuff like where it grows, how big it is, what
color(s) it is, whether it has any uses (e.g. food or medicinal), and so
on.  Then if I keep reading it'd be nice to find the detailed
information on its taxonomy.

But really I don't think these are *huge* problems.  Good introductions
are hard to write, so it's not a surprise that many of our articles
don't yet have good introductions.  A pretty good percentage do, though.

-Mark


from_name: Joachim Schroer

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Last call: Survey on motivation of contributors to
	Wikipedia

body:
Dear all,

thanks to all of you who have already completed our survey! We are also
very grateful for your great support (e.g. linking to the questionnaire
or our project website).

The questionnaire will still be available *until August 3* (next
Wednesday) at:

    http://www.unipark.de/uc/wikipedia/

Your responses are extremely important to us!

Our original announcement is available here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026281.html

Results will be published on our website as soon as the analysis is
complete:
http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/research/wikipedia.php?lang=en

Best wishes from Germany, and have a nice weekend,

Joachim Schroer

--
Joachim Schroer, Dipl.-Psych.
University of Wuerzburg
Department of Psychology II, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Roentgenring 10
97070 Wuerzburg
Germany

Phone:	+49 931 31 6062
Fax:	+49 931 31 6063
http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/ao/staff/schroer.php


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Last call: Survey on motivation of contributors to
	Wikipedia


from_name: janisc at adelphia.net

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 24, Issue 63

body:
I didn't even realize there was another wikipedia list. :)

Thanks for the tips.  Believe me, I won't add any picture until I know if it falls under fair use or not.


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

references:
<20050726173748.BDB9C1AC018E@mail.wikimedia.org>	<dcbnj4$tce$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dcdfol$toj$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
>
> The best feature request comes with a patch :)

No, not really. Features can be incredibly bad ideas -- coding them
doesn't change that. The implementation can also be bad. It is desirable
for requestors to attach a patch, yes, but the best feature requests
come from thorough, thoughtful analysis of the requirements of the
community of users. Developers do not tend to be the right people for
this kind of analysis.

Timwi


body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:

> Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference between
> "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a rational,
> autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think we are
> morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think we
> are only obligated to "persons".

There's a bit of this at [[person]].  It could probably be
improved/expanded, of course, but that's probably the right place to put
this sort of discussion.

-Mark


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion: "Proposed policy
 for wiki closure".

body:
Alphax a ?crit:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>
>>ilooy a ?crit:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>You sent me to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
>>>and of course I appreciate the illustration
>>>but I admit that I wouldn't support the
>>>use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
>>>either. So I agree and I appreciate the
>>>illustration, it also taught me a new term.
>>
>>
>>Hmmm, right. I explain. I am in a middle of a project, which intent is
>>to help farmers and their techniciens in their decision-making over
>>herbicide uses on cereales. The people for who I am creating this
>>application are ... a bit getting on my nerves :-)
>>Glyphosate (most known under his trade name, RoundUp, is sold by another
>>big commercial firm... and each time I want to tease them, I cite other
>>firms products.
>>
>>RoundUp is the big reference for gardeners as well. It is very little
>>remanent fortunately, but it kills about everything around :-)
>>
>
>
> Except Monsanto GM Canola ;)

Of course :-)

> (When I go weeding, I try to dig the really nasty ones out by the roots;
> they often have tubers which are not affected by glyphosate. Other than
> that, spot spraying is the best method)

even better : painting leaves one by one. You are sure it affects the
worse weeds without effect on others...


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

references:
<20050726173748.BDB9C1AC018E@mail.wikimedia.org>
	<dcbnj4$tce$1@sea.gmane.org> <dcdfol$toj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dcdm58$kfu$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 29/07/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> the best feature requests
> come from thorough, thoughtful analysis of the requirements of the
> community of users. Developers do not tend to be the right people for
> this kind of analysis.

And neither do random people, thus no obvious link! :)

Tomer


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:
> I agree with the general idea but there
> are some details where I think your proposal
> goes further than is practical. Take this:
>
> "Try to avoid jargon - but where it is particularly relevant or where it
> is necessary, explain all jargon clearly on the article page - a link to
> another article is not enough."
>
> Taking 'jargon' to mean 'technical terms' I
> think this is not always practical. Is 'chromosome'
> a technical term? How about 'nucleotide'? I don't
> think it's practical to explain those terms in
> every single molecular biology page where they
> are used. If someone who doesn't understand these
> terms is reading the [[Polymerase Chain Reaction]]
> page chances are she won't understand the context
> anyway - even if the terms were briefly explained.
>
> Redundant explanations make a page cluttered.
> Short explanations are often imprecise to the
> point of being wrong or not helpful. And one of
> the great advantage of reading Wikipedia (online)
> is the ability to click on technical terms for
> more information.
>
> Technical terms are (usually) not just a method
> for ivory tower academics to keep the commoner
> out. They're a necessary component of the foundation
> of knowledge in their respective disciplines.
>
> It's just not practical to explain everything
> from first principles in every single article.
>
>

Precisely.

Writing an article which uses technical terms or jargon, afraid that the
average reader won't know what it is, but don't want to explain it right
there and then? Insert square brackets here :)

Conversely: Reading an article which has some strange technical term or
jargon which you don't understand? Provided one exists, click on the
link. No link to click on? Edit the article, insert square brackets,
save, and click on the link.

In short, I think that having to explain every term used in every
article it is used in is a Bad Thing, and doubleplusunwiki.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6fMT/RxM5Ph0xhMRA+eeAKCgO8x1GbVb2bqH3awe7uLvcmx5LgCgnsLR
CQ4ivpOc3jDApfMof6JK1+g=
=YVNt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Notification of Meta discussion:
	"Proposed policy for wiki closure".

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Anthere wrote:
>
>
> ilooy a ?crit:
>
<snip>
>> You sent me to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
>> and of course I appreciate the illustration
>> but I admit that I wouldn't support the
>> use of a wiki-herbicide or user-herbicide
>> either. So I agree and I appreciate the
>> illustration, it also taught me a new term.
>
>
> Hmmm, right. I explain. I am in a middle of a project, which intent is
> to help farmers and their techniciens in their decision-making over
> herbicide uses on cereales. The people for who I am creating this
> application are ... a bit getting on my nerves :-)
> Glyphosate (most known under his trade name, RoundUp, is sold by another
> big commercial firm... and each time I want to tease them, I cite other
> firms products.
>
> RoundUp is the big reference for gardeners as well. It is very little
> remanent fortunately, but it kills about everything around :-)
>

Except Monsanto GM Canola ;)

(When I go weeding, I try to dig the really nasty ones out by the roots;
they often have tubers which are not affected by glyphosate. Other than
that, spot spraying is the best method)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6fU5/RxM5Ph0xhMRA3ZWAJ9VA4BS0MCxTMWkN7eK5+bsSa3PGwCdF/Hz
VehvqXAjZE37U/E5FiOJ128=
=TPOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Image deletion : policies and technology

body:
Nathan Russell wrote:
>
> Even as a sysop you need to go to the history link it seems.

To see if a page once existed and was deleted? No, that is not true.


body:
On 7/29/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1, 2) Why don't you? It is, after all, a Wiki page.

It's not clear which mailing list thread or previous vote you're referring to.

> 3) Yes, there are two sections. Please look closer.

I've looked a second and third time. I do not see separate sections
for voting for Wu and for Cantonese. I'm willing to be proved wrong.
:)

Also announcing this on wikizh-l would be ideal.


from_name: FlaBot

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

references:
<20050726173748.BDB9C1AC018E@mail.wikimedia.org>
	<dcbnj4$tce$1@sea.gmane.org> <dcdfol$toj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dcdm58$kfu$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9a878c44050729101621f0eebf@mail.gmail.com>

body:
what about an RRS for "my Watchlist" or is there a problem with transmitting
the cookies ?

Flacus

http://www.flacus.de/wikipedia/Interwiki-Link-Checker/index-en.html


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
> Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome

It's not so bad. It even helpfully glosses some of
the technical terms like 'mitosis' and 'histone'.

If you don't already know what DNA and genes are
then you probably need to read about those terms
first. Both articles are about as accessible to
laymen as I would expect in an encyclopaedia.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do better but from
my point of view most readers of these articles will
already have a basic familiarity with genetics / molecular
biology. To those readers wading through an explanation
of all terms from first principles (which are what?
what knowledge of biology and chemistry should we assume?)
in each article would be tiresome.

I agree that we should try to be accessible. And indeed
the chromosome article could probably be improved.
Britannica's article starts with this definition:

"Microscopic, threadlike part of a cell that carries
hereditary information in the form of genes."

That's probably more helpful to newbies than:

"A chromosome (in Greek chroma = colour and soma
= body) is, minimally, a very long, continuous piece
of DNA, which contains many genes, regulatory elements
and other intervening nucleotide sequences."

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm slightly worried
that the guideline/policy/project could go overboard.
As long as all changes to articles are information-preserving
then I wish you good luck.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
Unfortunately someone lobbed the "proposed policy or guideline" template on the project page. I never intended this to be policy or guideline. It's more a drive towards making more articles accessible to more people. After all, it's better to have an article that can be understood by 1,000 readers rather than none at all. The point here is that it is better still if 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 can understand and learn from it.

As far as how this is meant to pre-suppose what readers want - it only assumes that readers want accurate and informative articles that they can understand and that they enjoy reading. It makes no more assumptions than that. It's not meant to be a panacea to be applied everywhere (and it will not resolve or help the BC/BCE dispute). But it may improve other articles. Take the article on chromosomes, for instance. Don't look at it yet. What would you expect/want such an article to offer?

I think it should tell a reader not familiar with biology what a chromosome is and why it is important. It should explain to that same reader what it does. It may have a small section at the end containing technical details for someone with more advanced knowledge, but really I'd be surprised if there's much that can't be explained to a novice.
Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome It tells me nothing. Not what one is, not why it's important. To me (and I guess to anyone else who is unfamiliar with what a chromosome really is) it is meaningless. And it's here that Wikipedia ceases to function as a proper encyclopaedia. I also ask myself, what would it cost to those who already know quite a bit about biology if the article was more accessible. The answer's nothing - no information needs to be deleted, none should be removed. It's just a question of rephrasing so that more can comprehend.

This is what Readers First is about. Encouraging editors of articles to think about their audience - and in particular to aim for as wide an audience as possible. Einstein wrote a best-seller on relativity and Hawkings a best-seller on time (although the later chapters admittedly beat many people). They did show that complicated ideas can be explained to a general population. There's no reason why we should not try to make our articles as accessible to as
many as possible.

If there are volunteers who understand chromosomes and who have the patience to explain it to a layman, then let me know and I'll work with them to improve the article so you can see how much better it can get.

Jon (jguk)

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.


from_name: SJ

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikimania: Wiki flam^B^B^Bdiscussions,
	Writing and MEDIA Contest reminders

body:
Dear all,

There will be almost 70 presenters at Wikimania : academics and
researchers, teachers, professional translators, librarians and
archivists, sociologists, economists, entrepreneurs, programmers,
artists.  Many of these are Wikimedians; almost as many are not.

I. Wikimania proceedings preview
II. Wiki discussions in the proceedings
III. Writing (and media) contest reminder

== Wikimania proceedings preview ==
You can see abstracts and full papers for the various presentations
here, in the wiki proceedings of the conference.  Unlike many
proceedings, these are available now, though they are not yet
complete:
    http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikimania05

== Wiki discussions in the proceedings ==

You are invited (encouraged, even) to comment on each presentation,
and to start discussions and ask questions, on its proceedings talk
page.  Someone in each session will make sure to ask any questions
posed on the wiki, during the session itself.

If you have written down wikimedial thoughts elsewhere on the web, or
have your own work you wish you could have presented at Wikimania (but
didn't submit in time / are being held captive by a saltwater
taffygnome), be sure to add a link to thoes thoughts from related
abstracts.

To start discussions not covered by one of the sessions, or during the
Hacking Days early next week, please add sections to the Wikimania
Discussions page:
    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Discussions

== Writing (and media) contest reminder ==

This is the last weekend to nominate great articles, news stories,
wikibooks, quote and definition collections, and primary sources, for
the Wikimania writing contest.  Please nominate your all-time
favorites; don't be shy.  Did I mention this is a multilingual
contest?  The predominance of English- and Dutch-language nominations
is simply shocking.
     http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions

Likewise for the parallel media contest, for images, music, and video.
 You still have time to upload content not currently on Wikimedia
projects and enter it into the contests; some of the categories are
yet sparse and ripe for conquest (only 2 audio and 1 video submissions
so far... it will be sad if we have to give *both* video awards to
Raul's DNA microarray thriller)

In the networked hands of Lufthansa,
    ++SJ


body:
>        a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, of
> cs..)
>     and "human" ~ person...
>      yet fetus =/= person, and even:
>       "fetus" ~/~ "person,"
> ...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the
> basis for:
>         fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence
>         fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??
>
> ...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see
> how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.

This is just sophistry :)

Wikipedia should not say "a fetus is a human being",
nor should it say "a fetus is not a human being" - it
should say stuff like "a fetus is considered a person
by X and a bunch of tissue by Y".

It *should*, however, say "Homeopathy is pseudo-science". :D

Regards,
Haukur


body:
--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither
> does using them. In
> fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If
> you say "a fetus is
> a human" in the article, people will read that
> according to their own
> pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A
> fetus is a human
> being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is
> human tissue". The
> sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.

IMHO your example is a bit simplistic, and does not
assume good faith (or intellect) OTPO the reader.
First of all, noone has been suggesting using language
like "a fetus *is* a human being," but rather that ''a
human fetus has some kind of connection with the
concepts of "human being" and "human person," and that
this connection has some consensus along general moral
grounds--regardless of abortion politics.'' We can say
that ''a human fetus is "human," (ie. "of humanity")
and becomes a "human being" at some arbitrary unclear
point - a point which is debated in religion, culture,
society and law.'' There is no debate that the fetus
and even the embryo is human--the debate is whether it
is not yet human enough and still animal enough to
deem deliberately harmful acts toward it as outside of
murder laws, and within the realm of choice. This is
distinguishing rational consensus from both absolutes,
as the absolutes merely are what they are, and can be
counted only as absolutes.

> The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this
> point.
> Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and
> "human" have
> linguistic overlap are people who don't know how
> this sort of thing is
> talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly
> define the difference
> between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes)
> and "person" (a
> rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that
> some people think
> we are morally obligated to anything that is "human"
> while others think
> we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms
> are clearly
> defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial
> and also meaningful.

If you recall, I started this thread in the context of
"human rights", seeking some input regarding the basic
issue of "human rights" concepts as they may or may
not extend to the fetus, under any number of
conditions. Now, you might say "human rights" is a
exclusively biological concept, or that there is no
"human right" to have personal freedom, or to not get
bombed, or made to open wide while uncle Karim is
forced to beat off in that general direction.
Fortunately, however, "human rights" concepts *are* in
fact generally agreeable (to most "humans" anyway),
and form a basis for balanced neutral views toward
cultural issues, which bear closely with NPOV. Golden
Rule.

Some people got it, while others argue with me about
the notion that even connecting human with fetus
violates NPOV--which is ridiculous and equally
sophistic as any hypothetical conjecture I might come
up with. Its a cop-out *from* asserting an NPOV order,
based on principles which may be commonly referred to
as NPOV or "human rights" concepts. If its acceptable
that a child at 1 minute old can be a "person," then
its also acceptable to express claims that a fetus 1
minute before birth "isnt," and hence we're back to a
*material (not philosophistry) discussion regarding a
maximum agreeable gestational age for an abortion.

Common consensus (including even many who view
themselves as "pro-Life") is while no abortions would
be ideal, that early abortions are much less evil than
late term abortions, and late term abortions grow
closer and closer to the legal and moral concept of
murder, as development progresses. Not, as some here
have tried to assert, that birth is the only point
associated with legal personhood. California, for
example has a law which counts a fetus as a life in
the event of a murder of a pregnant woman. A guy was
convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of
his wife and "unborn child." Such laws dont violate
choice rights, (and indeed can be considered "woman's
rights") but they *do assert a type of case where a
fetus does in fact have personhood. This is not an
issue of mere sophistry.

Because there are degrees, the whole issue must be
represented in degrees --which is in contradiction to
both claims that a fetus "isnt" a person, and likewise
that a fetus "is" one.  Your 'definition' of "human"
as "chromosomes" has little if any bearing on legal,
social, and moral "human rights" considerations --nor
I suspect would it pass mustard with a biologist.
Certainly its a debated issue, but consensus points to
a compromise--not an avoidance of any position. The
general terms should reflect that, and not either
absolutes. Maybe we can agree on that.

Rage on.
SV
Sorry for the length.

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV: Fetus personhood - fish for all the thanks

body:
Hakur wrote:
>  This is just sophistry :)

Anthere ecrit:
> Which makes an article title such as [[foetus
> personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.

Thats not what others have said:

Delirium ecrit:

"Certainly.  There have been entire /books/ written on
the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than
enough material to write an article about it
summarizing all the points of view.

SV

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Case sensitivity on Afrikaans Wiktionary

body:
On 29/07/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Because it is important to know for a noun what its gender is.
>
> Sorry if I've not been following UW discussions, but the gender of
> words can and have changed over time.  How will UW address this?
> Can I, for example, indicate that a certain word had a male gender
> in the 17th, 18th, 19th century, but neuter in the 20th?  And that
> in 1890-1920 the percentage of people who used male or neuter
> gradually shifted?
>
> In a Wikipedia or Wiktionary article, these complex relations and
> exceptional cases can be described in plain text, as I did in the
> previous paragraph.  But how do you express them in a relational
> database schema?
>
> And what if you discover such complex relations as the project
> develops, what is the UW strategy for modifying the schema over
> time?  Right now you seem to be designing an "ultimate" schema
> that will then be frozen and kept static for all time.  The very
> name of the UW project suggests this kind of thinking, and to me
> that is about as foreign as marxism.

As was done with WM 1.4 to 1.5, some very complex queries - and a lot
of processing time :) - would be needed to change the database design.
Therefore it would be undertaken with care and, well, it can't really
be planned for.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Because it is important to know for a noun what its gender is.

Sorry if I've not been following UW discussions, but the gender of
words can and have changed over time.  How will UW address this?
Can I, for example, indicate that a certain word had a male gender
in the 17th, 18th, 19th century, but neuter in the 20th?  And that
in 1890-1920 the percentage of people who used male or neuter
gradually shifted?

In a Wikipedia or Wiktionary article, these complex relations and
exceptional cases can be described in plain text, as I did in the
previous paragraph.  But how do you express them in a relational
database schema?

And what if you discover such complex relations as the project
develops, what is the UW strategy for modifying the schema over
time?  Right now you seem to be designing an "ultimate" schema
that will then be frozen and kept static for all time.  The very
name of the UW project suggests this kind of thinking, and to me
that is about as foreign as marxism.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


body:
On 27/07/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> First off all, if creating inflections is done programmatically, it is
> not part of the database design. The database design says that there
> will be a record for each inflection. The inflections are translated as
> every other word is, there is Spelling for it. This means that these
> words have an importance in their own right and that is more than just
> the sharing of the meaning with a headword. So I do not share your
> argument at all. Yes, we can generate inflections but this WILL result
> in new Spelling - Word - Meaning. And as long as we do not have software
> to do this for us, we will have to do it by hand.

Perhaps this software can simply be awk, sed or one of those things?

And perhaps we can call for people to start writing them?

:)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
On 7/29/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > Now look at the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
>
> It's not so bad. It even helpfully glosses some of
> the technical terms like 'mitosis' and 'histone'.
>
> If you don't already know what DNA and genes are
> then you probably need to read about those terms
> first. Both articles are about as accessible to
> laymen as I would expect in an encyclopaedia.
>
> I'm not saying it's impossible to do better but from
> my point of view most readers of these articles will
> already have a basic familiarity with genetics / molecular
> biology. To those readers wading through an explanation
> of all terms from first principles (which are what?
> what knowledge of biology and chemistry should we assume?)
> in each article would be tiresome.

Firstly, I think a fair number of Wikipedia users who would look at a
page like chromosome will not be anything like experienced in the
field.  They will be secondary school (=high school) students
beginning their study of genetics.  Incidentally, this is exactly how
I found Wikipedia, doing some chemistry research into ethanoic acid,
finding myself at acetic acid, making a move suggestion on the talk
page, and I was thence hooked.  But I digress.

Surely what should be done is a simple explanation at the start, for
those inexperienced in the field, and a more complex examination
later?  I am confused about why this would not considered a good idea.

Perhaps "readers first" is not the best title.  Perhaps "writing for
everyone" would be better.  And a key factor of that is putting the
easy stuff at the beginning, so that those who don't understand the
complexities of the article don't get put off.

We do have to write to the lowest common denominator -- it's part of
being an encyclopaedia.  Nevertheless, some highest common factors (or
whatever the appropriate antonym is)  can also be written for, but not
in a way that compromises the simple understanding of the topic.  I
think that is the basis of Jon's proposal.

I struggle to find why people would argue with such an aim.

Sam


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Feature Requests

references:
<20050726173748.BDB9C1AC018E@mail.wikimedia.org>
	<dcbnj4$tce$1@sea.gmane.org> <dcdfol$toj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dcdm58$kfu$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<9a878c44050729101621f0eebf@mail.gmail.com>
	<a79e0937050729112768cf9790@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 29/07/05, FlaBot <flabot at googlemail.com> wrote:
> what about an RRS for "my Watchlist" or is there a problem with transmitting
> the cookies ?

See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471
(And yes, cookies are the problem - most RSS readers probably don't
support them, let alone provide any way of accessing the login page to
create them)

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
On 30/07/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Oops, Hungarian has two kinds of plural, let's change the schema.
> Oops, Thai has genders for verbs, let's change the schema.
> Oops...
>
> The axiom that it "can't be planned for" sounds like a recipy for
> failure.

Those things will not need a change in the schema.

> Are there indeed any non-free (commercial or research) projects
> that have attempted anything like this?  Wikipedia has many
> precursors such as Britannica, Brockhaus, etc.  And so does
> Wiktionary, of course.  But which precursors does UW have?  What
> kind of data model or database schema do they apply?  Or is UW a
> piece of original research in computational linguistics?

Something was mentioned on Slashdot which just wanted to be a
cross-language dictionary (i.e. not providing definitions as such) but
I doubt they got off the ground. UW puts a lot more in the database
anyway.


body:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:

> On 29/07/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> > And what if you discover such complex relations as the project
> > develops, what is the UW strategy for modifying the schema over
> > time?  Right now you seem to be designing an "ultimate" schema
> > that will then be frozen and kept static for all time.  The very
> > name of the UW project suggests this kind of thinking, and to me
> > that is about as foreign as marxism.
>
> As was done with WM 1.4 to 1.5, some very complex queries - and a lot
> of processing time :) - would be needed to change the database design.
> Therefore it would be undertaken with care and, well, it can't really
> be planned for.

Before MediaWiki 1.5 the same database schema had been used for a
long time with only minor additions that didn't require
conversion.  But with UW it seems that bigger changes will be
required more often, because so much detail about the structure of
every human language needs to be encoded in the database schema.
Oops, Hungarian has two kinds of plural, let's change the schema.
Oops, Thai has genders for verbs, let's change the schema.
Oops...

The axiom that it "can't be planned for" sounds like a recipy for
failure.

Are there indeed any non-free (commercial or research) projects
that have attempted anything like this?  Wikipedia has many
precursors such as Britannica, Brockhaus, etc.  And so does
Wiktionary, of course.  But which precursors does UW have?  What
kind of data model or database schema do they apply?  Or is UW a
piece of original research in computational linguistics?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] UW database stuff (nothing to do with Afrikaans)

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>
>>Because it is important to know for a noun what its gender is.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry if I've not been following UW discussions, but the gender of
>words can and have changed over time.  How will UW address this?
>Can I, for example, indicate that a certain word had a male gender
>in the 17th, 18th, 19th century, but neuter in the 20th?  And that
>in 1890-1920 the percentage of people who used male or neuter
>gradually shifted?
>
>In a Wikipedia or Wiktionary article, these complex relations and
>exceptional cases can be described in plain text, as I did in the
>previous paragraph.  But how do you express them in a relational
>database schema?
>
>And what if you discover such complex relations as the project
>develops, what is the UW strategy for modifying the schema over
>time?  Right now you seem to be designing an "ultimate" schema
>that will then be frozen and kept static for all time.  The very
>name of the UW project suggests this kind of thinking, and to me
>that is about as foreign as marxism.
>
Hoi,
At this moment in time there is no room defined for free format text. It
is fairly easy to allow for some free text fields at some level. It will
be fairly straightforward to add a field certainly when it has no
relation to anywhere else. The requirements for information are fairly
minimal. A Spelling can only be added if you know what language it is
in.. A Word needs a Spelling and a Meaning needs one Word. Translations
require this Meaning and so do synonyms. After this extra information
can be added.

Changes over time for genders is not in the database and percentages of
people that use a particular form are not in there as well. When the
Ultimate Wiktionary is live it will be possible to add this kind of data
to the database. It will require planning, testing and propably a
conversion. It may be added when we want to include this.

The idea of Ultimate Wiktionary grew out of the frustration of all these
wiktionaries all wanting the same thing, all having to add the same
things without the benefit of the efforts of the other wiktionaries.
First we experimented with templates, Technically the most interesting
stuff can be seen on the la.wiktionary, Then we decided that a database
would allow us to share the benefits of the work done on wiktionary
content. As the Dutch spelling will change in August 2006, we added
things like spelling authorities. We have not considered including
changes of gender but I do know this happens in the Dutch language as
well. Statistical numbers is not in there either it has always been
outside my scope. Initially it is very much intended as a dictionary for
contemporary languages. Historical Spelling, Word and Meaning can be
included to some extend but this is more an extra than something that
was planned.

So the design will be set for some time allowing us to learn what it is
we have. It will be changed when we know what to change and why. The
requirements for content will be minimal and improvements will happen
because of a collective effort.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Request for new language-page [RFNL]

body:
Servien, I think you should quit your loan crusader attitude. After
all, do you really speak either Stellingwerfs or Grunnegers???

After all, right now 3 people support separate Stellingwerfs and
Grunnegers Wikipedias, and only you oppose (unless you count Wouter,
who really does seem to be on the fence).

And you, who don't even speak either... but rather North Veluws.

Mark

On 30/07/05, Servien Ilaino <servien at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read the comments on the Request for new language page (bit late,
> but okay) I added my comments for Stellingwarvs (includes Grunnings),
> if anyone is interested, hope you understand it haha...
>
> See comments on:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Stellingwerfs
>
> Servien!
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson a ?crit:
 >>       a fetus = "human", (unless its 'tarded, of
 >>cs..)
 >>    and "human" ~ person...
 >>     yet fetus =/= person, and even:
 >>      "fetus" ~/~ "person,"
 >>...and this contractory logic is supposed to be the
 >>basis for:
 >>        fetus = "human" is thus POV, hence
 >>        fetus =/= human is thus NPOV ??
 >>
 >>...and "just in this context"? I hope people can see
 >>how ridiculous that is. Follow the logic problem.
 >
 >
 > This is just sophistry :)
 >
 > Wikipedia should not say "a fetus is a human being",
 > nor should it say "a fetus is not a human being" - it
 > should say stuff like "a fetus is considered a person
 > by X and a bunch of tissue by Y".

Which makes an article title such as [[foetus personhood]] unacceptable,
since disputer.

 > It *should*, however, say "Homeopathy is pseudo-science". :D
 >
 > Regards,
 > Haukur

For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several
pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the
medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...


body:
steve v a ?crit:
> Hakur wrote:
>
>> This is just sophistry :)
>
>
> Anthere ecrit:
>
>>Which makes an article title such as [[foetus
>>personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
>
>
> Thats not what others have said:
>
> Delirium ecrit:
>
> "Certainly.  There have been entire /books/ written on
> the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than
> enough material to write an article about it
> summarizing all the points of view.
>
> SV

I agree. And this is precisely exactly why I say it is disputed...

And it is not because Delirium says that there are entire books written
on the issue of fetal personhood that it will make it less disputed; and
it is not because Delirium agrees with you that he is correct either.

No one is "correct" here. No one can be correct. There are only
perceptions and it is perfectly alright that perceptions are different.
You asked us our opinions. We gave them. Now, the right thing to do is
to accept that all opinions are acceptable; not to take the opinion of
one person as a tool to hint others opinions might be erroneous. Imho.


body:
steve v a ?crit:
> Hakur wrote:
>
>> This is just sophistry :)
>
>
> Anthere ecrit:
>
>>Which makes an article title such as [[foetus
>>personhood]] unacceptable, since disputer.
>
>
> Thats not what others have said:
>
> Delirium ecrit:
>
> "Certainly.  There have been entire /books/ written on
> the issue of fetal personhood. There's more than
> enough material to write an article about it
> summarizing all the points of view.
>
> SV

On a related note, the article on morality and legality of abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_legality_of_abortion
is just of very low quality. If anyone feels courageous enough to try to
improve this hot potato, he will be most welcome :-)

ant


from_name: Jim Breen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Redirects (Was: nds is now lowercase ..)

body:
[Gerard Meijssen ([Wiktionary-l] nds is now lowercase ..) writes:]
>>
>> In your mail to the wikitech-l you said that you want to use redirects
>> to indicate alternate spellings. It would be a better idea to treat them
>> like we do with translations that is, have a proper description of the
>> word and its origin (what orthography or origin) and refer for all the
>> rest to a selected word.

[Pardon me butting in. I have just joined the list and this is my
first posting.]

Apropos of alternative spellings, I am exploring the idea of moving
my 100,000+ entry Japanese-English dictionary(*) into a wiki-like
environment. One aspect of Japanese is that most words have at least
two ways of writing them, and many have more. These are not lemmae; they
are valid orthographical variants. I have stuck very solidly to the
position that no entry can be restricted to a single headword. Multiple
headwords are an intrinsic part of the present (XML) structure, and users
need, and expect, to be able to go directly to the entry using any of
the written forms.

If wiktionary were to end up importing this file (and there are many
things to be considered first), I could not see it working if there
were a separate entry for every orthographical variant. Since wiktionary
seems to have no workable concept of multiple headwords, redirects *may*
be a suitable path to take, especially if they could be generated
automatically at upload time, or at the time of creating a new entry.
Even that would be problematical, in that one of the accepted forms
of a word is its representation in the (quasi-phonetical) hiragana
script, and Japanese has a vast number of homophones. (For example,
I have 19 entries with the pronunciation, and hence kana form, of
koukou.[+])

My penny's worth.

Jim Breen

* See:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/j_jmdict.html
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/edict.html
+ See:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?1MSJkoukou

--
Jim Breen                                http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,               Tel: +61 3 9905 9554
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia                  Fax: +61 3 9905 5146
(Monash Provider No. 00008C)                ???????@??????


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several
>>pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the
>>medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...
>>
>>
>You can certainly give birth with 100% placebo based
>pain-relief or no pain-relief of all. Most women
>throughout time have done so. Even as effective pain-
>relief became available some religious people were
>against its use on the grounds that God, in his mercy,
>had intended woman to give birth with pain as punishment
>for Eve's transgression. That seems pretty clear from
>Genesis 3.16:
>
>To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your
>pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth
>to children. Your desire will be for your husband,
>and he will rule over you."
>
Wow!  The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern
medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a
woman.  There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them.
That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.

>Homeopathy is based on an 18th century theory which
>later discoveries have shown does not hold up. Yet,
>its adherents often defend it by using a scientific
>vocabulary. Thus it is pseudo-science.
>
>
We all know about your obsession against homeopathy.  Even if
homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have
a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing.  It is far too easy
to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely
rationalistic model of medical practice.

Ec


from_name: Servien Ilaino

body:
Hi all,

I read the comments on the Request for new language page (bit late,
but okay) I added my comments for Stellingwarvs (includes Grunnings),
if anyone is interested, hope you understand it haha...

See comments on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Stellingwerfs

Servien!


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is *already* written from a scientific
	POV

body:
The arrogantly anti-theist bent of recent posts to this thread are
quite unfortunate. I particularly take issue with the following:

external,
independently unverified polls, with unknown
demographic factors and unknown questions, have
expressed an overruling of both science consensus and
WP-local consensus.

Why is WP consensus not US general consensus? As
people become more educated and involved in NPOV-based
projects, the move toward rationality. NPOV requires
at least a rational basis for article craftsmanship,
which implies rationality in other areas.

IIRC, the typical MBTI for WPdians is quite different
from the average majority. WP by default is
represented by bookish, eristic types. PR crusades by
any particular irrational POV, regardless of its
representaion, is bound to fail, simply because
belief=irrationality, hence not NPOV.

That is exactly the sort of fact-dismissing POV pushing I have always
combatted by use of books of reference, and basic logic. There is a
reason why state-education fosters atheism, and it has nothing to do
with facts or logic. In the US, according to a survey published in
Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over
45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as
doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had
not changed in 80 years. The majority of academics however... I
shudder to think.

Jack (Sam Spade)


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV: Fetus personhood - end of thread - I mean it

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No one is "correct" here. No one can be correct.

There's something obvious that is missed (les elephant
dans la chambre...) by asserting that there's "no
wrong view." We routinely talk about "cranks" and
"fighting them off," but in this particular case, "all
opinions are acceptable?" Not to say that a certain
political view is a crank view, but the view that the
fetus isnt human *is* a crank view --or mere political
terminology. What's the difference from an NPOV?

--- Ant
> [don't] take the opinion of one person as a tool to
hint others opinions might be erroneous. Imho.

    That was not my point. The point was to find where
people agreed and disagreed, and give feedback to each
how they might be helpful or contradicting in the goal
of writing about these matters in NPOV.

But, vous etes correct, this thread has gone on long
enough.' Back to the wiki. I'll look at that article
you linked to and some related ones.

SV
Mailists are useful for frustration only

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


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>>Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in
>>evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x
>>billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that
>>the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because
>>someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because
>>someone believes it*?
>>
>>
>Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion
>years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun
>can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by
>evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not
>irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.
>
>
Belief is _always_ irrational.  When making their leaps of faith
scientists and creationists just happen to be leaping from different cliffs.

Ec


body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>Wow!  The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern
>>medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a
>>woman.  There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them.
>>That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.
>>
>>
>I don't understand what you're saying, much less
>how it relates to what I was saying.
>
IIRC you were the one carrying on about childbirth being "punishment for
Eve's transgression"

>>We all know about your obsession against homeopathy.  Even if
>>homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have
>>a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing.  It is far too easy
>>to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely
>>rationalistic model of medical practice.
>>
>>
>Your wording is interesting. You say that even if homeopathic
>medicines *turn out to be* inert placebos etc. Accordingly you
>seem to acknowledge a possible state of existence where
>homeopathy has been categorically proven not to work. From my
>point of view this has already happened. What would it take
>for you to be convinced that we have entered this state? What
>test would be conclusive enough for you?
>
Achnowledging a possible state where homeopathy might not work is
different the inflexible POV that it has already happened.  Your, "What
would it take for you to be convinced that..." attitude suggests
inflexibility.  There can be no consensus if you prejudge the result.

>As far as the placebo effect is concerned it is well known to
>modern medical science, though it is inherently somewhat difficult
>to study. It is by no means dismissed by the rationalistic model
>of medical practice. Here's the summary of a recent article:
>
>"The placebo effect is well known, but there are many misconceptions. One
>of these misconceptions is that one-third of patients respond to placebos.
>This misunderstanding is probably due to methodologically poor research
>conducted in the 1950s. Another error is that the effect in the placebo
>arm of a clinical trial is often confused with the placebo effect. The
>belief in the placebo effect is enormous, but the quantity and quality of
>data to substantiate this belief are very limited. Investigating the
>placebo effect is methodologically difficult, not easy to get financed and
>considered unrewarding." (http://tinyurl.com/7abcq)
>
>
Your link redirects me to an nih site on nucleic acids and the word
"placebo" does not appear there at all.

I certainly can neither deny nor confirm that there is a one-third
response to placebos; my best guess would be that the rate would vary
with the medical condition involved.  Without a belief in the placebo
effect referring to it in clinical trials would be meaningless.  We
would do just as well comparing the medicine being tested with doing
nothing at all, or with a medicine that has an established track record.

I certainly don't doubt that investigating the placebo effect would be
difficult and expensive.  "Unrewarding" suggests that whatever tests are
undertaken would not result in big financial rewards to the
pharmaceutical industry; they are not in the business of funding pure
science.  If the data on the placebo effect is of such poor quality it
does not strike me as scientific to novertheless use it as a reference
standard.

How does the "effect in the placebo arm" differ from the "placebo effect"?

Ec


body:
> For the record... at my last medical check-up, we discussed several
> pain-relief methods for birth, and one of the proposal made by the
> medical team was 100% homeopathy based ...

You can certainly give birth with 100% placebo based
pain-relief or no pain-relief of all. Most women
throughout time have done so. Even as effective pain-
relief became available some religious people were
against its use on the grounds that God, in his mercy,
had intended woman to give birth with pain as punishment
for Eve's transgression. That seems pretty clear from
Genesis 3.16:

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your
pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth
to children. Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Whether you decide to give birth God's way or reap some
of the fruits of modern medical science I wish you the
best of luck with your birth and child.

Homeopathy is based on an 18th century theory which
later discoveries have shown does not hold up. Yet,
its adherents often defend it by using a scientific
vocabulary. Thus it is pseudo-science.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> As the Dutch spelling will change in August 2006, we added
> things like spelling authorities.

Great, then you can introduce a new authority for every century of
a language, so the 19th century Swedish can be told apart from
20th century Swedish.  But how are spelling authorities different
from languages?  Couldn't "19th century Swedish" and "Dutch after
2006" be treated as languages of their own?

> So the design will be set for some time allowing us to learn
> what it is we have. It will be changed when we know what to
> change and why. The requirements for content will be minimal and
> improvements will happen because of a collective effort.

Have you started to populate the database yet?  What cycle span do
you plan for between evaluations and redesigns?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Writing an article which uses technical terms or jargon, afraid that the
>>average reader won't know what it is, but don't want to explain it right
>>there and then? Insert square brackets here :)
>
> Having too many parenthetical asides does upset the flow of an article. So in
> those cases, all the quick explanatory comments should either go in
> ==Terminology== section at the start of the article, or less ideally, in a
> numbered ==Notes== section at the end of it.
>

I briefly considered writing a long rant about how paper encyclopedias
do this (eg. ".. in 1234 Foo invaded Bah (see FOOISH INVASION OF
BAH)..." ) :) Yes, the other way it is done on paper (and in academic
papers) is with numbered footnotes. Although perhaps where context is
important to the meaning in an article, footnotes would be appropriate.

> See the ==Umlauts and diaereses== section at [[Heavy metal umlaut]] for an
> example of the former. I have yet to see a good example of the later.
>

The footnote templates are working on it :)

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC6z/z/RxM5Ph0xhMRA2ZJAJ9olPIBWGdI9TBQWdBvg8tBjvhJegCfRb9J
OSmLdNdLc1Nq+QhyheftUc8=
=+06W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Readers First

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Delirium wrote:
>
> I've most often run into this in biology-related articles on plants and
> animals.  If I want to know what a certain flower is, I'm usually not
> looking for technical information on its method of reproduction as the
> first bit of information, even if that's how it's classified.  I'm more
> often looking for basic stuff like where it grows, how big it is, what
> color(s) it is, whether it has any uses (e.g. food or medicinal), and so
> on.  Then if I keep reading it'd be nice to find the detailed
> information on its taxonomy.
>

Ack, I thought that's what {{taxobox}} was for...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC60CZ/RxM5Ph0xhMRAy0KAJ9KT3KqBViu+BTgH4PpbTzCGLZAowCgjp/k
0jIy9JwcfLARFFFuHnr/qzc=
=j2s+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
> Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in
> evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x
> billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that
> the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because
> someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because
> someone believes it*?

Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion
years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun
can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by
evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not
irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.

-- gkhan


from_name: Phroziac

body:
Agreed, or to some extent atleast. Note that it's really hard to prove
alot of these theories also. (Especially the ones about things in
space we aren't near..). If they were easy to prove they wouldn't
still be theories. :)

On 7/30/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>
> >>Belief is not alway irrational. A large number of biologists believe in
> >>evolution. A large number of geologists believe that the earth is x
> >>billion years old. A large percentage of the Western world believes that
> >>the earth orbits the sun. Are those beliefs irrational, simply because
> >>someone believes them? Is something instantly irrational *just because
> >>someone believes it*?
> >>
> >>
> >Evolution can be backed up with evidence. That the earth is X billion
> >years old can be backed up by evidence. That the earth orbits the sun
> >can be backed up by evidence. Creationism can't be backed up by
> >evidence, it is un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Belief itself is not
> >irrational. Belief that cannot be backed up can be.
> >
> >
> Belief is _always_ irrational.  When making their leaps of faith
> scientists and creationists just happen to be leaping from different cliffs.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


body:
> Wow!  The choice is between accepting the indignities of modern
> medicine, or accepting that childbirth is God's punishment for being a
> woman.  There are no alternatives because you don't believe in them.
> That sounds like pretty fucked-up thinking.

I don't understand what you're saying, much less
how it relates to what I was saying.

> We all know about your obsession against homeopathy.  Even if
> homeopathic medicines turn out to be inert placebos, placebos still have
> a level of effectiveness that exceeds doing nothing.  It is far too easy
> to dismiss the powers of the mind in our attempts to build a purely
> rationalistic model of medical practice.

Your wording is interesting. You say that even if homeopathic
medicines *turn out to be* inert placebos etc. Accordingly you
seem to acknowledge a possible state of existence where
homeopathy has been categorically proven not to work. From my
point of view this has already happened. What would it take
for you to be convinced that we have entered this state? What
test would be conclusive enough for you?

As far as the placebo effect is concerned it is well known to
modern medical science, though it is inherently somewhat difficult
to study. It is by no means dismissed by the rationalistic model
of medical practice. Here's the summary of a recent article:

"The placebo effect is well known, but there are many misconceptions. One
of these misconceptions is that one-third of patients respond to placebos.
This misunderstanding is probably due to methodologically poor research
conducted in the 1950s. Another error is that the effect in the placebo
arm of a clinical trial is often confused with the placebo effect. The
belief in the placebo effect is enormous, but the quantity and quality of
data to substantiate this belief are very limited. Investigating the
placebo effect is methodologically difficult, not easy to get financed and
considered unrewarding." (http://tinyurl.com/7abcq)

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Brian

subject:
[Foundation-l] Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists

body:
First off, my credentials:

[[en:User:Brian0918]]
Administrator
11,754 edits

Short version: There is a huge battle going on in which VFDers on WP,
WS, and Commons are pushing user-compiled lists from one project to
another. In each case, they are saying the lists belong on one of the
other 3 projects. Almost nobody is saying that these lists don't belong
anywhere, but nobody can decide on where they belong. It also doesn't
help that nobody on one project accepts the outcome of another project's
VFD (an outcome which may have said to transwiki to this project) as a
reason to keep it on this project.

Long version:  There has been an ongoing battle between Wikipedia,
Wikisource, and Commons over the fate of user-compiled, well-sourced
lists. Specifically, I'm talking about lists of victims of disasters. It
all started with the [[List of General Slocum victims]] and [[List of
victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm]]. The first appears to have only
one source, but is not a copyvio nor direct copy of an original source,
while the second was compiled by me for Wikipedia (originally), and
required more research than most people put into 5 featured articles...

Anyways, the first was VFDd from Wikipedia, with a few suggestions that
it should be transwiki'd to Wikisource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_General_Slocum_victims

These suggestions led to both myself and the creator of the first list
to move our lists over to Wikisource. My list was subsequently VFD'd
from Wikisource, and a VFD was also instituted for ALL such
user-compiled lists. Both of these VFDs are still open, I think:
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#March_2005
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Remove_Tables_and_Lists_from_Wikisource

At Wikisource, the opinion seems to be that these lists belong either at
Wikipedia or Commons (yes, Commons does accept text, read the Main
Page).  Following these suggestions, we subsequently copied these lists
over to Commons in the event that they suddenly disappeared from
Wikisource......

And, of course, they are now up for deletion on Commons, where the
opinion has been less  favorable (they don't like being the "last
choice" for things deleted from elsewhere), although many have expressed
the opinion that these lists do in fact belong on Wikipedia.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#List_of_victims_of_the_1913_Great_Lakes_storm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#List_of_General_Slocum_victims

Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, an Undelete request was instituted (by myself,
I think) for the General Slocum list, but the majority are saying that
it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but on Commons or Wikisource.

Summary: As Stevertigo said:  "Theres no sense in people batting this
thing about. Clearly it belongs at source or [WP]... There needs to be
some policy against batting things around."


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Transwiki wars, precedence,
	and the fate of user-compiled lists