from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Chris Wood wrote:

>People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
>edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Minor_edit calls minor edits
>"spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text". These
>could be automatically detected and marked as minor edits, along with a
>summary (basically, a one-line diff), eg. "oldespeling -> newspelling" or
>"title text -> '''title text'''".
>
>Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
>1) All edits by anonymous users are major (same rule as now)
>2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
>sentence, is minor.
>3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels etc) is
>minor.
>4) Everything else is major.
>
Would that it were that simple.  Jos? Saramago's novel "A History of the
Siege of Lisbon" revolves around the actions of a proofreader who
inserted the single word "not" at an inapproriate place in a text.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Chris Wood wrote:
>
>> Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
>> 1) All edits by anonymous users are minor (same rule as now)
>> 2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
>> sentence, is major.
>> 3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels
>> etc) is
>> major.
>> 4) Everything else is minor.
>
> Pop quiz: what's wrong with the above text?

Bravo!  I should have read this before my previous response.  The word
"not" is missing from item one, or maybe he has only reversed the
meanings of major and minor. :-)

Ec


list: wikien-l

from_name: Chris Wood

subject: [WikiEN-l] VfD is broken

body:
- Yes, this is a rant, but please bear with me... it becomes less rant-like
;)

    See also the recent thread "Dartmouth follies".

Votes for deletion have gone through the roof. At the start of August, the
average number of pages voted for deletion per day was two. Now it is
somewhere between 25 and 30, and I see no reason to expect this to stop
increasing.

Most of the articles are listed there for the wrong reasons. For instance,
someone sees a badly written article - they list it on vfd. This page is
useless without major expansion - vfd. A topic I've never heard of, and
think is obscure - vfd.

Articles are often voted for with little or no reason. Here's an example:
"Simply not notable enough, I'm afraid."

So what? As an example, one page being VfDed at the moment is about a club
established in 1888, with many thousands of members (don't look for it, this
is just an example). Why should the votes of 7 deletionists matter more than
the thousands of people who may potentially look up the article? For that
matter, why should the votes of even 100 Wikipedians matter, if the article
is likely to be looked up by many people?

The inherent bias of this page towards deletionism has been previously
discussed on this list.

It's pretty clear that VfD is going beyond it's original purpose, is wasting
a lot of time for no good reason, and in many cases conflicts with other
principles of Wikipedia. For instance, stubs are being deleted just because
they are stubs, even though they are very expandable.

I think it is clear that we need some tighter guidelines on reasons why
something should be voted for deletion. I've originated a policy,
Wikipedia:Importance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance),
which attempts to establish some, and isn't doomed to failure like the
previous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance.
Feel free to disagree with me, comment (*not* vote) and propose changes etc.
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Importance.

I'm not so much trying to push my personal viewpoint here, as trying to
establish consensus and stop people wasting their time. If the community
decides "no articles about obscure topics", that's fine, but let's make that
policy and not argue about it in a hundred different places over and over
again. Let's not waste people's time by encouraging them to start articles
on the one hand, and on the other deleting them because some other people
think they're not important. Let's establish some common ground, and stop
driving people away.

--
Chris Wood


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

references:
<chbk3m$v56$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<chcgmk$f4f$2@sea.gmane.org>	<4139FCE0.7000207@telus.net>
	<413A1972.2020702@epoptic.com>

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

> Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
>
>> Maybe anyone who has been around for at least a year should feel free
>> to remove anything from the VfD without having to run the gauntlet.
>
> Maybe we should, but we would still encounter violent opposition.
> I've been around almost since the beginning (user number 30, if I
> recall correctly), yet criticisms of VfD -- and even jokes about VfD
> -- are eagerly adopted as personal attacks by RickK.  I don't know
> what he would do if someone actually removed something without his
> approval.

The Prince of Whine would be in his element.

Ray


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

references:
<chbk3m$v56$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<chcgmk$f4f$2@sea.gmane.org>	<4139FCE0.7000207@telus.net>
	<6ed46e2904090414224d3b7b84@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Life's not that easy.  I at least agree with them that most of the
articles in question are not candidates for a Pulitzer Prize.  The most
controversy seems to be rooted in whether the topic is important
enough.  There is a need to stop considering importance as an exercise
in naval gazing.  Articles about individual high schools are of
absolutely no importance to me; I only went to one.  No-one has yet
written about it.  I do not have the knowledge base to write about any
other.  How much time would I need to spend making myself sufficiently
well-informed to pass judgement on somebody else's school?  I know too
that tomorrow I'll need to do the same thing over about some other
school.  I prefer to suspend my egocentrism long enough to recognize
that the school that's put on VfD to-day may be important to somebody
else, and have enough time left to make a positive contribution.

Ec

Uncle Jiang wrote:

>Why don't we encourage whoever listed the item in the first place to
>remove the item if it was inappropriate? Leave a note on the person's
>talk page asking them to remove it or remove it yourself and then
>allow the person the option of relisting it if he still disagrees. Of
>course, if we have a good number of people voting "delete" then the
>listing should obviously not be removed, but when consensus
>overwhelmingly to keep, what is the point of keeping the item listed?
>
>Jiang
>
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>That's nice in theory.  Still, there is a clique that tends to scream
>>bloody murder if you remove things before they feel the time has come.
>>Some of us would be glad to remove such items from the list as soon as
>>they appear, but are not prepared to face all the bitching without backup.
>>
>>If a member of the deletionist clique puts something on VfD he has
>>immediate backup from his colleagues based on their mutual trust.  For
>>the rest of us the amount of time required to properly deal with these
>>issues is a huge distraction from positive contributions.
>>
>>I don't know if more policies will help.  A fair and consistent
>>applications may be more beneficial.  Maybe anyone who has been around
>>for at least a year should feel free to remove anything from the VfD
>>without having to run the gauntlet.
>>


from_name: Matthias Pospiech

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Start a new skin

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Matthias Pospiech wrote:
>>
>> Well I have downloaded the sources for 1.3.2 and unfortunately,
>> there exists no /skin/ directory, nor do I have any php file for the
>> existing skins.
>
> /includes> ls *Skin*
> Skin.php             SkinNostalgia.php  SkinStandard.php
> SkinCologneBlue.php  SkinPHPTal.php
>
> These are the files for the existing skins. (Monobook, MySkin and
> DaVinci are defined in SkinPHPTal.php.) However, currently you can't add
> a new skin without changing the source code (you would have to add a
> line for your skin in Skin.php line 24, a class definition in either
> SkinPHPTal.php or a new file of its own, and something in User.php line
> 480 as well).
>
> You would probably do well waiting for 1.4 first. In 1.4 we will have a
> separate /skins/ directory in which you can place files and they will
> become available automatically. No need to modify the source code.

>From what I have read in the latest news here I thought so too.
However I would like to start in the near future. When can one expect 1.4 to
be finished ?

Matthias

--
---------------------------------
www.matthiaspospiech.de


from_name: undule

subject: [Wikitech-l] pear error on plastictub.vaporslave.com

body:
Hello, I have recently installed mediawiki 1.3 on a subdomain, plastictub.vaporslave.com, to function as a kind of collaborative, fictive encyclopedia. Installation was a breeze and everything was running exceptionally smooth until a few nights ago when page requests inexplicably started spitting out this error:

 [pear_error: message="failed to open stream: Input/output error" code=0 mode=return level=notice prefix="" info=""]

I know that it might not be the most appropriate thing to do, this inserting of an off-topic query, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone share information with me that will lead to the ressurection of the site?

Any information at all would be greatly appreciated,

Tim Wilson
undule at vaporslave.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Chris-
>
>
>>People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
>>edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?
>>
>>
>As others have pointed out, you can't really be sure with automatic
>summaries. However, a combination of human-provided and computer-generated
>information may make sense. I'm wary of adding more information to the
>already cluttered RC, but there's two pieces of info that I think would be
>useful:
>
>1) diff size
>2) edit duration (difference between loading ..&action=edit and
>&action=submit for a page, not necessarily accurate but quite often so)
>
>
The first one presents no problem.  In the case of the second, if I get
called for dinner in the middle of an edit, the edit page can stay open
with nothing happening for a long time. :-)

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edward W. Felden on wikipedia

body:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html

"Until I read the Microsoft-case page, I was ready to declare Wikipedia
a clear success. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, that page will improve over
time; but new pages will be added. If the present state of Wikipedia is
any indication, most of them will be very good; but a few will lead
high-school report writers astray."


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] developer bios. Please do not be shy

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_activity

Here is a beginning for developer bios. I just added a few names amongst
those who answered to the poll, but I hope ALL those who answered and
well as others who did not, will complete the page.

Please do not be shy and add your name and a bit about you.

This has two goals. First just to have such a page on meta will get
people to know your development activity better. Also, a new developer
might get a better idea who he can ask things to, when he is interested
in a specific task.

The second goal will be to add part of this to the WMF website. I
consequently also needs things such as your paypal address and such.

I might add that I would like very much that you add your country of
origin (and why not the languages you manage). Knowing the language you
manage may be interesting for the new developer. Knowing that developers
come from all over the world is in itself a very valuable information as
well.

So, please modify and correct what I already added, and just add
yourself if you are not yet there.

Thanks :-)


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Hidden/protected page in MediaWiki

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> It's also something that's not a wiki. All pages on a wiki are readable
> by all visitors; if you want something else, you don't want a wiki.

There are Wiki Engines with user management and rights. You can use a
Wiki inside an intranet or protected by a password.

I only do not want to use two seperated Wikis (one public, one private
like Wikimedia Germany does) and I'd like to use MediaWiki as the Wiki
Engine. I do not want complex management of different users, groups and
rights. Declaring a Namespace as 'hidden' and making it only accessible
for admins should not be very difficult to implement. I have written the
concept at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hidden_pages

I'll propably have to write it myself but any hints or comments are very
welcome. You can also say "forget it" ;-)

Greetings,
   Jakob


from_name: Jochen Magnus

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: better search engine for MediaWiki?

body:
Meanwhile I started the SourceForge Project for joda (now renamed to ioda).

See details at http://ioda.sourceforge.net/ and
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ioda/.

At the moment the interface documentation is insufficient - U know about
it! I will do some more docs in the next days...

There is one source packet esspecially made for a Mediawiki test
integration: See "ioda_integration_in_mediawiki_example.tar.bz2" in the
project files. It contains a Perl importer (cur to joda), a Joda.php
file for joda requests from PHP and a patched searchEngine.php (from
version 1.2.6)

jo


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject:
[WikiEN-l] A tool to localize Wikipedia:Quick index for other
	wikipedias.

body:
>From Wikipedia:Quick index

'''Note''': since this list is relatively new other wikipedias with a
none-latin alphabet might wish to translate it which would be a time
consuming task to do manually. For this reason [[User:?var Arnfj?r?
Bjarmason|?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason]] has made a stupid little script in
[[Perl]] which shouldnt be that hard to tweak for any other language (
just modify the array and add some regxp's which work around how lame
perl is ). The code is located
[http://pig.berlios.de/cgi-bin/is.txt.pl here] and a sample output is
[http://pig.berlios.de/cgi-bin/is.pl here] (that script being
executed).

Yeah i know i know, put it on the talk page, but just think of all the
people that might miss this and start editing that huge list by hand.

Couldnt be bothered to rewrite this into mail form, but anyway if
someone here has yet to translate that list to a none-english,
none-italian and none-icelandic wikipedia they might find that tool
useful.

Cheers


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Muke Tever

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] Re: ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists /
	thematical lists

body:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 03:00:00 +0100 (BST), Andrew Dunbar <hippietrail at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wikimedia does use two letter ISO 639 codes and when
>> they do not exist they do use the three letter
>> codes. There are missing ISO codes. There are also
>> the SIL codes but personally I think mixing these
>> three codes makes a mess. Preferably ISO adds
>> missing codes for languages.
>
> There are omissions, mergers, splits, and other
> differences between ISO and SIL. ISO is more likely to
> include artificial languages. SIL is more likely to
> include very rare and obscure human languages. Neither
> includes Klingon yet.
[snip other stuff, with which I agree]

Klingon is tlh in ISO 639.
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html

Constructed and ancient languages are out of scope for the Ethnologue but there is an effort to extend the Ethnologue list and produce standardized codes for them ("LINGUIST codes"); in that list Klingon is apparently CKLN (though at least one page refers to it as CKLI).
http://www.language-archives.org/wg/language-codes/linguist-20020219.html
http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/forms/langs/GetListOfConstructedLgs.html
http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/forms/langs/GetListOfAncientLgs.html

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: VfD is broken

body:
There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  Aside from them,
the vast majority, I suspect, simply want a method for evaluating the
inclusion of an article that's less time consuming, produces a less
weighty page to read, and produces less in the way of flames.

There should, as other contributors have noted, be a method whereby
obvious keep candidates and pages that should have been speedy deleted
can be removed quickly, rather than clogging things up.

-Matt (User:Morven)

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 16:18:12 +1000, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> The very essence of what makes Wikipedia work is consensus.
> It concerns me that a handful of inclusionists, who realise that their
> views are not shared by the majority of the community, simply turn to
> claiming that "VFD is broken", because it does not get their desired
> results.
>
> People have put things on VFD before that I've agreed with. I've
> argued a case that they shouldn't be deleted, and it's very rare that
> such an article has then gone ahead and be deleted. If you put up an
> argument, and the majority *still* think that it should be deleted,
> then tough. That's the way it works.
>
> VFD *is* growing too large to be maintainable, but that's a result of
> our continued growth, rather than some evil plan by the deletionists
> to go on an annihilating spree. A solution to that needs to be found,
> and I'm not sure what, but allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not
> the answer.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:28:26 -0700, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Rowan Collins wrote:
> > It's looking more and more like a proper security/permission model
> > (i.e. going beyond "user/admin", "normal/protected") is the single
> > most requested feature for users outside of the wikimedia projects.
>
> It's also something that's not a wiki. All pages on a wiki are readable
> by all visitors; if you want something else, you don't want a wiki.

Until a couple of years ago, all pages on a wiki were writable by all
users as well. Then somebody came along and had the audacity to
implement "page protection" and "user blocking". Never mind. Come to
that, all pages on a wiki traditionally contained both discussion and
content, but convention slowly gelled into a technical feature on that
one.

In other words, I see no reason not to have a piece of software that
offers most of the advantages of a wiki, but with additional features
to make it useful in particular contexts. In my opinion, MediaWiki is
already such a piece of software - would you advocate switching
en.wikipedia.org back to UseMod to stay true to the wiki ideal? I
apologise if my tendency towards grand (and maybe unattainable)
visions meant I took things "too far"; but people seem to want a piece
of software that's like a wiki but has slightly better user rights
management, and they seem to want it to be MediaWiki - which is
somewhat of a compliment to those of you who have put so much effort
into developing it.

Actually, I can even think of a use for a more flexible user rights
model (although not, admittedly, requiring the ability to block
*reading*) within wikimedia: it would provide a way of granting a
specific set of users the ability to edit the content of
http://wikimediafoundation.org/ from within http://meta.wikimedia.org,
independent of the general "sysop"/"admin" role on that wiki. (I don't
know if this is an out-dated example, and another solution has been
found, but last time I heard, this would have solved a major issue
nicely) The point is, how many piecemeal solutions are needed before
it becomes worth coding a generic infrastructure?

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Capitalisation off for nl:wiktionary

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:

>*scratches head in confusion*
>I think maybe the below exchange got a little bit muddled - unless I'm
>missing something, and there really *is* a link in Gerard's message...
>
>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:20:47 +0200, Ashar Voultoiz <thoane at altern.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some time ago, I requested to turn off the capitalisation for
>>>nk:wiktionary. From things that I read on the en:wiktionary I was led to
>>>believe that for a sysop it is an easy little time consuming
>>>manipulation. The big thing is to get things right afterward.
>>>
>>>Can someone please turn the capitalisation off. The longer the wait the
>>>more there is to fix.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>   GerardM
>>>
>>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>That is an interesting read, it gives a good overview about the
>>software. Thanks for the link Gerard.
>>
>>--
>>Ashar Voultoiz
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Yes, typo. nl:wiktionary.
Thanks,
    Gerard


subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:46:10 +1200, Chris Wood <standsongrace at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
> 1) All edits by anonymous users are major (same rule as now)
> 2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
> sentence, is minor.
> 3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels etc) is
> minor.
> 4) Everything else is major.

To play Devil's Advocate somewhat, let's say I change "Henry the
Eighth had six wives" to "Henry the Eighth had five wives" - major or
minor? According to your rule (2), minor; I would suspect people would
prefer to treat this as major. Of course, if I was a vandal who had
got as far as setting up a user account, I could just tick the minor
box anyway; but what if I was an innocent user who triggered an
automatic test? I'd be annoyed that people weren't going to spot and
review my change...

A somewhat contrived example, but I think it would be a little harder
to define what was 'minor'. Actually, the page you quote goes on to
say:
"...any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit."
It also links an archived message from Ed Poor
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-January/008124.html]
which points out the need to be sensitive to other's interpretations
of your edits when choosing whether to mark as minor.

The real challenge, perhaps, would be defining when automatic marking
came into play - perhaps the user could choose between 'major',
'minor', and 'auto' radio buttons, but would they understand, and
would they know how far to trust the 'auto' setting?

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: VfD is broken

body:
Rebecca wrote:

>The very essence of what makes Wikipedia work is consensus.
>
Fine!  Then why are we bothering with votes?

>It concerns me that a handful of inclusionists, who realise that their
>views are not shared by the majority of the community, simply turn to
>claiming that "VFD is broken", because it does not get their desired
>results.
>
What do you know about the majority olf the community?  Thise who
participate regularly in VfD, yes and no votes together, are not a
majority of the community.  The majority of the community can't be
bothered with VfD because it's such a time waster.

>People have put things on VFD before that I've agreed with. I've
>argued a case that they shouldn't be deleted, and it's very rare that
>such an article has then gone ahead and be deleted. If you put up an
>argument, and the majority *still* think that it should be deleted,
>then tough. That's the way it works.
>
Maybe that's the way you wan't it to work.  Why should I need to put
together an argument about something that I know nothing about just to
try to convince someone who knows even less about the subject that it's
worth keeping?

>VFD *is* growing too large to be maintainable, but that's a result of
>our continued growth, rather than some evil plan by the deletionists
>to go on an annihilating spree. A solution to that needs to be found,
>and I'm not sure what, but allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not
>the answer.
>
Much of this so-called "junk" is perfectly harmless.  General growth is
only part of the reason.  Nobody is suggesting that the deletionists are
even capable of concocting an evil plan.  I find them more like a Dr.
Strangelove who will struggle for survival even if it kills him.  The
delusional missions of zealots are always pursued with the best of
intentions ... a phalanx of perfectionists in chasing the impossible.

Many of the disputed articles are stubs, and even in their totality will
likely take less space on the server than the verbiage about whether to
delete them.

Ec


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Developer payment

body:
Anthere wrote:

> The plain idea is
> * that the opportunity is taken to clean up and
> organise better a couple of pages (such as
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Development_tasks)
> [...]
> **If a developer is ready to take care of a matter,
> just mentions it on development task. If he would be
> interested by getting in contract, please mentions it
> on [[development payment proposal]] (or any title you
> think best)

You have made no mention of MediaZilla, which saddens me a bit.  I don't
know about others, but personally, I would find a wiki page quite
difficult to keep overviewable and organised, which is why I helped
install MediaZilla.  I think it is easier to prioritise individual items
in MediaZilla, or break them up into constituent parts, etc.  A
developer can express their wish to take care of a particular bug or
feature by simply assigning the item to themselves.  The board can
express their offer to pay for a particular feature or bug by simply
adding a keyword (and perhaps leaving a comment with the amount).  It
can't really get any easier than this.

Timwi


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: Wiktionary-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 3

body:
ML02 wrote:

>Hi,
>I'm Marika, I have subscribed to your mailing because of I'm interesting in
>dictionary.
>Thank you
>Mar?ka
>
When you answer e-mail from the mailing list, please do not repeat
everything in the digest.  It makes some people very upset..  Please
feel free to contribute on the wiktionary of your choice.  There is much
work that needs to be done, both in English and your own language.

Ray (Eclecticology)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Automatic minor edits

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>> 2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
>> sentence, is major.
>
> Pop quiz: what's wrong with the above text?

Should be "5 words or more"? ;-)


from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] VfD is broken

body:
Are you posting on this mailing list for no reason other than to troll? Looking through my inbox, I see nothing constructive coming from you; only accusations that RickK is involved in some plot to harass users and this lunatic, invective-filled rant in which you exhort your belief that any article that falls short of putting Wikipedia in legal danger or consists of a halfway-coherent sentence belongs on Wikipedia, and that anyone who disagrees with you should be banned.

VfD needs work; it's by no means a perfect system. However, removing it is much, much worse. If articles about some guy's pet dog and bands that have existed for two weeks and haven't even written a song are allowed to remain, Wikipedia will only become a dumping ground from random crap from the Internet, something that its critics have been predicting for years. It will turn into another Gaia Forums or Neopets. Both of these sites are avoided like the plague by sensible and mature Internet users because they have next to no control or moderation. A lack of control encourages people to post inane drivel. What frightens me is that if ideas such as getting rid of Vfd and automatically suspecting every action taken by an administrator are instituted, Wikipedia will be going down the same path. You are proposing to disenfranchise the Wikipedia community by removing its control over what remains in the project, which is completely anti-Wiki.

--Slowking Man
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Eric B. and Rakim<mailto:eric_b_and_rakim at hotmail.com>
  To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org<mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
  Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 6:56 PM
  Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] VfD is broken

  Agree wholeheartedly, the page is a stupid waste of time and troll bait.
  Noone in their right mind gets involved in it unless they have to cause the
  deletionists is trying to delete a page you have created / authored. The
  freaky things you see there are just disgusting.

  1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there at all. Copyvios
  already has a special page. And there is also already candidates for speedy
  deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on sight.

  2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is sabotaging Wikipedia and
  should be blocked.

  3. The page itself should be deleted since it just can't be fixed.

  4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does not hurt Wikipedia. Since noone
  cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will search for it
  and NOONE will ever see it!

  5. Except for people that actually  GO AND LOOK for useless articles. But if
  you do, it's your own fault that you find them. Casual surfers and
  non-wikipedians wont find them.

  6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone it doesn't hurt to
  remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging Wikipedia.
  It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should not and will not be
  deleted. The authors of those articles are forced to defend their work to
  people that just haven't got a clue and never will. Then they have to engage
  in more pointless arguing with the deletionists just to prevent them from
  destroying Wikipedia!

  7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only those
  who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a page. Its
  like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what to do cause there
  is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept doesn't work with vfd
  cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it is improved in a week.". That
  person basically forces those who care about the article to write what they
  know about it or it will be killed. It is not fair at all.

  8. As an example:

  NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion

  The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource material.
  Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

      * Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      * Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      * Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004

  Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time? Rlandmann's is
  because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea he was to damn lazy
  to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre and GeneralPatton just
  seem to show off their excellent talents in agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the
  primary author of the page actually does some work and moves the article.
  Very good DarylC.

  The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced to
  read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the suggestion to
  transwiki on the article's talk page which would have been the right thing
  to do.

  9. Example2: SimonP decided to list Puchland. Puchland seem to be a minor
  webforum that nobody cares about. Because of point 4 above, this listing
  too, is completele useless. And as in point 8 the proper way would have been
  to propose deletion on that articles talk page. Noone but those concerned
  should be the ones taking the decision.

  10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people to cast the identical
  vote on range of articles listed there.  Then you would be able to vote
  "keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and every article.
  However, the deletionists would never allow such an option because it only
  takes a handful of people to vote in that way for the whole system to break
  down.

  IMHO, IANAL, etc, w/e


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Automatic minor edits

body:
Chris Wood wrote:

> People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
> edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?

Because automatisms never work anywhere near the way humans want them
to. This is an unfortunate truth.

Strong oppose :-)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 'Michael' unbanned

body:
Rick wrote:

> Nah, we all KNOW Michael will revert to type.  I have lost all
> interest in dealing with his nonsense.

This smells badly of "self-fulfilling prophecy".


from_name: rose.parks at att.net

subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Hi,

     By Chris Wood's rule your version is a minor edit of his...

                      As Ever,

                         Ruth Ifcher

--

-------------- Original message from Brion Vibber : --------------

> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Stephen Adair

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040905/32743a6d/attachment.diff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

body:
Rick wrote (polemics removed):
>
> If someone is so
> fired-up about an item being listed on VfD, they can make a reasoned
> argument for their case.  What a surprise, it might just work.  But just
> to delete the listing without discussion (or even with discussion) would
> not be a Good Thing.

Maybe you missed the point that VfD is growing too large to be
maintainable, which is not a Good Thing.

Timwi


from_name: Eric B. and Rakim

subject: [WikiEN-l] VfD is broken

body:
Agree wholeheartedly, the page is a stupid waste of time and troll bait.
Noone in their right mind gets involved in it unless they have to cause the
deletionists is trying to delete a page you have created / authored. The
freaky things you see there are just disgusting.

1. There is no reason to delete any of the pages there at all. Copyvios
already has a special page. And there is also already candidates for speedy
deletion and simple vandalism that is deleted on sight.

2. Everyone using that page to delete articles is sabotaging Wikipedia and
should be blocked.

3. The page itself should be deleted since it just can't be fixed.

4. Articles about "non-notable" stuff does not hurt Wikipedia. Since noone
cares about the stuff, noone will link to it and noone will search for it
and NOONE will ever see it!

5. Except for people that actually  GO AND LOOK for useless articles. But if
you do, it's your own fault that you find them. Casual surfers and
non-wikipedians wont find them.

6. And cause those articles are never read by anyone it doesn't hurt to
remove them from Wikipedia. But that's not why vfd is sabotaging Wikipedia.
It is because 50-80% of the articles listed there should not and will not be
deleted. The authors of those articles are forced to defend their work to
people that just haven't got a clue and never will. Then they have to engage
in more pointless arguing with the deletionists just to prevent them from
destroying Wikipedia!

7. The Wikipedia concept is that anyone can edit a page and that only those
who edits a page gets to determine what information goes into a page. Its
like "do it yourself cause you can't tell anyone else what to do cause there
is no way to force them to do it." Now that concept doesn't work with vfd
cause someone can say "uuuh.. delete unless it is improved in a week.". That
person basically forces those who care about the article to write what they
know about it or it will be killed. It is not fair at all.

8. As an example:

NASA Project Gemini Familiarization Manual -- Add to this discussion

The flight manual for the Gemini spacecraft - excellent Wikisource material.
Transwiki and delete --Rlandmann 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    * Transwiki and delete. Geogre 00:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    * Transwiki and delete. GeneralPatton 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    * Have moved article to Wikisource. Please Delete DarylC 2 Sep 2004

Which of these comments is a total waste of everyones time? Rlandmann's is
because despite the fact that he had an excellent idea he was to damn lazy
to carry it out himself as he easily could. Geogre and GeneralPatton just
seem to show off their excellent talents in agreeing. Finally, DarylC, the
primary author of the page actually does some work and moves the article.
Very good DarylC.

The problem with this is that atleast thousand people have been forced to
read this meaningless junk because Rlandmann didn't place the suggestion to
transwiki on the article's talk page which would have been the right thing
to do.

9. Example2: SimonP decided to list Puchland. Puchland seem to be a minor
webforum that nobody cares about. Because of point 4 above, this listing
too, is completele useless. And as in point 8 the proper way would have been
to propose deletion on that articles talk page. Noone but those concerned
should be the ones taking the decision.

10. The only way to fix vfd would be to allow people to cast the identical
vote on range of articles listed there.  Then you would be able to vote
"keep doesn't hurt wikipedia" (or whatever) on each and every article.
However, the deletionists would never allow such an option because it only
takes a handful of people to vote in that way for the whole system to break
down.

IMHO, IANAL, etc, w/e

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: apologises

body:
>What do I need to apologize to Hephaestos about?
>
>RickK

Well, I meant it is pretty hollow of you to request that someone apologise
when you yourself has never apologised to any of the many users you have
harassed.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Edward W. Felden on wikipedia

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html
>
> "Until I read the Microsoft-case page, I was ready to declare Wikipedia
> a clear success. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, that page will improve over
> time; but new pages will be added. If the present state of Wikipedia is
> any indication, most of them will be very good; but a few will lead
> high-school report writers astray."

HAH.

The Microsoft anti-trust case article was majorly rewritten at some
point by [[User:Brian Kendig]]. At the time I was watching him a little,
and I noticed his re-writing of this article. It stuck out to me as
being majorly POV and possibly factually inaccurate.

Now, I wasn't (and still am not) an expert in this field, so I didn't
know what facts to dispute, but at least I could cry "POV!". I tagged
the article as having its neutrality disputed and attempted to begin a
discussion on the talk page.

The NPOV dispute tag was simply removed, and I was told "You can't
simply mark an article as disputed; you have to point out what exactly
you are disputing." I said I was disputing the entire article, but I was
ignored.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Automatic minor edits

body:
I said it before, and I'll say it again: "minor" should be renamed to
"trivial".

"Minor" seems to imply to too many people that it should be checked
whenever the edit is not "major".  "Major", in turn, is perceived to
refer only to edits that rewrite an entire paragraph or even more.

"Minor" should be renamed to "trivial".

Timwi

P.S.: Have I mentioned that "minor" should be renamed to "trivial"?


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"

body:
phil hunt wrote:
> >The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance
> >of any one group or person.
>
> I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.

It is my view that the second requires the first.  That is, in order to
create a high quality and neutral encyclopedia, it is important to avoid
the dominance of any one group or person.

These two things are not in conflict, they are part of a principled whole.

--Jimbo


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> I agree that NPOV is our ideal.  I disagree that avoiding matters we are
> passionate about is the way to strive toward that ideal.

I think it depends on the person, and each of us should consider our
own strengths and weaknesses in this regard.  I would personally have
a hard time writing NPOV articles on some topics that I care a lot
about.  But I would not have a hard time writing NPOV articles on some
other topics that I *also* care a lot about.

--Jimbo


from_name: Andrew Dunbar

subject: [Wiktionary-l] The need for XML in a wiktionary context

body:
 --- Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> There is a need for using XML with wiktionary.
I agree.

> The definitions of a word in wiktionary, can be
> structured in a fixed way.
I disagree. But it depends on *how much* structure you
want.

> For each word/phrase you have a:
> *Indication what language it is in
> *Name of the word/phrase
> *Definition of the word/phrase
> *Translations
> *Pronounciation
> *Synonyms
> *Antonyms etc
Actually If we only wanted to structure these parts it
would work ok. Many other properties of words and
phrases are a lot more difficult, such as
part-of-speech.

> I do not try to be complete here, but my point is,
> the data is structured. Other organisations that
> work with words already structure their data using
> XML for instance GEMET.
> When Wiktionary is structured exlicitly, the result
> will be that the import and export from Wiktionary
> becomes possible and it will become possible for
> other dictionary/ glossary project to get a changed
> content in XML format that is specific for working
> with words. This will enhance the importance of
> wiktionary and it will help achieve out aim which is
> open accessible dictionary content.
>
> The flip side of the coin is that we can get
> {changed) content from other dictionary/ glossary
> projects for inclusion in wiktionary.
>
> The GEMET data is available as XML data and, it
> would be great to import it straight in from XML.
>
> *Issues:
> #Using XML standards for dictionary content.
> #Importing data / Exporting data using the current
> wiktionary content.
> #Structuring wiktionary using MySQL tables.
> #Importing data / Exporting data using the future
> wiktionary structure.
>
> NB I have posted this on META as well

I do think a dictionary requires structure which an
encyclopedia does not. A very loose structure like you
have described would be a benefit for Wiktionary.
The problems I see are these:
1. Once we have some structure people will push for
   more structure such as part-of-speech, not
realizing
   how difficult that is to get right in a
multilingual
   dictionary.
2. To work with the wiki software we can have a tool/
   script/routine which maps from internal XML into
   wiki/HTML so it can be displayed.
3. People will have to input XML, or we need a
friendly
   interface which can take input from non-expert
users
   and turn it into correct XML.

Number 3 would mean a *lot* of work for developers.

Andrew (hippietrail).

> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>

=====
http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl    http://www.abisource.com

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
 --- Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard and all of you,
> >
> > thinking about the code I was just considering
> > some points.
> >
> > What I noted on the page you gave me for the
> > Italian version of the ISO-code is that you use a
> > mixed version for language identifiers - the two
> > letter code and where there's no two letter code
> > the three letter code - is this correct? I also
> > noted that not all languages are present in the
> > ISO-3-letter-code - so they are standardised, but
> > not completely. This would obviously lead to an
own
> > wiktionary standard.
>
> Wikimedia does use two letter ISO 639 codes and when
> they do not exist they do use the three letter
> codes. There are missing ISO codes. There are also
> the SIL codes but personally I think mixing these
> three codes makes a mess. Preferably ISO adds
> missing codes for languages.

There are omissions, mergers, splits, and other
differences between ISO and SIL. ISO is more likely to
include artificial languages. SIL is more likely to
include very rare and obscure human languages. Neither
includes Klingon yet. ISO tends to merge many
languages
together - every Austrlalian aboriginal language is
squashed together into a single code. There is much
disagreement between what is a language and what is a
dialect. ISO usually takes a more political
definition.
SIL takes a more linguistic definition. ISO includes
Norwegian Bokmaal, Norwegian Nynorsk, and just plain
old Norwegian!
Niether takes script differences into account. Serbian
has one code whether it is in Cyrillic or Latin.
Punjabi has one code whether it is in Gurmukhi,
Shahmukhi, or Devanagari.

I think a very
flexible approach would be:
2-letter ISO if it exists. "en"
then
3-letter ISO if it exists. "haw"
then
SIL with a prefix if it exists. "sil-PJT" or "sil:PJT"
then
Make up something temporary if we have to. "Klingon"

I'm not sure what to do about different scripts.

Apologies about not staying 100% on-topic.

Andrew (hippietrail)

=====
http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl    http://www.abisource.com

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: What is a category?

body:
Chris Wood wrote:
> I'm reacting to two things: 1) People who say that categories are strictly
> "is a", and something belongs in a category only if it is an example of that
> category, and 2) People who say an article or category cannot belong to too
> many categories.

Just weighing in with my own opinions here.

1) "categories are strictly 'is a'" is too narrow a view and precludes
us from doing many interesting things that we could and should be doing

2) While there may be some reasons from a technical or aesthetic point
of view to limit the number of categories to which any particular
article belongs, I can't see any need for a hard-and-fast rule.  Probably
good standards will evolve over time as we use categories and learn some
things about them.

--Jimbo


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Secretlondon's attacks on Jimbo Wales

body:
Jimmy-
(cc to foundation-l)
> I wrote:
>> I'm getting sick of your US bashing.  Please stop it now.

> I regretted it, and apologized.  I apologized again today.  I try to
> be nice to everyone, but sometimes I fail, and I'm very sorry about
> that.

I see two problems here:

1) People confuse your personal opinions with Wikipedia policy. Maybe a
copy&paste disclaimer for your emails would help with that? "The opinions
in this email are my own and do not reflect Wikimedia or Wikipedia project
policy unless otherwise stated." Most email clients support multiple sigs
for purposes like that.

2) People don't realize that Wikimedia is not just Jimbo Wales. Most of
our external communications have been very Jimbo-centric so far, but
that's partially because there was no elected Board of Trustees, for
example. Is there a shared board email address already? Maybe something
like board at wikimedia dot org could be used as a replacement for the
ubiquitous jwales at bomis dot com. That would also help in combating the
Bomis-related conspiracy theories.

A ticket system would offer quite a few advantages over a simple mailing
list: 1) no duplicate effort, 2) no need for spamming your inbox, just do
everything through a single web interface, 3) easily expand the team of
"agents", with different categories and associated user rights.
Essentially a Bugzilla for emails.

This system here looks interesting:
http://otrs.org/
http://otrs.org/screenshot/

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Secretlondon's attacks on Jimbo Wales


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Meetings in Europe

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_meetup

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_meetings_in_Europe

Many meetings took place in Europe and US. Some are
reported on meta, but not all of them. Could those who
participated to these meetings list them on meta
(place, date and notable events if appropriate, plus
relevant links to local project with all the great
pictures and name of participants) so we could track
of all this ?

Thanks in advance.

ant

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush


subject: [Foundation-l] Meetings in Europe


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Meetings in Europe


subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Chris-
> People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
> edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?

As others have pointed out, you can't really be sure with automatic
summaries. However, a combination of human-provided and computer-generated
information may make sense. I'm wary of adding more information to the
already cluttered RC, but there's two pieces of info that I think would be
useful:

1) diff size
2) edit duration (difference between loading ..&action=edit and
&action=submit for a page, not necessarily accurate but quite often so)

The mini-diffs for summaries you suggested are also a good idea, but
tricky to implement.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Let's keep a benevolent tone

body:
I'm posting not to any particular thread, but separately, with a plea
to everyone on this list to remember that we are all on the same side,
that we should approach each other with love and respect and
understand that on many issues, there are multiple perspectives that
*even when we don't agree with them* are at least grounded in values
that we share to such a degree that we can respect our colleagues.

It pains me to see good people getting too heated, because such heat
tends to cause people to dig in their heels and get in the way of good
mutual consensus building.

Please, be kind to each other.

--Jimbo

--
"La n??fle est un fru.t" - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject:
[WikiEN-l] So write an article about it (was: Anent Dartmouth,
	Again)

body:
On 3 Sep 2004, at 19:08, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So write an article about it (was: Anent
> Dartmouth, Again)
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
>
>> Well, its good advice, but my point wasn't to tell you all why I think
>> the West falls short of its rhetoric. My point was simply to make
>> people aware that at least some of us find comments such as Geoff's
>> ethnocentric and offensive. People can take from that what they like;
>> that an intense discussion ensued is not surprising but it wasn't my
>> aim.

Geoff Burling wrote:

> If that was your intent, then you failed miserably, Christiaan. All
> that
> your emails communicated to me was that you have a poor opinion about
> Western Civilization, & have expressed it so vehemently &
> uncompromisingly
> that I don't see any point in responding to what you have to say. Or
> even
> reading it.

Hi Geoff,

First of all, it's good to hear from you! After the email dispute that
developed following your closing remarks to this email
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html
I was unsure whether you had left the list, because you fell silent at
a certain point. It's good to still have you around and despite our
differences, I would like to say that I value your input and I believe
it's a good idea to have discussions about our differences. So lemme
discuss, shall I?

As I've already hinted at in this email
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030167.html
I don't necessarily endorse Christiaan's way to communicate his
convictions and feelings. However--and without trying to be a back
seat-driver--I think not reading Christiaan's email is a Very Bad
Thing. The moment we stop listening to what our opponents have to say
is the moment we start heading down the slippery slope of ignorance and
negligence. If I was Karl Rove, I'd make darn sure to watch Fahrenheit
9/11 the first day it comes out. If I was Michael Moore, I'd make darn
sure to go to the Republican convention (I think both did do just that,
though I don't have proof positive in Rove's case).

> If you go back & read what I wrote, you will see that I showed an
> awareness
> that not everyone might agree with me. And I attempted to express
> myself
> in a way that any reasonable person would not find offensive

Well, I consider myself a reasonable person and, ok, I do not
personally find your remarks acutely offensive, but I do find them very
worthy of criticism and I find them ''potentially'' offensive--I am
absolutely convinced that there are people out there who (IMHO not
without reason) will find such remarks acutely offensive.

>  -- or at least
> not say things like "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Seeing his reaction, I think Christiaan might be one of them.

> And then when I read your stated belief that:
>
>> I never argued that these people died and suffered
>> _because_ of these ideals. My argument is that our culture has
>> extensively used and abused such ideals simply to make its membership
>> feel good about itself when collectively implementing the opposite
>> (imperialism, intolerance of other economic models, war, etc.)
>
> I'm left with an unclear sense how you want us to react. If these
> ideals
> are nothing more than opiates to distract us from the fact we members
> of
> Western Civilization are wreaking evil upon the rest of the world, then
> should we dispense with our collective denial & destroy every trace of
> our culture & kill ourselves in hope that will cleanse the earth of our
> crimes? Or should we simply all accept that we are little better than
> thugs & Storm Troopers, & instead take pride in how we oppress &
> exploit
> other peoples & nations?

Moot point (of ridicule) -- it's obvious that neither of your
rhetorical options are sensible. Neither collective civilizatory
suicide nor voluntary perpetuation of civilizatory terrorism are gonna
be helpful -- not even to ourselves. Modesty however would be a good
start. [[Aldous Huxley]] once wrote:

>> Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a  most
>> undesirable sentiment. If you have behaved badly,  repent, make what
>> amends you can and address yourself to the  task of behaving better
>> next time. On no account brood over  your wrong-doing. Rolling in the
>> muck is not the best way of getting clean.

If I read Huxley right, then that's a plain indictment of the not
infrequent notion of wallowing in guilt. It also is a roadmap: 1st --
Repent (honestly). 2nd -- Make what amends you can (no more, no less).
3rd -- After (1) and (2) are completed, try to mend.
Let me openly admit at this point that I used to be one of the
guilt-wallowers. Speaking only for myself: It felt good wallowing in
guilt. Because in doing so I implicitly exhibited: "Look, '''I''' am
ashamed of my group." In being that I could internally and externally
distance myself from the group and consider myself kind of ''exempt''
from the evil I loudly denounced.
In hindsight, I can say that as a "guilt-wallower" I was just as daft
as a "cultural imperialist by default and ignorance":
The ''ignorant imperialist'' doesn't want to know about things that may
be wrong about his group, so he doesn't have to feel bad about himself.
The ''guilt-wallower'' relentlessly exhibits the wrongdoings of his
group at every possible time, opportunity or no, in order to exempt
himself, the "enlightened critic", from any- and everything that has
gone wrong in connection with his group, so he doesn't have to feel bad
about himself.

The only sensible way of course is to do as Huxley proposed, and in the
order Huxley proposed and not to address any step halfheartedly. Yes,
the road is painful, but it leads to a better place.

> I am not being ironic here: your view of Western Civilization is so
> condemning & so extreme that I find nothing I can discuss about it
> with you.
> And frankly, from what I've read that you have written, I don't feel
> that
> you will be happy on Wikipedia because there are many people
> contributing
> to Wikipedia who will be praising the ideals, products, & other results
> of Western Civilization far more fulsomely -- & most likely more
> fluently --
> than I will ever do.

This section actually reminded me of SCO -- because what you say there
is wrong in so many ways:

1.) To call somebody's POV "extreme" is a hollow attack. It's a
non-argument, lacking merit, logic and--worst of all--content. It's
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I could call your POV
"extreme", you could call mine "extreme" or Christiaan's (as you have
done). But what's the point? The label "extreme" only makes sense
against a reference frame -- and especially when it comes to not
infrequently held political POVs, the "extreme" label, while frequently
abused in seeking to ostracize the opposing speaker, ultimately rings
hollow.

2.) I put it to you that your refusal to discuss Christiaan's POV has
far greater potential to alienate yourself from the Wikipedia community
(and it from you) than any supposed "extremeness" of his stance.

3.) I further am slightly shocked that--after all these emails--you
still write as if you hadn't noted what some people--myself
included--found so objectionable about your aforementioned email
closing remarks. Maybe I'm misreading you, but to me you seem to
implicitly again identify "willing[ness] to engage in a conversation
about [one's] contributions" and similar ideals to be "Western"
achievements. They're not. I thought at least with this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030140.html
I had made clear my point that we as "Westerners" hold no monopoly on
any of such ideals. I wrote that "we're HARDLY the sole inventors or
champions of these ideals". I mean it. It is simply unwise to
unconcernedly and unqualifiedly repeat a point that some people
strongly object to -- especially after you have already made it and
after you already have found yourself challenged over it. I somehow
don't think you intent was malicious, but I must say: Usually, if a
person does such, it's to ram their view down the opposition's throats
or to pick a fight. Surely you cannot be hellbent on either of the two?

4.) Telling someone of an opposing POV that you "don't feel [he] will
be happy" participating in a project which neither he nor you own is,
again, a non-argument: What are you trying to tell that person? "Go
away, for people won't like your ilk over here"? Or "I represent a
majority and you don't, so please leave"? Especially in case you are
right (which you quite possibly are) and the Wikipedia /is/ slated and
biased into your direction, then isn't that all the more reason for
seeking to actively include and retain contributors who differ?

> And as a last point, find another word than "ethnocentric" to apply to
> what I have asserted. The word "ethnocentric" means to "hold one's race
> as superior to all others" -- & I feel your use of this word accuses me
> of being racist. That I am clearly not, & except for throwing this word
> about, you have failed to show that I am so -- unless somehow by my
> definition of "Western Civilization" you believe that I have excluded
> non-Caucasian members of this culture such as Asian Americans, Black
> British, French of North African origin, & countless more groups I
> could
> recount. And one could only believe that by abusively misinterpreting
> what I have written.
>
> Geoff

If you really mean what you said in your said email closing remark,
then IMHO you unfortunately will have to live with some people accusing
you of racism: If you really persist in claiming that "tolerance,
pluralism, & unfettered speech" was an /exclusively/ "Western"
invention (warranting us to be missionaristic, of all things!), then
you simply will face such accusations, sooner or later. While you have
a valid point saying that many ethnically diverse groups are now
integral parts of "Western" society, the balance of power with regards
to "Caucasian" and other "races" is a point of an ongoing argument and
historically in particular there have been huge racial injustices
perpetrated and perpetuated within and by various wider "Western"
communities. It is thus not without base to closely identify "Western
civilization" with the "Caucasian race". Thus, unduly proclaiming
"Western civilization" to have a historical and ongoing monopoly on the
said ideals can very well be seen, by some, to smack of racism. Let me
be clear: neither I nor, I believe, others on this list did call you
racist, and I am not calling you thus now either. However: If it's
hurtful to see yourself getting uncomfortably close to such labels,
then maybe it's time to reexamine your position.

Let me add:

You wrote in this email
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030105.html
that you were "unaware of any serious argument that this tradition of
thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China". That's a huge
fallacy. Our ignorance of other cultures does not entitle us to
monopolize nobler human achievements as exclusively our own. This is
not patent law where you can stake a claim, however frivolous, and have
it granted purely on the basis that proof of prior art/competing claims
are not produced by persons of limited knowledge within a limited
jurisdiction and timeframe.

As your own choice of words in your initial email shows, you are well
aware that portraying these noble ideals as the sole invention of the
West, is sub-par: You wrote "soapbox". You wrote "chauvinist". After
having given the reader of your email such clear indication that you
are well aware of the rather widespread reservations about the opinions
you then proceeded to express, you honestly cannot subsequently be
surprised and say: "Wow. All of this verbage just because (...)". You
knew what you were getting into and your own words prove it.

On a related note, you may (or may not) know the closing scene to
Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I just saw today): It fits my argument
perfectly. For from what I gathered on the web, Americans were laughing
about the fact that Bush misspoke (which is very human to do), that he
failed to correctly deliver the "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me" saying. You see, some Europeans who were laughing
during that scene were NOT laughing about Bush's verbal stumbling. They
were laughing about the fact that Bush attributed the adage to both
Texas and, tentatively, Tennesse -- when in fact these words are an old
Chinese proverb.

Claiming that all the acceptedly good things were invented by one's own
community (note: rhetorical exaggeration) -- that's what REALLY
attracts sneers, ridicule and resentment. Why go there when we know
better?

-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
     www.ropersonline.com


subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
Brilliant response, Brion.  Minor edits can _not_ be detected
algorithmically, at least not until our robot overlords take over the
writing for us.  :-)

Brion Vibber wrote:

> Chris Wood wrote:
> >Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
> >1) All edits by anonymous users are minor (same rule as now)
> >2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
> >sentence, is major.
> >3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels etc) is
> >major.
> >4) Everything else is minor.
>
> Pop quiz: what's wrong with the above text?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"La n??fle est un frui.t" - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes to skin system implemented

body:
Hello,

Following my previous announcment:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-September/024942.html

The skin files got moved from /stylesheets/ to /skins/ with several sub
directories.

I consider the change complete but it needs:
  _ to bug test paths changes
  _ documentation (skin.doc)

This is only for HEAD (aka the future 1.4), not for 1.3.x.

cheers,

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: developer bios. Please do not be shy

body:
Anthere wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_activity
>
> Here is a beginning for developer bios. I just added a few names amongst
> those who answered to the poll, but I hope ALL those who answered and
> well as others who did not, will complete the page.
>
> Please do not be shy and add your name and a bit about you.
>
> This has two goals. First just to have such a page on meta will get
> people to know your development activity better. Also, a new developer
> might get a better idea who he can ask things to, when he is interested
> in a specific task.
>
> The second goal will be to add part of this to the WMF website. I
> consequently also needs things such as your paypal address and such.
>
> I might add that I would like very much that you add your country of
> origin (and why not the languages you manage). Knowing the language you
> manage may be interesting for the new developer. Knowing that developers
> come from all over the world is in itself a very valuable information as
> well.
>
> So, please modify and correct what I already added, and just add
> yourself if you are not yet there.
>
> Thanks :-)

Hello,

I added myself, certainly need grammar review though.

As for the paypal link. I am not sure yet I will accept any donations, I
am not sure anyone will be willing to give me cash anyway. Probably to
redirect cash directly to the wikimedia foundation :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

body:
Rebecca wrote:
>
> allowing junk to remain in the pedia is not the answer.

Nobody is suggesting to "allow junk to remain in the pedia".  People are
instead suggesting to get rid of the junk by improving it rather than
deleting it.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: language codes

body:
<for the original messages please go back to the messages with ISO-639
in the header - I cut all off here>

Hmmm ... so this issue is getting more and more complicated ...I really
thought quite a long tima about how to go ahead.

We first of all need the codes for known languages - and the better they
are known, the better it is. Therefore the first option is for ISO-639
two letter.

Let's see:
1) ISO 639 two letter
2) ISO 639 three letter
3) SIL (adding the prefix "sil-")
4) linguist.org codes for ancient languages  (adding prefix "lnga-")
5) linguist.org codes for constructed languages (adding prefix "lngc-")
6) wiktionary internal code (adding prefix "wkt-")

Could this be a feasible solution? For now I created a list made up oft
ISO 639 two + three letter codes (only in English yesterday).

Now I'd like to proceed with adding translations into my languages
(German/Italian) and maybe also some others.

In a second stage I'd then opt to inserting SIL-codes where possible
(and step by step also for the other codes).

Going back tow work...

Ciao, Sabine

*****

Sabine Cretella
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
www.wordsandmore.it
Meetingplace for translators
www.wesolveitnet.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Paypal in French

body:
Yann Forget wrote:
> Paypal existe now in French.
> I think that will help donations from French speaking countries.
>
> http://www.01net.com/article/249486.html
> http://www.paypal.fr

Is there something we need to do to enable this, or does it just work
automatically?

I know there has been some concern in the French community about finances
and about transparency with respect to finances.  Is there something we
should do about that?

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Paypal in French


body:
Hi,
I'm Marika, I have subscribed to your mailing because of I'm interesting in
dictionary.
Thank you
Mar?ka

----- Original Message -----
From: <wiktionary-l-request at Wikipedia.org>
To: <wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 3:31 AM
Subject: Wiktionary-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 3

> Send Wiktionary-l mailing list submissions to
> wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wiktionary-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wiktionary-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wiktionary-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists / thematical lists
>       (Sabine Cretella)
>    2. Re: ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists / thematical
>       lists (Gerard Meijssen)
>    3. Re: The need for XML in a wiktionary context (Sabine Cretella)
>    4. Re: ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists / thematical
>       lists (Sabine Cretella)
>    5. Re: The need for XML in a wiktionary context (Ray Saintonge)
>    6. Re: The need for XML in a wiktionary context (Gerard Meijssen)
>    7. Re: The need for XML in a wiktionary context (Andrew Dunbar)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:19:56 +0200
> From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> Subject: [Wiktionary-l] ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists /
> thematical lists
> To: Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com>
> Cc: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <413988BC.4020004 at yahoo.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Hi Gerard and all of you,
>
> thinking about the code I was just considering some points.
>
> What I noted on the page you gave me for the Italian version of the
> ISO-code is that you use a mixed version for language identifiers - the
> two letter code and where there's no two letter code the three letter
> code - is this correct? I also noted that not all languages are present
> in the ISO-3-letter-code - so they are standardised, but not completely.
> This would obviously lead to an own wiktionary standard.
>
> I am asking as I thought about compiling a list of the used language
> codes for wiktionary and then add the several translations of the
> languages names asking freinds and colleagues to complete the list.
> Normally in the translation world the two letter code is used.
>
> I'll then add the list to my sourceforge project (wsi-glossary:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/wsi-glossary/) you can see who is
> contributing right now with integrations to the lists here:
> http://wiki.wesolveitnet.com/wakka.php?wakka=WsiGlossaryContributors.
>
> I should modify licensing (mine up to now was the same as the one used
> for the OmegaT manual to GNU  FDL - I have to check out if this is
> possible without problems on sourceforge net. I am to new to OpenContent
> to know all about this - so another thing to be done immediately).
>
> If you are working on a multilanguage list e.g. of trees, birds,
> vegetables etc. etc. please consider seriously to have these lists
> integrated by other people as well and have it ready somewhere for
> download or just integrate it into wsi-glossary. Certain kinds of work
> can be done even by schools in language lessons - e.g. the Italian
> Thesaurus for OpenOffice.org was created with the help of a school where
> the teachers were the team leaders and during the classes the pupils did
> something that made "sense" to them. Having them work directly in
> wiktionary online is impossible for most schools as computers don't have
> Internet access (or only a few of them) and so working on tables is much
> easier.
>
> If you prefer not to hand out the list: give out single terms or gourps
> of terms like this:
>
> I need these term(s)
> house
> cat
> mouse
> etc.
>
> in the following languages:
> German
> French
> Italian
> etc.
>
> I can then publish these parts or on my portal or send the request to
> different lists of translators - so step by step it is possible to
> integrate and improve.
>
> Best wishes from Italy,
>
> Sabine
>
> --
> Sabine Cretella
> s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
> www.wordsandmore.it
> Meetingplace for translators
> www.wesolveitnet.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:45:16 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com>
> Subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists /
> thematical lists
> To: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> Cc: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <41398EAC.1000801 at myrealbox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
> > Hi Gerard and all of you,
> >
> > thinking about the code I was just considering some points.
> >
> > What I noted on the page you gave me for the Italian version of the
> > ISO-code is that you use a mixed version for language identifiers -
> > the two letter code and where there's no two letter code the three
> > letter code - is this correct? I also noted that not all languages are
> > present in the ISO-3-letter-code - so they are standardised, but not
> > completely. This would obviously lead to an own wiktionary standard.
> >
> > I am asking as I thought about compiling a list of the used language
> > codes for wiktionary and then add the several translations of the
> > languages names asking freinds and colleagues to complete the list.
> > Normally in the translation world the two letter code is used.
> >
> > I'll then add the list to my sourceforge project (wsi-glossary:
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/wsi-glossary/) you can see who is
> > contributing right now with integrations to the lists here:
> > http://wiki.wesolveitnet.com/wakka.php?wakka=WsiGlossaryContributors.
> >
> > I should modify licensing (mine up to now was the same as the one used
> > for the OmegaT manual to GNU  FDL - I have to check out if this is
> > possible without problems on sourceforge net. I am to new to
> > OpenContent to know all about this - so another thing to be done
> > immediately).
> >
> > If you are working on a multilanguage list e.g. of trees, birds,
> > vegetables etc. etc. please consider seriously to have these lists
> > integrated by other people as well and have it ready somewhere for
> > download or just integrate it into wsi-glossary. Certain kinds of work
> > can be done even by schools in language lessons - e.g. the Italian
> > Thesaurus for OpenOffice.org was created with the help of a school
> > where the teachers were the team leaders and during the classes the
> > pupils did something that made "sense" to them. Having them work
> > directly in wiktionary online is impossible for most schools as
> > computers don't have Internet access (or only a few of them) and so
> > working on tables is much easier.
> >
> > If you prefer not to hand out the list: give out single terms or
> > gourps of terms like this:
> >
> > I need these term(s)
> > house
> > cat
> > mouse
> > etc.
> >
> > in the following languages:
> > German
> > French
> > Italian
> > etc.
> >
> > I can then publish these parts or on my portal or send the request to
> > different lists of translators - so step by step it is possible to
> > integrate and improve.
> >
> > Best wishes from Italy,
> >
> > Sabine
> >
> Wikimedia does use two letter ISO 639 codes and when they do not exist
> they do use the three letter codes. There are missing ISO codes. There
> are also the SIL codes but personally I think mixing these three codes
> makes a mess. Preferably ISO adds missing codes for languages.
>
> For cooperation to work best, things like XML can be considered. GEMET
> uses it, they have people knowledgable regarding thesauri XML open
content.
>
> When you have an application that can import and export XML data, you
> can work off line locally and export the data at the end of the day. The
> start might be the Italian Open Office list and add definitions in
> Italian export it and share it with the world. An even better start
> might be words in another wikipedia with an Italian translation; the
> translations TO Italian are then already known.
>
> The most important thing is to prevent double work and the continued
> checking of the stuff that is available. Start with producing
> definitions for all the Languages. Many translations are available on
> the nl:wiktionary. The articles can be copied to it:wiktionary just add
> content to some templates. They do need checking as well... :)
>
> Thanks,
>   Gerard
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:58:10 +0200
> From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] The need for XML in a wiktionary context
> To: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <413991B2.20806 at yahoo.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Geerd, please have a look at this:
>
>
> *********************************************************
> <glossword>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="A" t2="AT" id="4">attuatore</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <trns lang="106">Trieb</trns>
> <trns lang="106">Arbeitszylinder</trns>
> Trieb ->azionatore (comandi idraulici); Arbeitshylinder -> ?lhydraulisch
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="B" t2="BA" id="62">batteriostatico</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">bakteriostatisch</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="B" t2="BO" id="54">bovino</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">bovin</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="C" t2="CE" id="33">cellule ematiche</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">Blutzellen</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="C" t2="CO" id="37">concentrazione serica</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">Serumkonzentration</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="E" t2="EM" id="27">ematico</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">H?mato-</trns>
> <trns lang="106">Blut-</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="E" t2="EN" id="8">endovenoso</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">intraven?s</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="E" t2="ET" id="5">etambutolo</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <trns lang="106">Ethambutol</trns>
> <trns lang="103">ethambutol</trns>
> <src>http://www.gesundheit.de/roche/ro10000/r10785.html</src>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="F" t2="FL" id="24">fleboclisi</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">intraven?se Infusion</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="I" t2="IN" id="10">iniezione endovenosa</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">intraven?se Injektion</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="L" t2="LE" id="77">legno impiallacciato</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="025"/>
> <trns lang="106">furniertes Holz</trns>
> <src>eurodicautom</src>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="L" t2="LE" id="71">legno tamburato</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="025"/>
> <trns lang="106">furniertes Holz</trns>
> <src>eurodicautom</src>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="M" t2="MA" id="44">mass media</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <trns lang="106">Massenmedien</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="O" t2="OC" id="51">ocratossina</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="054"/>
> <trns lang="106">Ochratoxin</trns>
> -
>     <src>
> http://www.verbraucherministerium.de/forschungsreport/rep2-99/ochra.htm
> </src>
> -
>     <src>
> Schimmelpilze sind in der Lage, unter sehr unterschiedlichen Bedingungen
> giftige Substanzen (Mykotoxine) zu bilden, die in der gesamten
> Nahrungskette vorkommen k?nnen. Zu den bekanntesten Vertretern z?hlt das
> Ochratoxin A, das von bestimmten Penicillium- und Aspergillus-Arten
> gebildet wird. Dieses Toxin kann die Nieren und das Immunsystem
> sch?digen und zeigt im Tierversuch eine kanzerogene Wirkung. Der Aufgabe
> des Gesetzgebers, einen umfassenden Schutz der Verbraucher zu
> gew?hrleisten, ist das Bundesministerium f?r Gesundheit (BMG)
> nachgekommen und hat eine wissenschaftliche Studie ?ber Ochratoxin A
> initiiert und gef?rdert, die 1996 begonnen und 1999 abgeschlossen wurde.
> Das Projekt hatte zum Ziel, Verzehrsdaten auf epidemiologischer
> Grundlage zu ermitteln und Ochratoxin A in relevanten Lebensmitteln
> sowie im Blutserum von Probanden zu bestimmen. Aus der Verkn?pfung der
> Ergebnisse von Verzehrsdaten, Lebensmitteluntersuchungen und
> Blutserum-Analysen k?nnen eine fundierte Beurteilung der tats?chlichen
> Exposition der Bev?lkerung in Deutschland erstellt und Empfehlungen f?r
> eine H?chstmengenregelung abgeleitet werden. (weiteres auf der Website)
> </src>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="P" t2="PE" id="17">per via endovenosa</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">intraven?s</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> -
>     <line>
> <term t1="S" t2="SO" id="68">soluzione fisiologica</term>
> -
>     <defn>
> <abbr lang="027"/>
> <trns lang="106">Ringer L?sung</trns>
> </defn>
> </line>
> </glossword>
>
> ****************************************************
> This was the original glossary project where I tried to ask people for
> co-operation, but online I had just two members trying to help ...
> that's why I passed to .csv tables that can then easily be converted
> itno xml in a second stage (most people don't like working online even
> if they are connected 24 hrs a day ...). Glossword (www.glossword.info)
> is an OpenSource project - Sorceforge page:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/glossword/
>
> Instead of ISO-language code Glossword uses numbers to identify
> languages. This is a minor problem as it is easy to change to ISO using
> search and replace.
>
> My installation of the software can be found here:
> www.dict.wesolveitnet.com. If you'd like to try around there, just let
> me know I'll then create a user account with access to all dics. Really
> I am not sure if this can be useful ...  maybe just for conversion issues?
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
> *************
>
> Sabine Cretella
> s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
> www.wordsandmore.it
> Meetingplace for translators
> www.wesolveitnet.com
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:16:42 +0200
> From: Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> Subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: ISO-639 + Glossaries / vocabulary lists /
> thematical lists
> To: Marc Prior <mail at marcprior.de>, wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <4139960A.9080909 at yahoo.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Hi Gerard,
>
> > Wikimedia does use two letter ISO 639 codes and when they do not exist
> > they do use the three letter codes. There are missing ISO codes. There
> > are also the SIL codes but personally I think mixing these three codes
> > makes a mess. Preferably ISO adds missing codes for languages.
>
> I completely agree to this.
>
> >
> > For cooperation to work best, things like XML can be considered. GEMET
> > uses it, they have people knowledgable regarding thesauri XML open
> > content.
>
> XML is one of the best solutions as the standard for CAT (computer aided
> translation) software is tmx for memories and tbx for glossaries - and
> this is nothing else than "definite" xml codes.
>
> >
> > When you have an application that can import and export XML data, you
> > can work off line locally and export the data at the end of the day.
> > The start might be the Italian Open Office list and add definitions in
> > Italian export it and share it with the world. An even better start
> > might be words in another wikipedia with an Italian translation; the
> > translations TO Italian are then already known.
>
> Hmmm ... data needs to be multilanguage, doesn't it? Or at least must be
> identified by language tags. To edit bilingual data we could use OmegaT
> (that adds language tags to the tmx 1.1 file) - then we could use the
> tmx-file to import data. When new terms are added to a list using the
> old tmx file they will be automatically given as translated so the
> translator just needs to translate the missing part that is stored in a
> new translation memory file in tmx format. OmegaT is java based,
> therefore platform independent and Open Source ... the created files of
> single "words" on the other hand could then be used as glossary files.
> Maybe we could try this out with the translations of the ISO
> languages-table.
>
> >
> > The most important thing is to prevent double work and the continued
> > checking of the stuff that is available. Start with producing
> > definitions for all the Languages. Many translations are available on
> > the nl:wiktionary. The articles can be copied to it:wiktionary just
> > add content to some templates. They do need checking as well... :)
>
> I'll do that right now - I just created a table with the codes and now
> insert the missing English names.
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:57:01 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] The need for XML in a wiktionary context
> To: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <41399F7D.5020507 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The current format is adequate.  Your proposal makes no mention of the
> possible sacrifices in terms of ease of editing, a key feature in all
> the wikis.  How will flexibility of format be maintained?
>
> Ec
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > There is a need for using XML with wiktionary.
> >
> > The definitions of a word in wiktionary, can be structured in a fixed
> > way. For each word/phrase you have a:
> > *Indication what language it is in
> > *Name of the word/phrase
> > *Definition of the word/phrase
> > *Translations
> > *Pronounciation
> > *Synonyms
> > *Antonyms etc
> >
> > I do not try to be complete here, but my point is, the data is
> > structured. Other organisations that work with words already structure
> > their data using XML for instance GEMET. When Wiktionary is structured
> > exlicitly, the result will be that the import and export from
> > Wiktionary becomes possible and it will become possible for other
> > dictionary/ glossary project to get a changed content in XML format
> > that is specific for working with words. This will enhance the
> > importance of wiktionary and it will help achieve out aim which is
> > open accessible dictionary content.
> >
> > The flip side of the coin is that we can get {changed) content from
> > other dictionary/ glossary projects for inclusion in wiktionary.
> >
> > The GEMET data is available as XML data and, it would be great to
> > import it straight in from XML.
> >
> > *Issues:
> > #Using XML standards for dictionary content.
> > #Importing data / Exporting data using the current wiktionary content.
> > #Structuring wiktionary using MySQL tables.
> > #Importing data / Exporting data using the future wiktionary structure.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 13:45:56 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] The need for XML in a wiktionary context
> To: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <4139AAF4.3080906 at myrealbox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > The current format is adequate.  Your proposal makes no mention of the
> > possible sacrifices in terms of ease of editing, a key feature in all
> > the wikis.  How will flexibility of format be maintained?
>
> XML is not to edited by hand. You are absolutely right about that.
> However, the current format is not without its problems. At this moment
> an English word cannot be re-used easily in other languages. Things are
> free formatted at the moment. It would be a good thing if we start
> thinking about creating some database structures for use within
> wiktionary. It would rid us of these dratted templates like {{en}} and
> {{-en-}}. They work, it is the best thing around but they are ugly.
>
> What I propose at this time is to get us thinking about importing and
> exporting in an XML format. And considering changes to enhance the
> functionality within all wiktionaries and the functionality to the
> outside world.
>
> One of the aims of wikimedia is to create open content. By having our
> data in our proprietary format, we do not achieve what can be achieved.
>
> Thanks,
>     Gerard
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 02:30:57 +0100 (BST)
> From: Andrew Dunbar <hippietrail at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wiktionary-l] The need for XML in a wiktionary context
> To: wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040905013057.52937.qmail at web53702.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>  --- Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > There is a need for using XML with wiktionary.
> I agree.
>
> > The definitions of a word in wiktionary, can be
> > structured in a fixed way.
> I disagree. But it depends on *how much* structure you
> want.
>
> > For each word/phrase you have a:
> > *Indication what language it is in
> > *Name of the word/phrase
> > *Definition of the word/phrase
> > *Translations
> > *Pronounciation
> > *Synonyms
> > *Antonyms etc
> Actually If we only wanted to structure these parts it
> would work ok. Many other properties of words and
> phrases are a lot more difficult, such as
> part-of-speech.
>
> > I do not try to be complete here, but my point is,
> > the data is structured. Other organisations that
> > work with words already structure their data using
> > XML for instance GEMET.
> > When Wiktionary is structured exlicitly, the result
> > will be that the import and export from Wiktionary
> > becomes possible and it will become possible for
> > other dictionary/ glossary project to get a changed
> > content in XML format that is specific for working
> > with words. This will enhance the importance of
> > wiktionary and it will help achieve out aim which is
> > open accessible dictionary content.
> >
> > The flip side of the coin is that we can get
> > {changed) content from other dictionary/ glossary
> > projects for inclusion in wiktionary.
> >
> > The GEMET data is available as XML data and, it
> > would be great to import it straight in from XML.
> >
> > *Issues:
> > #Using XML standards for dictionary content.
> > #Importing data / Exporting data using the current
> > wiktionary content.
> > #Structuring wiktionary using MySQL tables.
> > #Importing data / Exporting data using the future
> > wiktionary structure.
> >
> > NB I have posted this on META as well
>
> I do think a dictionary requires structure which an
> encyclopedia does not. A very loose structure like you
> have described would be a benefit for Wiktionary.
> The problems I see are these:
> 1. Once we have some structure people will push for
>    more structure such as part-of-speech, not
> realizing
>    how difficult that is to get right in a
> multilingual
>    dictionary.
> 2. To work with the wiki software we can have a tool/
>    script/routine which maps from internal XML into
>    wiki/HTML so it can be displayed.
> 3. People will have to input XML, or we need a
> friendly
>    interface which can take input from non-expert
> users
>    and turn it into correct XML.
>
> Number 3 would mean a *lot* of work for developers.
>
> Andrew (hippietrail).
>
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiktionary-l mailing list
> > Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
> >
>
> =====
> http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl
http://www.abisource.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>
> End of Wiktionary-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 3
> ******************************************
>


from_name: Chris Wood

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: VfD is broken

body:
> You're really looking for an edit war, aren't you?  If someone is so
fired-up about an item being listed on VfD, they can make a reasoned
argument for their case.  What a surprise, it might just work.  But just to
delete the listing without discussion (or even with discussion) would not be
a Good Thing.
>
> RickK

Unless the listing is inappropriate.

--
Chris Wood


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: VfD is broken

references:
<chbk3m$v56$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<chcgmk$f4f$2@sea.gmane.org><4139FCE0.7000207@telus.net>
	<6ed46e2904090414224d3b7b84@mail.gmail.com>

body:
> Why don't we encourage whoever listed the item in the first place to
> remove the item if it was inappropriate? Leave a note on the person's
> talk page asking them to remove it or remove it yourself and then
> allow the person the option of relisting it if he still disagrees. Of
> course, if we have a good number of people voting "delete" then the
> listing should obviously not be removed, but when consensus
> overwhelmingly to keep, what is the point of keeping the item listed?
>
> Jiang

A good number of people may and do vote "delete" on inappropriate listings.
A cadre of deletionists aren't always right.

--
Chris Wood


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

body:
"Timwi" <timwi at gmx.net> wrote in message
news:chcgmk$f4f$2 at sea.gmane.org...
> I don't tend to involve myself much on VfD, but my gut feeling tells me
> that this can be easily counter-acted by simply removing inappropriate
> VfD listings.
>
> So what we need is a policy that defines what VfD listings are
appropriate.

Enter Wikipedia:Importance.

--
Chris Wood


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: modified Parser.php category goodness.

body: test


subject: [Wikitech-l] Automatic minor edits

body:
People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Minor_edit calls minor edits
"spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text". These
could be automatically detected and marked as minor edits, along with a
summary (basically, a one-line diff), eg. "oldespeling -> newspelling" or
"title text -> '''title text'''".

Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
1) All edits by anonymous users are major (same rule as now)
2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
sentence, is minor.
3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels etc) is
minor.
4) Everything else is major.


from_name: Alex Krupp

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Accuracy Heuristics

body:
On the top of each Wikipedia article should be two things: The time
since each article was last edited and the average number of views
that article gets per day. This would form a rough system of
accountability for every article. For example, a page that hasn't
been edited in twenty days and gets over a hundred views per days
would be likely to contain fewer errors than a page that was last
edited three days ago and gets four views per day.

This way one could even come up with a simple heuristic combining the
two statistics so that editors could surf through articles looking
for the ones most likely to contain mistakes. One could also surf
through the articles least likely to contain mistakes as an
admittedly imperfect although useful way of finding articles  to
nominate for 1.0. I know you can check all of the edits and their
dates through the edit history, but there is no easy way for the
average user to check how many views any given page gets. This could
potentially go a great way for increasing the amount of faith the
average population has in Wikipedia.

Also, I should mention this has been inspired by the recent
controversy involving the article by Al Fasoldt and the subsequent
discussion on this list and now slashdot.

Alex Krupp


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [Wikipedia-l] The deletion of not used pictures

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> On nl:wikipedia a valid reason for the deletion of pictures is that
> they are not used. I have asked at "the kroeg" that they should not be
> deleted in anticipation of WikiCommons.
>
> Andre Engels asked me why I thought that there will be a WikiCommons
> as both he and I have so far been given the cold shoulder treatment on
> WikiCommons. His question is fair. What do I base my trust on that
> there will be in the near future a WikiCommons ?
>
> Question:
> *Should these pictures be deleted from nl:wikipedia ?

Would people insist on deleting them if they are linked from your
user page? Lots of people on en: have personal galleries of
images, not all of which are presently being used in articles.
They're useful as "placeholders", so other people can just include
them, instead of duplicating effort by uploading their own pictures
of the same things.

Stan