subject: [Wikipedia-l] The role of a wikipedia for a language like Hopi

body:
You put it very nicely Gerard.

I don't particularly agree about the requirements, but I do agree with
everything else you said - an active Wikipedia is an active Wikipedia,
whether it's being written in a language with 10 speakers or one with
1 billion.

Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for
Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even
have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely
Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).

I could build a complex mathematical model, but I have the feeling
that a Wikipedia in a language with 1000 speakers has just as much
growth potential as a Wikipedia in a language with 1 million speakers,
although one may grow faster than the other, the latter will never
reach a size that the former cannot achieve as well.

Mark

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:22:07 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are
> met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one
> article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.
>
> What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no
> two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority
> of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the
> language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every
> spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is
> important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue
> that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true
> for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I
> would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the
> Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi
> Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every
> wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an
> encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to
> the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.
>
> When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more
> general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is
> an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in
> nature. .
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: BRIOSCHI Elfrida Consultant

subject: [Wikitech-l] Problems with history on it.wiki (and other stuffs)

body:
Have a look to <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948&action=history>:
(corr) (prec)  01:03, Gen 4, 2003 Leonard Vertighel m (?Premi Nobel - intestazione)
(corr) (prec)  23:14, Feb 24, 2005 Shaka
(corr) (prec)  11:35, Feb 7, 2005 Frieda m (?Nati)

2003??

We have problems with edit conflicts too. I opened two sections of <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi>, I made an edit in the first <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450468&oldid=450467> then in the second <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450469&oldid=450468>. First edit was overwritten but I didn't get an edit conflict.

Frieda

Elfrida Brioschi
Laser - Informatica e Servizi
Tel. 02 4143 2053 - 328 0731320


list: wikien-l

from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Me vs. The Recycling Troll, for starters.
> > >
> > > That does not appear to be a case that is
> currently
> > > in arbitration or ever was.
> > > Please explain.
> > >
> > > -- mav
> >
> > Exactly.  As I said, I did not bring the case
> because
> > of the fear of retribution against me by the
> arbcom,
> > as has happened in the past.
>
> Again, you have failed to demonstrate that is has
> happened and yet continue to
> state it as if it were fact.
>
> Please either stop or demonstrate the truthfulness
> of the statement.
>
> -- mav

Calling someone a liar on the email list is frowned
on, isn't it?

Besides, all anyone has to do is to look at the
results of the cases.  Not only was I sanctioned, but
Guanaco, against whom the case was brought, was
PRAISED for his actions.

RickK

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
(a whole bunch of stuff)

Ant,

You're no good to any of us dead. Take a break. That's an order.

Everybody is expendable, and that means you. Wikipedia is 60,000
strong. You don't need to worry. As I recall we got along fine before
you joined.

To all who say they miss you and wish you back already: stfu, it
ain't helping.

Take good care of your children, they are much more important.

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

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

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:51:08 -0800, Ronald Chmara <ron at opus1.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:56 AM, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > So, do we need another kind of *indexing*, or just a new way of
> > cross-reading existing categories?
> > Magnus
> > Kardos Andr?s schrieb:
> >> Yes, a *primitive* form of an index.
> >> Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at ...> writes:
> >>> Aren't categories a primitive form of index?
> >>> Alfio
>
> I think I understand some of the original intent behind this idea, so
> let me expand upon what I thought the idea was.
>
> Let's take an existing article, which already has some categories:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
>
> It has a fairly small set of current indexed categories:
> Categories: 1929 births | 1945 deaths | Diarists | Dutch writers |
> Murdered writers | Holocaust | Dutch World War II people | People with
> asteroids named after them
>
> It does *not* have the following possibly relevant, hypothetical(?),
> categories attached:
> People born on June 12 | Famous Jewish People | Famous Young Authors |
> People who hid during the holocaust |  Authors whose work has been
> disputed | Authors whose work was redacted by their family | People who
> died in Bergen-Belsen | Authors whose work had been converted to
> theater | Authors whose work became opera | Authors who were born in
> Frankfurt am Main | Authors born in Germany | Famous Reform Jews |
> Famous Montessori Students | Famous Aachen residents | Events of July
> 8th | Events of October 28th | Authors who told biographical account
> using pseudonyms | People published in Het Parool | Plays by Goodrich
> and Hackett | Pulitzer Prize winning Dramas | .... (the list goes on
> and on)

Aside from "Authors born in Germany" which "Authors who were born in
Frankfurt am Main" would be a subcategory of these are all valid, the
problem is  that they lead to alot of clutter currently, it has been
proposed that a "hidden cateogory" feature be added, for example for
featured articles (their categories are currently on the talk pages, a
lame hack) and this index feature looks similar to that.

>
> As you see, the currently existing categories can scratch the surface,
> but can also miss many connections (as currently implemented).
>
> As I understand the idea, it is about either:
> a) Much more human indexing categories being applied
> b) Automated systems so that the "what links here" kinds of information
> are added in some way to existing indexes, or categories, or utilized
> in an obvious way to display existing connections....
>
> -Bop
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even in cases where the petitioner is ultimately cleared, arbitration
> requires an arduous defense. For people that would rather, say, work
> on wikipedia, arbitration is a hassle. No sane individual would want
> to draw fire from a troll who wants nothing more than to launch
> spurious attacks.

Noted. I think this is a side effect of the ArbCom not capping the amount of
evidence that can be presented (several evidence pages have exceeded 100KB).
I'd like to cap the number of words each person in arbitration can submit. This
should reduce tit for tat evidence submission that consumes so much time of the
people who are in cases (and the arbitrators that have to read all that). I'll
put some thought into this.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even in cases where the petitioner is ultimately cleared,
> arbitration
> > requires an arduous defense. For people that would rather, say,
> work
> > on wikipedia, arbitration is a hassle. No sane individual would
> want
> > to draw fire from a troll who wants nothing more than to launch
> > spurious attacks.
>
> Noted.

Mav, Jimbo,

I'd like to go on record to say that if someone was to start
proceedings against me in arbcom, or if I felt that I needed to do
likewise, I would just leave the project.

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calling someone a liar on the email list is frowned
> on, isn't it?

You made a statement that was derogatory toward the ArbCom. I asked for
evidence to back that up. You failed to give such evidence. Making ad hominem
attacks is what is frowned on.

> Besides, all anyone has to do is to look at the
> results of the cases.  Not only was I sanctioned, but
> Guanaco, against whom the case was brought, was
> PRAISED for his actions.

You were reminded of policy - that's all. You were not blocked and none of your
editing privileges were compromised in any way.

Hardly a sanction.

-- mav

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


from_name: Jonathan ILIAS

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patch for a custom feature : "hide my changes"

body:
Hi,

I use mediawiki internally for more and more projects... It's really a
great tool, but you allready know that ;-)

Sometimes, i do some small hacks like this one. I wanted to hide my own
changes in "recent changes" special page.

Maybe this patch would interest someone... Or maybe this feature already
exists... In these two cases, there is no more work for me ;-)

Before using it, it should be useful to add "$5 my own changes" in
MediaWiki:Showhideminor page.

This patch was made on mediawiki-1.4-beta6.

--- ../../WikiPato/includes/SpecialRecentchanges.php    2004-12-13
04:19:33.000000000 +0100
+++ SpecialRecentchanges.php    2005-03-10 16:23:45.000000000 +0100
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@

         $days = $wgRequest->getInt( 'days', $defaultDays );
         $hideminor = $wgRequest->getBool( 'hideminor',
$wgUser->getOption( 'hideminor' ) ) ? 1 : 0;
+       $hidemyself = $wgRequest->getBool ( 'hidemyself ') ? 1 : 0;
         list( $limit, $offset ) = wfCheckLimits( 100, 'rclimit' );

         # As a feed, use limited settings only
@@ -36,6 +37,7 @@
                 $hidebots = 1;
                 $hideliu = 0;
                 $hidepatrolled = 0;
+               $hidemyself = 0;
                 global $wgFeedLimit;
                 if( $limit > $wgFeedLimit ) {
                         $limit = $wgFeedLimit;
@@ -45,6 +47,7 @@
                 $hidebots = $wgRequest->getBool( 'hidebots', true ) ? 1
: 0;
                 $hideliu = $wgRequest->getBool( 'hideliu', false ) ? 1 : 0;
                 $hidepatrolled = $wgRequest->getBool( 'hidepatrolled',
false ) ? 1 : 0;
+               $hidemyself = $wgRequest->getBool( 'hidemyself') ? 1 : 0;

                 # Get query parameters from path
                 if( $par ) {
@@ -55,6 +58,7 @@
                         if( in_array( 'minor', $bits ) ) $hideminor = 0;
                         if( in_array( 'hideliu', $bits) ) $hideliu = 1;
                         if( in_array( 'hidepatrolled', $bits) )
$hidepatrolled = 1;
+                       if( in_array( 'hidemyself', $bits) ) $hidemyself
= 1;
                 }
         }

@@ -98,12 +102,13 @@

         $hidem  = ( $hideminor )    ? 'AND rc_minor=0' : '';
         $hidem .= ( $hidebots )     ? ' AND rc_bot=0' : '';
-       $hidem .= ( $hideliu )      ? ' AND rc_user=0' : '';
+       $hidem .= ( $hideliu && !$hidemyself)  ? ' AND rc_user=0' : '';
         $hidem .= ( $hidepatrolled )? ' AND rc_patrolled=0' : '';
+       $hidem .= ( $hidemyself )   ? ' AND rc_user <> '.$wgUser->getID
() : '';

         $urlparams = array( 'hideminor' => $hideminor,  'hideliu'
  => $hideliu,
                             'hidebots'  => $hidebots,   'hidepatrolled'
=> $hidepatrolled,
-                           'limit'     => $limit );
+                           'limit'     => $limit, 'hidemyself' =>
$hidemyself );
         $hideparams = wfArrayToCGI( $urlparams );

         $minorLink = $sk->makeKnownLink( $wgContLang->specialPage(
'Recentchanges' ),
@@ -114,6 +119,8 @@
           $showhide[1-$hideliu], wfArrayToCGI( array( 'hideliu' =>
1-$hideliu ), $urlparams ) );
         $patrLink = $sk->makeKnownLink( $wgContLang->specialPage(
'Recentchanges' ),
           $showhide[1-$hidepatrolled], wfArrayToCGI( array(
'hidepatrolled' => 1-$hidepatrolled ), $urlparams ) );
+       $myselfLink = $sk->makeKnownLink( $wgContLang->specialPage(
'Recentchanges' ),
+         $showhide[1-$hidemyself], wfArrayToCGI( array( 'hidemyself' =>
1-$hidemyself ), $urlparams ) );

         $uid = $wgUser->getID();
         $sql2 = "SELECT $recentchanges.*" . ($uid ? ",wl_user" : "") .
" FROM $recentchanges " .
@@ -136,7 +143,7 @@
         }
         $wgOut->addHTML( "\n
\n{$note}\n
" );

-       $note = rcDayLimitLinks( $days, $limit, 'Recentchanges',
$hideparams, false, $minorLink, $botLink, $liuLink, $patrLink );
+       $note = rcDayLimitLinks( $days, $limit, 'Recentchanges',
$hideparams, false, $minorLink, $botLink, $liuLink, $patrLink,
$myselfLink );

         $note .= "
\n" . wfMsg( 'rclistfrom',
           $sk->makeKnownLink( $wgContLang->specialPage( 'Recentchanges' ),
@@ -295,7 +302,7 @@
   * Used also by Recentchangeslinked
   */
  function rcDayLimitLinks( $days, $limit, $page='Recentchanges',
$more='', $doall = false, $minorLink = '',
-       $botLink = '', $liuLink = '', $patrLink = '' ) {
+       $botLink = '', $liuLink = '', $patrLink = '', $mslfLink ) {
         if ($more != '') $more .= '&';
         $cl = rcCountLink( 50, $days, $page, $more ) . ' | ' .
           rcCountLink( 100, $days, $page, $more  ) . ' | ' .
@@ -308,7 +315,7 @@
           rcDaysLink( $limit, 14, $page, $more  ) . ' | ' .
           rcDaysLink( $limit, 30, $page, $more  ) .
           ( $doall ? ( ' | ' . rcDaysLink( $limit, 0, $page, $more ) )
: '' );
-       $shm = wfMsg( 'showhideminor', $minorLink, $botLink, $liuLink,
$patrLink );
+       $shm = wfMsg( 'showhideminor', $minorLink, $botLink, $liuLink,
$patrLink, $mslfLink );
         $note = wfMsg( 'rclinks', $cl, $dl, $shm );
         return $note;
  }

--
Jonathan ILIAS, assistant p?dagogique
http://www.eseo.fr/~jilias/
ESEO
4, rue Merlet de la Boulaye
BP 30926 - 49009 ANGERS cedex 01 - FRANCE
t?l : 02 41 86 67 60


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Skyring and the Queen (again)

body:
Could an admin help out on [[Talk:Government of Australia]], please?
User:Skyring is, for the third time, trying to escalate things with
Adam, this time by saying he's about to delete the entire
head-of-state section because it's simply Adam's opinion. If an admin
could have a word with Skyring now, it might stop it before anyone
gets blocked again. I've asked for help on WP:AN/I, but no response so
far.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin assistance requested

references:
<200503102150.j2ALofkK090970@mailserver1.hushmail.com>
	<d0qks0$ifv$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<4cc603b05031015552a46f250@mail.gmail.com>

body:
I just realized that a lot of you might not read my last post because
I listed the subject as related to the Queen again, and I don't blame
you. It is, in fact, a request for assistance from an admin. See
below.

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:55:54 -0700
Subject: User:Skyring and the Queen (again)

Could an admin help out on [[Talk:Government of Australia]], please?
User:Skyring is, for the third time, trying to escalate things with
Adam, this time by saying he's about to delete the entire
head-of-state section because it's simply Adam's opinion. If an admin
could have a word with Skyring now, it might stop it before anyone
gets blocked again. I've asked for help on WP:AN/I, but no response so
far.

Sarah


from_name: Chad Perrin

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

body:
debussy at cyber-rights.net wrote:
> Hi, Recycling Troll.
>
> Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to
> you as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing
> list.) The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia,
> there's plenty of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places
> where wikipedia steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where
> Jimmy Wales and other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and
> then proceed to do to them what they're starting in on doing to
> you.
>
> Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
> dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at
> your expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out
> a bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then
> ban you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.

Ut-oh, he's discovered the libertarian communist semitic fascist CIA
conspiracy of Wikipedia.

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


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom?

body:
I suppose I should make public what has always been an implicit fact
here, and note that I am willing to, assuming, in my judgment, the case
has merits, raise any case to the arbitration committee. Contact me via
e-mail if you have a specific problem user you think needs to be dealt
with and don't feel you can deal with. I can't guarantee I'll deal with
it immediately (I can only manage evidence on so many arbcom cases at
once), but if the case has merit, I will submit it on your behalf.

-Snowspinner

On Mar 10, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:28:28 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
> <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people are
>>> afraid to request sanctions against other users
>>> because of the perceived (and real) threat that the
>>> arbcom will turn it against the person bringing the
>>> case.
>>
>> Name a case where that happened.
>>
>> -- mav
>>
>
> Even in cases where the petitioner is ultimately cleared, arbitration
> requires an arduous defense. For people that would rather, say, work
> on wikipedia, arbitration is a hassle. No sane individual would want
> to draw fire from a troll who wants nothing more than to launch
> spurious attacks.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Wouter Steenbeek

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

body:
Message as sent by Slavik:

>From: "V. Ivanov" <amikeco at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "V. Ivanov" <amikeco at gmail.com>, wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saterlandic Frisian Wikipedia + smaller
>languagewikipedias in general
>Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:18:35 +0300
>
>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:09:25 +0100, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
> >
> > > Most of these Wikipedias were requested by people who had the notion
> > > "I have heard of this language. There is no Wikipedia in it. It should
> > > be created." but were never followed up after their creation.
> >
> > That's perfectly right. And that's why I think that some native speakers
>should
> > express their interest in starting their edition of wikipedia before we
>do anything.
>
>What are you talking about? Wikipedia has now exactly that mechanism
>for starting new Wikipedias: 5 speakers of language must express their
>interest, then the application is discussed in this list during a
>month or more -- and only after that test the new language appears.
>
>Slavik
>
>--
>Esperu cxiam!

AFAIK, this is just the *proposed* policy for new wikipedias, not the
current one.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/


from_name: Petr Kadlec

body:
> We have problems with edit conflicts too. I opened two sections of <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi>, I made an edit in the first <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450468&oldid=450467> then in the second <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450469&oldid=450468>. First edit was overwritten but I didn't get an edit conflict.

AFAIK edit "conflicts" with yourself are intentionally ignored; I
guess it is supposed that you know what you are doing. Although I
guess that the idea to _merge_ the changes if there is no merge
conflict would be a wiser one.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

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

body:
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:

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


body:
I'm quite sure that few days ago autoconflicts were handled.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Petr Kadlec
Sent: gioved? 10 marzo 2005 17.22
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Problems with history on it.wiki (and other stuffs)

> We have problems with edit conflicts too. I opened two sections of
> <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi>, I made
> an edit in the first
> <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450
> 468&oldid=450467> then in the second
> <http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sondaggi&diff=450
> 469&oldid=450468>. First edit was overwritten but I didn't get an edit
> conflict.

AFAIK edit "conflicts" with yourself are intentionally ignored; I guess it is supposed that you know what you are doing. Although I guess that the idea to _merge_ the changes if there is no merge conflict would be a wiser one.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] _______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> Silverback wrote
>
> >Now if only the debate could be conducted in American english, the debate
> >becomes more clear. The issue all along has been not whether Austrailia
> >is a republic, but whether it is a democracy. In American english, no it
> >is not a democracy, it has a constitutionally limited form a government, a
> >republic. Therefore, since Austailia is not a democracy, when we
> >translate back to Austrailian english, Austrailia is not a republic. The
> >queen has been irrelevant to the whole issue, just as she is to nearly
> >anything in Austrailia.
>
>
> This strikes me as perfect evidence of how people who have done no research
> and yet who try to participate in discussions only waste other people's
> time. The phrase, "In American english, no it is note a democracy" manages
> to be both ignorant and irrelevant. Americans have many different ways of
> using "democracy," and most Americans would say Australia is a
> democracy. But so what? Why does it matter what Americans think?

I'm not saying it did matter, but it might have mattered, because translating into "American" is an abstraction.   No, it is not quite like abstracting to predicate logic, but it is abstracting away from the emotion laden usages of the words in the Austrailian discussion.  Perhaps people could listen a bit more because, since it was the American words being used, they would feel less of an immediate need to be defensive.

But it is an abstraction in another sense.  The Americans have an ideological tradition starting with some of the founders and kept alive by conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals, which made a specific point that the US was not a democracy, but a republic.  By republic they meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be overridden by the majority.  So, while Americans can be as sloppy in its use of democracy and as happy to call itself a democracy as the rest of the English speaking world, when democracy is drawn in opposition to republic, not only is the word republic understood in this context, but a less common definition of democracy is.  So, by abstracting to American english, not only is emotional distancing achieved, so are more precisely defined and accepted meanings.  In American, we know whether or not Austrailia is a republic, by the American definition.

By introducing reasoning in American english into the discussion, there are two hopes.  One is that the editors will be given new tools to refine their thinking, perhaps reaching agreement in a less emotional laden setting, and agreement they would then have to translate back into their Austrailian if possible.   The second is that even if they can't resolve their dispute, perhaps they will take a fancy to the American distinctions, and we can have a common language once again.

On another of your points was that people who are going to interject themselves should study and become familiar with the Austrailian constitution, etc.  I disagree, in my experience, if the parties in their discussion cannot explain the issues clearly to a third party unfamiliar with the issues, then they probably don't understand the issues themselves.  A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to clearer explanations and understandings on their parts.

                            -- Silverback


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
I believe it's capped already to 1,000 words and 100 diffs, which
sounds a lot, but when you have a complex case, you can use them up
pretty fast. I got through my 1000 words in no time in the LaRouche
case, and I don't think I was being long-winded. It means I've got a
ton of unused evidence still left on my computer for next time. ;-)

Sarah

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:36:41 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Noted. I think this is a side effect of the ArbCom not capping the amount of
> evidence that can be presented (several evidence pages have exceeded 100KB).
> I'd like to cap the number of words each person in arbitration can submit.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] new vote for switching off First
	Letter	Capitalization on en.wiktionary.org

body:
Jo wrote:

> I organized a new vote on the subject of first letter capitaliztion on
> en.wiktionary.org:
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/First_letter_capitalization
>
>
> after the previous one went awry:
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/case-sensitivity_vote
>
>
> What went wrong in the first vote is that it wasn't clear what was
> being voted for. We got a lot of people we hardly saw making
> contributions to Wiktionary voting against, back then. This time all
> the major current and longtime contributors to the project are in
> favour of switching off First letter capitalization.
>
> What is the next step? Should we ask a developer? Is it enough to ask
> on this mailing list?
>
> Many thanks for your advice,
>
> Polyglot

Thank you for your efforts in dealing with this.  It has been a month
since the vote was started.  The 13-2 current vote in favour is seems to
be a mandate to take this to the next step.

The confusion in the earlier vote on this topic was partly because
questions involving the use of bots and the functionality of the search
engine were mixed in.  By contrast, this time the question was kept to
its simplest form.

Rather than having a developer suddenly go ahead now and toggle some
switch, our next step should be to consider haw we can implement this in
a project that already contains nearly 60,000 articles in its principle
namespace with minimized disruption.

Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Fastfission stated for the record:
> What's beautiful here is the motivation assigned. That's right,
> Wikipedia is just here to "lure people in with a pack of lies" just so
> they can be banned! That sounds like a reasonable endeavor, worth the
> time of the four hundred administrators and many thousands of
> registered editors.
>
> But wait! Who are these hundreds of editors? How did they get to be in
> the position of banning? Were they not too lured in by the pack of
> lies and banned? How does one change from the banned to the banners?
> How is such a decision made?
>
> More importantly: When can I get banned, or ban someone? I'm not in
> either category and feeling somewhat unsure of my identity. Do I
> create the pack of lies or am I a dupe of them? If someone could let
> me know either way, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Ah-hah!  You have conclusively demonstrated that you are actually one of
the shadowy Controllers of the Cabal -- only a high-ranking conspirator
would reveal those secrets and then claim such ignorance!

--
  Sean Barrett     | The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
  sean at epoptic.com |


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Culture glut

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:18:58 -0500, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a strong bias to admit. I can't stand the "In popular culture"
> heading that certain articles have, which  which become a hodgepodge
> list for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in
> a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, video game, rock song, or science
> fiction novel.

I strongly agree with this and the rest of what you've entered here.

I don't feel that they are ALL bad or should always go, but they can,
and are, overused.  The rule of thumb to be used is "Is this fact
notable enough to be in this article?"  In the example of nuclear
weapons, for example, listing every movie, book, or whatnot that ever
mentioned one is clearly going beyond the bounds of notability.
Listing examples of them that had SIGNIFICANT effect on the popular
knowledge or opinion would be a different manner, and quite
acceptable.

Meanwhile, in an article about something much more obscure, mentioning
a cultural reference might be much more valuable, since it may be one
of the few ways in which a member of the general public has heard of
the topic.  E.g. in the article on the [[Toyota 2000GT]], a rare 1960s
Japanese sports car, the fact that one appeared in a James Bond movie
may be quite relevant, since it's the only place that most of us are
likely to have seen one.

In a sense, this is a special case of a meta-problem: trivia.  The
extent that Wikipedia articles should include trivia - and how this
should be done - isn't properly defined.

-Matt (User:Morven)


from_name: Anthere

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

body:
Just a stupid question....just popped in my mind...

Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?

Ant

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


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


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


from_name: Michael Snow

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

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>What's beautiful here is the motivation assigned. That's right,
>Wikipedia is just here to "lure people in with a pack of lies" just so
>they can be banned! That sounds like a reasonable endeavor, worth the
>time of the four hundred administrators and many thousands of
>registered editors.
>
>But wait! Who are these hundreds of editors? How did they get to be in
>the position of banning? Were they not too lured in by the pack of
>lies and banned? How does one change from the banned to the banners?
>How is such a decision made?
>
>More importantly: When can I get banned, or ban someone? I'm not in
>either category and feeling somewhat unsure of my identity. Do I
>create the pack of lies or am I a dupe of them? If someone could let
>me know either way, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
>
>
If you haven't been banned, you don't really exist. You're just a
figment of Jimbo's imagination. It's not until you're ejected from the
solipsist collective that your being acquires an independent
metaphysical nature.

--Michael Snow


from_name: V. Ivanov

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

body:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:09:25 +0100, Boris Lohnzweiger wrote:
>
> > Most of these Wikipedias were requested by people who had the notion
> > "I have heard of this language. There is no Wikipedia in it. It should
> > be created." but were never followed up after their creation.
>
> That's perfectly right. And that's why I think that some native speakers should
> express their interest in starting their edition of wikipedia before we do anything.

What are you talking about? Wikipedia has now exactly that mechanism
for starting new Wikipedias: 5 speakers of language must express their
interest, then the application is discussed in this list during a
month or more -- and only after that test the new language appears.

Slavik

--
Esperu cxiam!


from_name: Angela

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

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?

Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical
solution to some of the problems on existing projects.

The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support
-- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate
Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself
should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented
on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] our resource

body:
Honestly...

See the only pictures we have about fetus and embryos on wikicommons,
and frankly...frankly...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fetus

No ?


subject: [Foundation-l] our resource


from_name: Skyring

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

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:20:44 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
>
> If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be
> quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.

Hear, hear! I have presented bucketloads of reputable, verifiable
sources, and yet Adam Carr relies almost entirely on his own opinion.

On 14 Feb 2005 I stated in [[Talk:Government of Australi]] "I intend
to remove all references to head of state until someone can come up
with a definitive source, that isn't clearly opinion."

Since then, Adam has provided a total of two sources apart from himself:

One newspaper article written by Allison Henry who is the National
Director of the Australian Republican Movement, a partisan
organisation.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=10713451]

One link to a paper issed by the Parliamentary Research Office. This
paper was described by another editor and Adam found the link. The
paper gives opinions for the Queen as head of state and the
Governor-General as head of state. It does not favour one or the
other. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=10665087]

Adam's argument is not based on checkable sources. It is based on
abuse, threats and personal opinion, as anybody may see for themselves
by following the chain of edits on the discussion page for the
article, beginning at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10232643]

Along the way, the number and quality of my own sources may be noted:
Link to ACM website, disproving Adam's statement of their definition
of republic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10611555]

Link to Australian National Opinion Poll site showing poor level of
community awareness on constitutional matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10614518

Quote from Federation-era constitutional scholars Quick and Garran
showing their opinion that the brand new Constitution places
sovereignty in the hands of the Australian people.

Quote from Macquarie Dictionary showing that definition of republic
includes Australia. Both at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10629502]

Link to ARM article quoting Professor Brian Galligan stating that
Australia is a republic.
Link to Australian Politics site quoting Prime Minister John Howard
describing the Governor-General as "effectively Australia's head of
state".
Link to Melbourne University site quoting former Governor Sir Richard
McGarvie stating that the Governor-General performs the functions of
the head of state.
Link to ARM article quoting Professor George Winterton stating that
Australia has two heads of state. I point out that the ARM material
comprises quotes from Galligan's book and a copy of Winterton's
article published in Quadrant, a scholarly magazine. All at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10749531]

Link to ACM site rebutting TBSDY's allegation that ACM and ARM have
the same opinion on who is the head of state.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10908870]

Links to constitutions of Japan and Sweden.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10933565]

Four links to statements by constitutional authorities using the term
"crowned republic"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=10938280]

Link to John Howard as Prime Minister using the term "crowned
republic". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10942836]

I don't mind criticism, bu when it is so far off the mark, I really
must protest!
--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
Although it doesn't make for much of a statistical difference, at
least not in rank, I feel I should note that you are inaccurately
comparing the number of inhabitants of a country with articles, rather
than the number of speakers of a language. For many languages, there
is a huge population abroad, and that might make a significant
difference.

Mark

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:33:36 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
> P? 11. mar. 2005 kl. 00:28 skrev Mark Williamson:
>
> > Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for
> > Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even
> > have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely
> > Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).
>
> Acually, after a couple of minutes of research i found the the
> wikipedia with best article pr. speaker ratio. Iceland, with 7 articles
> pr 1000 inhabitant. Followed closely by no, dk and fi with around 4
> articles pr. 1000 inhabitant
>
> And then follows faroese with around 3 articles pr inhabitant.
>
> mvh.
> Lars Alvik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>> debussy at cyber-rights.net wrote:
>>> Hi, Recycling Troll.
>>> Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to you
>>> as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing list.)
>>> The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia, there's plenty
>>> of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places where wikipedia
>>> steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where Jimmy Wales and
>>> other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and then proceed to do
>>> to them what they're starting in on doing to you.
>>> Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
>>> dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at your
>>> expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out a
>>> bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then ban
>>> you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.
>>
>> Uh-oh, he's discovered the libertarian communist semitic fascist CIA
>> conspiracy of Wikipedia.
>
> Not to mention the un-American one.

I kinda figured that went without saying, but I suppose you're right: we
should mention it's the American Imperialist un-American conspiracy, too.

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


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
Stirling Newberry wrote:

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

Perhaps when we can deal with our *current* status as a Top 200 website,
with peaks yesterday at No. 71. For a site popular purely through word
of mouth, I think we're having problems coping with the amount of
credibility we already have.

- d.


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Culture glut

body:
I have a strong bias to admit. I can't stand the "In popular culture"
heading that certain articles have, which  which become a hodgepodge
list for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in
a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, video game, rock song, or science
fiction novel.

Does this make me a bad person? Do others feel this? I feel as if
these sections should be hunted down and exterminated. They could, of
course, be broken off into separate lists (as I did for [[Mad
scientist]] => [[List of mad scientists]]), but is that list then
encyclopedic? It is feasible that it will ever be comprehensive? Would
there be a point to a list of instances in popular culture of the
[[philosopher's stone]] -- a common and reoccuring theme since at
least medieval times?

[[Nuclear weapon]] is another entry which has such a section. I've
tried to make it, over time, less of a list and more of a descriptive
paragraph. But it still is quite unpleasant and not very useful. I
feel somewhat bad cutting a whole list out of an entry, though. With
something like "nuclear weapon" (a major cultural motif of the late
20th century), it feels ridiculous to try and add every instance of
its being invoked. But where to draw the line? I edited out a line
somebody added about the fact that the prog-rock band Rush wrote a
song about nuclear weapons on the basis that this was hardly notable
enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. But is "Sum of All
Fears"? "Godzilla"? I don't know.

Do these sections help you understand the article in question? I don't
think they do. I'm happy with the article for the movie "Sum of All
Fears" saying that it involved a nuclear weapon, but the other way
around seems quite silly. My general feeling is that this is an issue
of "importance" (very subjective) and "specificity" (less subjective);
"Sum of All Fears" (the movie) is far less important than "nuclear
weapons" (writ largely), and while the "Sum of All Fears" invokes the
larger trope of the "nuclear weapon", the opposite does not, in my
opinion, occur (most people do not see the word "nuclear weapon" and
think, "Oh yes, that movie!").

I think that if the subject of an article really warrants a section on
its impact in "popular culture," it should be something more along the
lines of describing the way it is invoked (i.e. "Nuclear weapons have
commonly stood as metaphors for the harnessing of the powers of nature
by science, and are often invoked as apocalyptic symbols, etc.")
rather than a list of occurences.

Is anybody else with me on this? Have I lost my mind? Should I be more
respectful to aspects of "popular culture" that I obviously disdain?
Am I a cruel and unfair editor? I'm interested in your thoughts. This
is clearly a matter of taste (and perhaps a little reasoning), though,
and I'm not proposing any hard policies.

I do understand the *reason* such sections exist: a lot of users don't
have a whole lot to contribute to an article on "nuclear weapons", for
instance, besides their associations in popular culture. Everybody
wants to pitch in, as best they can. However, "all contributions are
equally valid and must be kept" is clearly not the Wiki philosophy
(egalitarianism here is reserved to the ability to contribute, not the
information contributed itself), though I feel bad saying, "Look
buddy, I'm sorry you don't know anything about this except that it was
featured in an HBO weekly show. I understand you want to help. But
you're just not up to snuff, if this is the only information you can
offer." I'd feel like such a snobby academic historian saying that
sort of thing, a very un-wiki sentiment. Alas! Does anybody have any
thoughts?

FF


body:
What's beautiful here is the motivation assigned. That's right,
Wikipedia is just here to "lure people in with a pack of lies" just so
they can be banned! That sounds like a reasonable endeavor, worth the
time of the four hundred administrators and many thousands of
registered editors.

But wait! Who are these hundreds of editors? How did they get to be in
the position of banning? Were they not too lured in by the pack of
lies and banned? How does one change from the banned to the banners?
How is such a decision made?

More importantly: When can I get banned, or ban someone? I'm not in
either category and feeling somewhat unsure of my identity. Do I
create the pack of lies or am I a dupe of them? If someone could let
me know either way, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

FF

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:08:02 -0500, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> >> debussy at cyber-rights.net wrote:
> >>> Hi, Recycling Troll.
> >>> Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to you
> >>> as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing list.)
> >>> The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia, there's plenty
> >>> of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places where wikipedia
> >>> steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where Jimmy Wales and
> >>> other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and then proceed to do
> >>> to them what they're starting in on doing to you.
> >>> Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
> >>> dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at your
> >>> expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out a
> >>> bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then ban
> >>> you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.
> >>
> >> Uh-oh, he's discovered the libertarian communist semitic fascist CIA
> >> conspiracy of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Not to mention the un-American one.
>
> I kinda figured that went without saying, but I suppose you're right: we
> should mention it's the American Imperialist un-American conspiracy, too.
>
> --
> Chad
> [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>(a whole bunch of stuff)
>
>Ant,
>
>You're no good to any of us dead. Take a break. That's an order.
>
>Everybody is expendable, and that means you. Wikipedia is 60,000
>strong. You don't need to worry. As I recall we got along fine before
>you joined.
>
>To all who say they miss you and wish you back already: stfu, it
>ain't helping.
>
>Take good care of your children, they are much more important.
>
>
So who the hell are you to be issuing orders?

Anthere is very well appreciated. It's up to her to decide when she
needs a break, nobody is complaining about it.  I'm sure she doesn't
need a self-appointed guardian to say when.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] wikibreak


from_name: Jim Cecropia

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!

body:
HEAR YE!! HEAR YE!!

Be it known to all Wiccapedians that THERE BE WITCHES AMONG US!

If THOU FEARE TO BRING CHARGES THYSELF before YE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE, Be aweare that SNOW-SPINNER will bring CHARGES ON THY BEHALFE.  HE FEARETH NOTT!!!

Wee Shall CLEANSE THE WICCAPEDIA of THEIR PRESENCE.

Already Hath Brave SNOW-SPINNER brought DR. ZEN before THE COURT for Objecting to placing of the IMAGE of the SACRED CLITORIS in the Wiccapedia!!!

He, at GREAT PERIL to his PERSON, hath faced the dreaded WHEELER, who sins with HERESY thinking that the Wiccapedia should be run like a REPUBLIC and dedicate itself to TRUTH (with THY CAPITAL "T"!!!!)

So SHALL HE SMITE the DEVILLS in Our MIDST!

So DO NOT HESITATE to DENOUNCE the DEMONS Amongst Us!!!! IF SOME SHOULD DARE to disagree with our SACRED ENDEAVOUR, DENOUNCE THEM ALSO!!!!

GIVEN THIS DATE,

COTTON-MATHER

"All are addressed heare in the Male Gender. If in any case such addresse shall not describe the primarie sexe characteristics of the individual, substitute in thy mind the Distaff Gender."

"Tonighte We Shalle Partye Like It's Sixteen-Ninety-Nine"

----- Original Message -----
From: Snowspinner <Snowspinner at mail.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom?
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:11:41 -0600

>
> I suppose I should make public what has always been an implicit
> fact here, and note that I am willing to, assuming, in my judgment,
> the case has merits, raise any case to the arbitration committee.
> Contact me via e-mail if you have a specific problem user you think
> needs to be dealt with and don't feel you can deal with. I can't
> guarantee I'll deal with it immediately (I can only manage evidence
> on so many arbcom cases at once), but if the case has merit, I will
> submit it on your behalf.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:28:28 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
> > <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> --- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> I think we've discussed ad nauseum how people are
> >>> afraid to request sanctions against other users
> >>> because of the perceived (and real) threat that the
> >>> arbcom will turn it against the person bringing the
> >>> case.
> >>
> >> Name a case where that happened.
> >>
> >> -- mav
> >>
> >
> > Even in cases where the petitioner is ultimately cleared, arbitration
> > requires an arduous defense. For people that would rather, say, work
> > on wikipedia, arbitration is a hassle. No sane individual would want
> > to draw fire from a troll who wants nothing more than to launch
> > spurious attacks.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Rick

body:
--- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
>
> HEAR YE!! HEAR YE!!

This posting was entirely inappropriate.

Dr Zen has repeatedly deleted the image in violation
of consensus, and indicates that he will continue to
do so.  Your posting to the mailing list is an
unacceptable incendiary posting.

RickK

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


body:
Skyring wrote:

>[John Howard] said: "The essence of a republican form of government is that
>ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, and that all public office
>holders derive their authority from the people, either through
>election by the people, or by appointment by officers themselves
>elected by the people - precisely the form of government we enjoy in
>Australia. What this means is that we have always been a crowned
>republic."
>
"All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people".-
Article 2 of the Constitution.

:-)  Ec


body:
--- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> The issue is not Dr. Zen.
> The issue is not WHEELER.
> The issue is not 172.
>
> The issue is that Wikipedia has made great progress
> toward shutting people up.
> The issue is that Wikipedia has made no progress
> toward editorial review or standards.
> The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases
> against users people have grievances with.
>
> My post was incendiary? Perhaps.
> My post was unacceptable? In your opinion.
> My post was inappropriate? I think not.
>
> Luv, C.

And what did you hope to accomplish by posting to the
mailing list?

RickK

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


body:
Angela wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
>>
>>
>Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical
>solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
>
>The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support
>-- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate
>Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself
>should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented
>on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
>
Gerard is full of technical solutions.  Some of them may indeed be
brilliant, but I don't have the technical expertise to judge.  The real
question lies in whether contributors whose primary interest is language
will be driven away because the editing process is too complicated.  One
of the most important features of Wikipedia has been that anyone can
learn how to edit with very little training.  At one time their were
passionate arguments over the use of html or wiki markup.  Wiki markup
was seen then as too complicated.  We've gone a long way since then, but
we still need to be aware that many of the contributors that we may seek
are not computer geeks, but knowledgeable people in the subjects that
are their passion.

I also see Gerard's proposal as directed toward the needs of
translation.  That's a commendable goal, but a dictionary is more than
that.  It is just as much a reference for people about their own
language.  And people writing about their own language need to feel free
to do so easily without needing to be concerned about the potential
effects on translations.

Also much of what Gerard says is theoretical, and very little of it
gives real practical examples of how things will work  Saying that a
database structured on xml would be a big improvement does not mean much
to those who are not intimately acquainted with xml.

As much as I've advocated for a unified Wikisource, I also advocate for
separate Wiktionaries.  Without getting too far into that debate now, I
can at least point out that Wikisource deals with static texts that will
not need to be repeatedly edited.

If Gerard wants to experiment with his ideas on some form of Wikidata
project I won't stand in his way.  If he wants to go from that into some
kind of "Ultimate Wiktionary" he may come up with something that works.
Maybe it will eventually be meaningful to migrate existing translation
material there.  But let's not go there until he has something practical
established.  The timetable for that may be considerably longer than the
one which he so optimistically expresses.

Ec


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

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Just a stupid question....just popped in my mind...
>
> Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
>
> Ant

Hoi,
Wikidata is in essence a building block. It enables things, the building
of Wikidata will allow us the functionality of a proper wiktionary or a
poper wikispecies. In itself it is not a project. To me, having the
ability for hosting relational data is seperate from having yet another
set of relational data. The decision of hosting a set of data is what
makes a project. As far as I am aware and as far as I am concerned this
is what needs community support and board approval. Hosting wiktionary
and wikispecies data are things that we are committed to.

Thanks,
    GerardM

>
>
> Gerard Meijssen a ?crit:
>
>> Hoi,
>>
>> I am very happy to announce that Kennisnet is willing to
>> underwrite/pay for the creation of wikidata and the ultimate
>> wiktionary. This will allow us to host relational data within a
>> Mediawiki environment. Wikidata will particularly enhance projects
>> like Wikispecies and Wiktionary where a lot of the relevant data is
>> relational in nature. The details of this project can be found here:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary
>>
>> Thanks, :)
>>   GerardM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


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


from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Snowspinner ArbCom cases

body:
> I suppose I should make public what has always been an implicit
> fact here, and note that I am willing to, assuming, in my judgment,
> the case has merits, raise any case to the arbitration committee.
> Contact me via e-mail if you have a specific problem user you think
> needs to be dealt with and don't feel you can deal with. I can't
> guarantee I'll deal with it immediately (I can only manage evidence
> on so many arbcom cases at once), but if the case has merit, I will
> submit it on your behalf.
>
> -Snowspinner

May I be the first one to congratulate Snowspinner on his bravery in taking on other's cases as if they were his own?  This shows true selflessness.

--Merovingian

PS.  Yes, I've finally started to read the mailing list.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
Will someone do the necessary block please? This is sollog

Theresa

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:50:37 -0800, debussy at cyber-rights.net
<debussy at cyber-rights.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, Recycling Troll.
>
> Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to
> you as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing
> list.) The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia,
> there's plenty of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places
> where wikipedia steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where
> Jimmy Wales and other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and
> then proceed to do to them what they're starting in on doing to
> you.
>
> Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
> dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at
> your expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out
> a bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then
> ban you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.
>
> Also did you know that Jimmy Wales is a sick
> pornograper?:http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.shtml
>
> Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Angela wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:05 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Wikidata is a new project... does the community supports this ?
>>
>>
>
>Wikidata itself isn't really a project. It's more of a technical
>solution to some of the problems on existing projects.
>
>The implementation of Wikidata will obviously need community support
>-- do Wiktionarians want to merge their projects into the "ultimate
>Wiktionary", for example -- but I don't think the feature itself
>should need consensus before its written, only before its implemented
>on Wikimedia in a way which would affect existing projects.
>
>Angela.
>
When we have an ultimate wiktionary, it is up to the individuals that
make up the wiktionary communities if they want to contribute to the
ultimate wiktionary or to the existing language specific wiktionaries.
My aim will be to convert the content of the existing wiktionaries in a
lossless manner. I expect that the integration of all the languages will
provide the synergy that will make it really cool to work on the
ultimate wiktionary. Each wiktionary can decide to stop their activity
once the data is included into the ultimate wiktionary.

I expect that with the first iteration of the ultimate wiktionary we
will learn many lessons. My idea of the database will be to have it
relatively simple in database design so that it will be possible to
enhance things as we learn what can be done in a better way. Erik's
timeline does include the implementation of a thesaurus. This will be
based on the GEMET data. A thesaurus is a simplification of what we will
have in the ultimate wiktionary but it will show us what we need in a
User Interface.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Culture Glut

body:
> In a sense, this is a special case of a meta-problem: trivia.  The
> extent that Wikipedia articles should include trivia - and how this
> should be done - isn't properly defined.

> -Matt (User:Morven)

I don't think that there can be a definite policy on trivia, seeing as what to include and what to omit seems very static.  I was thinking one time about the logic of making a list along the lines of [[List of songs which explicitly refer to transportation by automobile]].  I quickly found that there were too many instances to remember.  Besides, would a list like this serve any real purpose?  Probably not.

--Merovingian
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

body:
>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>Noted. I think this is a side effect of the ArbCom not capping the amount
>of
>evidence that can be presented (several evidence pages have exceeded
>100KB).
>I'd like to cap the number of words each person in arbitration can submit.
>This
>should reduce tit for tat evidence submission that consumes so much time of
>the
>people who are in cases (and the arbitrators that have to read all that).
>I'll
>put some thought into this.

1000 words/100 links is already pretty tight for more complex cases.

Jay.


body:
>From: "Jim Cecropia" <jcecropia at mail.com>
>Already Hath Brave SNOW-SPINNER brought DR. ZEN before THE COURT for
>Objecting to placing of the IMAGE of the SACRED CLITORIS in the
>Wiccapedia!!!

That's just one small symptom of persistent underlying policy violations.
The RfAR isn't the Evidence page.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!

body:
Jim Cecropia wrote:

>In my memory ArbCom was the very last resort in an open commuunity. Now it seems to be a first resort for some.
>
>Not good, however well-intentioned.
>
>
I think this observation is perceptive. Note that the problem is not
with the Arbitration Committee itself, it's the community's use of the
arbitration process. I'm disappointed that a number of cases in the past
week or two have been brought with little or no indication that other
methods of dispute resolution have been given any serious effort, or
that such efforts are in the long-distant past. I would also be
disappointed with the Arbitration Committee for accepting such cases,
but they have rejected some, and in other cases I recognize that the
arbitrators feel obligated to respond to the community, and when
community sentiment is strongly for arbitration this is difficult to resist.

The other dispute resolution methods (requests for comment, surveys,
mediation) are not simply formalities to check off on the inexorable
path to arbitration. Treating them as such is not acting in good faith.

Yes, it's nice that arbitration is now working much more quickly than
before. This doesn't mean that you get to speed through the rest of the
process on an expedited track. Writing a great encyclopedia takes time.
The attendant discussion and resolving of disagreements takes time too.

With arbitration working more efficiently, no doubt some people feel
that the other processes are now comparatively inefficient. Please work
to change this. The mediation process still desperately needs more
mediators to handle the load. Requests for comment for article disputes
would work better if everyone seeking comment also took the time to add
their input to someone else's request. The RfC page could also stand to
be pruned more often and stale listings removed.

Finally, I would note that the admin noticeboard is a nice idea and
often a useful tool, but it is not part of the dispute resolution
process. It exists for people to consider whether admins should take
action to deal with problems, but its focus and tone are better suited
for halting disputes (temporarily) than resolving them. Going directly
from the noticeboard to arbitration is, in almost all cases,
short-circuiting the process.

--Michael Snow


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Steve,

I said "some" of the founding fathers, not any one picked at random.  You landed on a federalist.  Here is a quote from [[Democracy]]:

   According to classical usage, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct    democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate.

The definitions here that have more emphasis on a constitution, may not be the most popular definition of democracy in the US, but it does have intellectual validity and can be used, and will be recognized.  Pledges and oaths of officeholder will be to the republic or to uphold the "constitution", not the to will of the people or the latest legislation or to the president.  I think the above passage over emphasizes the "direct", because that term usually isn't used.   The emphasis is that the will of the people is limited by the constitution with its checks and balances, supermajority provisions, and bill of rights.   Jefferson is the founding father that most conservatives and libertarians look to.

I probably agree with you that one has to do research to do a lot  of writing, as long as past "research" counts.  But short of extensive writing, contributing to refining pages where some of the people understand the subject and their positions well enough to reduce them to a few definitions and principles, is quite possible on new subjects, and not just merely improving the writing either.

                          -- Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------
> Silverback wrote:
>
> >But it is an abstraction in another sense. The Americans have an
> >ideological tradition starting with some of the founders and kept alive by
> >conservatives, libertarians and classical liberals, which made a specific
> >point that the US was not a democracy, but a republic. By republic they
> >meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be overridden by
> >the majority.
>
> This is not true (which proves my point about the problem with people who
> do not do research). According to the Federalist 10 (penned by James
> Madison, a major contributor to our (yankees) Constitution and fourth
> president --
> A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
> representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the
> cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies
> from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure
> and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
>
> The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are:
> first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number
> of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens,
> and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
> They use "republic" to refer to a representative government. Note -- this
> is (for them) a necessary but not sufficient definition of
> "republic." They are comparing "republic" to "democracy" and thus
> emphasize the difference. What they have in common, of course, is no monarch.
>
> Be that as it may, Americans today use these words differently, as do
> political scientists and political theorist (although no political theorist
> to my knowledge defines "republic" as democracy+law. They call
> democracy+law "liberal state" or "liberal democracy" (tho' I admit I am not
> a political scientist, if there is one out there, perhaps she can confirm
> or correct me)
>
> He also says
>
> > A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to
> > clearer explanations and understandings on their parts.
>
> And I would again insist that the third party will not be able to suggest
> alternatives unless s/he has done research.
>
> You don't have to be an academic to do good research. But you just can't
> write an encyclopedia without doing research.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Craig Franklin

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

body:
Scr?obh Lars Alvik

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

I disagree.  I do not have Norwegian, but I think the fact that 90% of the
country speaks a particular language is irrelevant as far as what subdomain
it is allowed to reside on.

Let me illustrate.  Let us say that rather than seperate ga: (Irish)  and
gd: (Scottish Gaelic) subdomains being set up, a single subdomain had
originally been set up, which we will call :gx.  This was meant for the
"Gaelic" language.  There might be some justification for this, some
dialects of Irish are somewhat interintelligble with some dialects of
Scottish Gaelic.  Now, the ratio of Irish speakers to SG speakers is,
according to the en.wikipedia articles, about 4:1 (260,000 vs 59,000) -
roughly similar to the ratio of bokm?l to nynorsk speakers, from what I
understand.

Now, given the logic that you're attempting to use in the no: situation, we
would simply let "gx" remain the named the "Gaelic" wikipedia, but only
allow Irish articles there, because after all, it is the language spoken by
the largest share of the Gaelic-speaking population.  This probably looks,
and quite rightly so, ridiculous to those who look upon the situation from
outside.  Yet, this is the "solution" that you're proposing for the no:
wikipedia.

I think the fact that most Norwegians prefer bokm?l should be irrelevant.
If 99.9% of Norwegians spoke it, it's still cannot exclusively claim to be
"Norwegian", and I think that it's ridiculous that it should get the
reserved domain for that language.  Personally, I think the #1 solution
would be:

no: Portal page to :nb and :nn.  Links to article pages here redirect to :nb
nb: Wikipedia bokm?l
nn: Wikipedia nynorsk

I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this.  Anyone who types in
"no" can get to their preferred variety with a single click, and there is no
language confusion or feelings of unfairness on either side.

Regards,
- Craig Franklin


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The role of a wikipedia for a language like Hopi

body:
Hoi,
To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are
met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one
article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.

What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no
two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority
of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the
language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every
spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is
important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue
that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true
for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I
would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the
Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi
Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every
wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an
encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to
the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.

When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more
general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is
an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in
nature. .

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Christiaan Briggs

body:
On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:37 pm, Skyring wrote:

> we've reached an acceptable solution, complete with good sources. The
> Prime Minister describes Australia as a "crowned republic".

Well well well. It appears Pete (Skyring) is entitled to an apology of
sorts from some people on this list. I hope you stay on Pete and I hope
this hasn't left a bad taste in your mouth. Good on you for sticking
with it through all the personal attacks, etc. It's a shame you had to
go to such lengths to create a better article.

Christiaan


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Culture glut

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> [snip screed]

Actually, I agree with you.

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


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

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:

> debussy at cyber-rights.net wrote:
>> Hi, Recycling Troll.
>> Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to you
>> as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing list.)
>> The wikipedia is not of course an online encyclopedia, there's plenty
>> of real online encyclopedias, (you know, the places where wikipedia
>> steals most of it's stuff from), it's a place where Jimmy Wales and
>> other scum lure people in with a pack of lies and then proceed to do
>> to them what they're starting in on doing to you.
>> Many have tried to opppose their insanity. But you are flogging a
>> dead horse. If you keep trying they'll just have loads of fun at your
>> expense, as they control the system, and in the end carry out a
>> bizarre an un-American great "court case" against you and then ban
>> you. They are pathetic (but nasty) morons.
>
> Uh-oh, he's discovered the libertarian communist semitic fascist CIA
> conspiracy of Wikipedia.

Not to mention the un-American one.

Christiaan


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
If there are users who feel intimidated by the system to the point
where they do not feel comfortable seeking dispute resolution, that is
itself a problem. I am willing to help there.

Think of it as the AMA, only for a different kind of disadvantaged user.

-Snowspinner

On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:22 PM, Jim Cecropia wrote:

> The issue is not Dr. Zen.
> The issue is not WHEELER.
> The issue is not 172.
>
> The issue is that Wikipedia has made great progress toward shutting
> people up.
> The issue is that Wikipedia has made no progress toward editorial
> review or standards.
> The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases against users people
> have grievances with.
>
> My post was incendiary? Perhaps.
> My post was unacceptable? In your opinion.
> My post was inappropriate? I think not.
>
> Luv, C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:11:33 -0800 (PST)
>
>>
>>
>> --- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> HEAR YE!! HEAR YE!!
>>
>> This posting was entirely inappropriate.
>>
>> Dr Zen has repeatedly deleted the image in violation
>> of consensus, and indicates that he will continue to
>> do so.  Your posting to the mailing list is an
>> unacceptable incendiary posting.
>>
>> RickK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] 8.2 articles per 1000 inhabitants for nn. Any
	better?

body:
Wow, indeed.

I'm a bit surprised though that Welsh, Basque, Scottish Gaelic don't
rank up there.

Mark

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:37:46 -0500, Olve Utne <utne at nvg.org> wrote:
> Hello Lars Alvik , Mark Williamson, et.al.,
> Doing a quick bit of statistics here: The population size of Norway on 1
> April 2004 was  4,582,600. It is usually claimed that about 10 % of the
> population are primary users of Nynorsk. That gives a user base of 458,260.
> The population has probably grown a wee bit since then, so let's say a
> roughly estimated primary user base of 460.000 as of today. There are
> currently 3767 articles on the Nynorsk Wikipedia. (3767/460.000*1000) =
> 8.19. And that has basically all happened since last summer. Unless my
> mathematics are completely off (and I am admittedly a bit tired right now),
> the Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia takes a clear lead with over 8 articles
> pr 1000 inhabitants.
>
> -Olve
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:33:36 +0100, Lars Alvik wrote:
> >Acually, after a couple of minutes of research i found the the  wikipedia
> >with best article pr. speaker ratio. Iceland, with 7 articles  pr 1000
> >inhabitant. Followed closely by no, dk and fi with around 4  articles pr.
> >1000 inhabitant
> >
> >And then follows faroese with around 3 articles pr inhabitant.
>
> ___________________
>
> Olve Utne
> http://utne.nvg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:47:51 -0800, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

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

The basic requirements are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata
with mock ups and implementation strategies. A more detailed proposal
is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfP_Wikidata_and_Ultimate_Wiktionary#Milestones

The features pitched to Kennisnet include those at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_ultimate_Wiktionary

Angela.


from_name: Jo

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] new vote for switching off First Letter
	Capitalization on en.wiktionary.org

body:
Hi,

I organized a new vote on the subject of first letter capitaliztion on
en.wiktionary.org:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/First_letter_capitalization

after the previous one went awry:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/case-sensitivity_vote

What went wrong in the first vote is that it wasn't clear what was being
voted for. We got a lot of people we hardly saw making contributions to
Wiktionary voting against, back then. This time all the major current
and longtime contributors to the project are in favour of switching off
First letter capitalization.

What is the next step? Should we ask a developer? Is it enough to ask on
this mailing list?

Many thanks for your advice,

Polyglot


body:
Theresa Knott wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:50:37 -0800, debussy at cyber-rights.net
> <debussy at cyber-rights.net> wrote:

>>Hi, Recycling Troll.
>>Please note that the wikipedia scum are doing the same routine to
>>you as they've done to many before. (Check back over this mailing

 > Will someone do the necessary block please? This is sollog

Bye, [[Sollog]]!

- d.


from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 8.2 articles per 1000 inhabitants for nn. Any better?

body:
Hello Lars Alvik , Mark Williamson, et.al.,
Doing a quick bit of statistics here: The population size of Norway on 1
April 2004 was  4,582,600. It is usually claimed that about 10 % of the
population are primary users of Nynorsk. That gives a user base of 458,260.
The population has probably grown a wee bit since then, so let's say a
roughly estimated primary user base of 460.000 as of today. There are
currently 3767 articles on the Nynorsk Wikipedia. (3767/460.000*1000) =
8.19. And that has basically all happened since last summer. Unless my
mathematics are completely off (and I am admittedly a bit tired right now),
the Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia takes a clear lead with over 8 articles
pr 1000 inhabitants.

-Olve

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:33:36 +0100, Lars Alvik wrote:
>Acually, after a couple of minutes of research i found the the  wikipedia
>with best article pr. speaker ratio. Iceland, with 7 articles  pr 1000
>inhabitant. Followed closely by no, dk and fi with around 4  articles pr.
>1000 inhabitant
>
>And then follows faroese with around 3 articles pr inhabitant.

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


body:
>The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases against users people have
>grievances with.

No, Snowspinner is telling people that if they know of editors who have
consistently violated policy, but feel too intimidated to bring them before
ArbCom themselves, he will investigate himself, and if he thinks the charges
have merit, will bring a case before ArbCom.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia referenced by SANS

body:
I received an email tonight from the SANS Institute, one of the most
widely known authorities on matters pertaining to network security and
provider of some of the best information on the subject of computer
security threats available online.  The email is an invitation to a
conference they'll be hosting.  Since it's in Colorado and costs great
scads of money between the attendance fee and the expenses, I won't be
going.

I thought an excerpt from the email might interest this list, though.

"According to Wikipedia, "spyware consists of computer software that
gathers and reports information about a computer user without the user's
knowledge or consent." This can encompass a wide range of different
types of malware that perform a variety of actions on computer systems.
Some spyware delivers advertising, while other spyware gathers user
information without his/her knowledge. Spyware can also install modem
dialing software and redirect users to malicious Web sites."

That's the lead-in to the purpose of the conference.  It seems like good
news to see yet another recognized authority using Wikipedia to provide
definitions of the terms for the foci of its trade.

Good night.

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


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

body:
The '''Wikipedia Arbitration committee''' is [[Wikipedia]]'s final
mechanism of [[m:dispute resolution]] process.

==History==
In an effort to [[m:devolve power]], in early 2004 [[Jimbo Wales]]
appointed 12 trust members
of the Wikipedia community and tasked them with sorting out user disputes.

Unfortunately, for the first year of its existance, the arbitration
commitee was lambasted for being too slow and
too feeble in its decisions. Following the vicious
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|2004
elections]], the commitee's processes began to speed up and decisions
became more decisive. Unfortunately, the commitee was then lambasted as
being a [[witch hunt]] and for 'shutting people up'.

==See also==
* [[Catch 22]]
* [[No-win situation]]

{{stub}}


body:
The issue is not Dr. Zen.
The issue is not WHEELER.
The issue is not 172.

The issue is that Wikipedia has made great progress toward shutting people up.
The issue is that Wikipedia has made no progress toward editorial review or standards.
The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases against users people have grievances with.

My post was incendiary? Perhaps.
My post was unacceptable? In your opinion.
My post was inappropriate? I think not.

Luv, C.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:11:33 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> --- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > HEAR YE!! HEAR YE!!
>
> This posting was entirely inappropriate.
>
> Dr Zen has repeatedly deleted the image in violation
> of consensus, and indicates that he will continue to
> do so.  Your posting to the mailing list is an
> unacceptable incendiary posting.
>
> RickK
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:28:42 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> You put it very nicely Gerard.
>
> I don't particularly agree about the requirements, but I do agree with
> everything else you said - an active Wikipedia is an active Wikipedia,
> whether it's being written in a language with 10 speakers or one with
> 1 billion.
>
> Currently, IIRC our greatest article-to-speaker proportion is for
> Faroese. This is a bit sad since the Faroese Wikipedia doesn't even
> have 200 articles, but if I recall correctly it is the truth (surely
> Welsh and Basque are somewhere nearby in this proportion).

*ahem*

>
> I could build a complex mathematical model, but I have the feeling
> that a Wikipedia in a language with 1000 speakers has just as much
> growth potential as a Wikipedia in a language with 1 million speakers,
> although one may grow faster than the other, the latter will never
> reach a size that the former cannot achieve as well.
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:22:07 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > To start off with. As far as I am concerned, when the requirements are
> > met for a new project, it can be created. With five people adding one
> > article a week, you have100 articles in 20 weeks. I am happy with that.
> >
> > What we have to consider when we talk about our wikipedias, is that no
> > two projects have the same content. Translations exist, but the majority
> > of the articles written contain info that makes it particular to the
> > language and reflects a culture. We aim to have an encyclopedia in every
> > spoken language. For me it is important that the content that is
> > important for a culture can be found in a wikipedia. When some argue
> > that English will do for the Hopi, I would argue that this may be true
> > for the general information that is provided in the English wikipedia. I
> > would also argue that content will be lacking that is particular to the
> > Hopi. When people who speak Hopi find the urge to create a Hopi
> > Wikipedia and decide not to write about the 1000 subjects that every
> > wikipedia ought to have. I would not be bothered. When they write an
> > encyplodia about their culture, about the things that are relevant to
> > the Hopi, I would be absolutely thrilled.
> >
> > When the Hopi encyclopedia wants to include things that are of a more
> > general nature, it would be great. I am of the opinion that wikipedia is
> > an encyclopedia. Articles should be well written and encyclopedic in
> > nature. .
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:29:44 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> --- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> > The issue is not Dr. Zen.
> > The issue is not WHEELER.
> > The issue is not 172.
> >
> > The issue is that Wikipedia has made great progress
> > toward shutting people up.
> > The issue is that Wikipedia has made no progress
> > toward editorial review or standards.
> > The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases
> > against users people have grievances with.
> >
> > My post was incendiary? Perhaps.
> > My post was unacceptable? In your opinion.
> > My post was inappropriate? I think not.
> >
> > Luv, C.
>
> And what did you hope to accomplish by posting to the
> mailing list?
>
> RickK
>
I hoped, with some satire, to wake Wikipedians up to the above points. Has no one read Jimbo's comments that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, a community second?

--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
In my memory ArbCom was the very last resort in an open commuunity. Now it seems to be a first resort for some.

Not good, however well-intentioned.

--C

----- Original Message -----
From: Snowspinner <Snowspinner at mail.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:38:47 -0600

>
> If there are users who feel intimidated by the system to the point
> where they do not feel comfortable seeking dispute resolution, that
> is itself a problem. I am willing to help there.
>
> Think of it as the AMA, only for a different kind of disadvantaged user.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:22 PM, Jim Cecropia wrote:
>
> > The issue is not Dr. Zen.
> > The issue is not WHEELER.
> > The issue is not 172.
> >
> > The issue is that Wikipedia has made great progress toward
> > shutting people up.
> > The issue is that Wikipedia has made no progress toward editorial
> > review or standards.
> > The issue is that Snowspinner is soliciting cases against users
> > people have grievances with.
> >
> > My post was incendiary? Perhaps.
> > My post was unacceptable? In your opinion.
> > My post was inappropriate? I think not.
> >
> > Luv, C.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
> > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:11:33 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at mail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> HEAR YE!! HEAR YE!!
> >>
> >> This posting was entirely inappropriate.
> >>
> >> Dr Zen has repeatedly deleted the image in violation
> >> of consensus, and indicates that he will continue to
> >> do so.  Your posting to the mailing list is an
> >> unacceptable incendiary posting.
> >>
> >> RickK
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> >> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > -- ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
It is entirely possible for something to go from ineffectual to overbearing. One is not a corrective to the other.

--C

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Pellegrini" <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scared of the arbcom? FEARE YE NOTT!
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:45:28 -0500

>
> The '''Wikipedia Arbitration committee''' is [[Wikipedia]]'s final
> mechanism of [[m:dispute resolution]] process.
>
> ==History==
> In an effort to [[m:devolve power]], in early 2004 [[Jimbo Wales]]
> appointed 12 trust members
> of the Wikipedia community and tasked them with sorting out user disputes.
>
> Unfortunately, for the first year of its existance, the arbitration
> commitee was lambasted for being too slow and
> too feeble in its decisions. Following the vicious
> [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|2004
> elections]], the commitee's processes began to speed up and
> decisions became more decisive. Unfortunately, the commitee was
> then lambasted as being a [[witch hunt]] and for 'shutting people
> up'. ==See also==
> * [[Catch 22]]
> * [[No-win situation]]
>
> {{stub}}
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm