from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] nn (Norw. Nynorsk) wikipedia

body:
Hello,

In Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 5, brion vibber wrote:
>There's a bug in the new wiki creation script which allows zh-tw, zh-cn,
>nn, and perhaps other language codes which are defined but had been
>intended as aliases to be automatically created as separate wikis. Such
>accidentally created wikis are not supported and may get closed down
>when noticed and someone gets around to backing up their content.

Tim Starling replied:
>I've altered it now so that languages have to be listed in both langlist
>and languages/Names.php before they can be created. So this sort of
>thing shouldn't happen anymore.

I see that nn (Nynorsk) is on your list of undesired entities.
Nynorsk is *an official written language* (not dialect) of Norway
beside the separate written language Bokm?l (nb or bm).
Please note the following factors:

* Nynorsk and Bokm?l are not "merely one language in different
   alphabets" (such as can be argued for Chinese trad. / simplified,
   Serbian / Croatian/Bosnian or Hindi / Urdu),
* They are not merely a slight orthographic variation
   of one language within different political entities
   (such as UK/US English and European/Brazilian Portuguese).
* They have a significant number of different basic terms,
   as well as significant differences in orthography,
   morphology and syntax.
* The current no.wikipedia is predominantly Bokm?l,
   with only a small minority of the articles being written in Nynorsk
* There are only three registered Nynorsk users on bm.wikipedia,
   and there is consensus amongst these three (see below) that the
   development of nn.wikipedia should be worked on now -- partially
   because of the greater ease in finding Nynorsk writers for a Nynorsk
   wikipedia than for a Bokm?l wikpedia with occasional Nynorsk articles.
   We also believe as a group (on nn.wikipedia) that Nynorsk writers
   joining the project will join the no.wikipedia project as well --
   thus hoping to strengthen the Norwegian wikipedia project as a whole.
* The participation in more than one wikipedia project is the norm rather
   than the exception amongst Scandinavian "wikipedians" in general.
   I participate actively on nn, no/bm, sv and en.
* Our "slogan" on the nn.wikipedia.org main page is:
   "Samhald gjev styrke og mangfald gjev rikdom!"
   This translates, with  as:
   "Samhold gir styrke og mangfold gir rikdom!" (Bokm?l)
   "Sammenhold giver styrke og mangfold giver rigdom!" (Danish)
   "Gemenskap ger styrka och m?ngfall ger rikedom!" (Swedish)
   (In English, roughly:)
   "Cooperation gives strength and diversity gives wealth!"

I cannot see that there is any reason to block Nynorsk as a separate
wikipedia any more than it would make sense to block Bokm?l, Swedish or
Danish as separate entities. Nynorsk is not any less defined as a language
than the three other ones -- and all four of them are mostly mutually
intelligible, by the way.

Why is a Nynorsk wikipedia any more undesirable than an  Els?ssisch or
Walon one? Or separate Portuguese/Gallego ones? Because some Bokm?l users
(officially a different language) are sceptical? Would it be right if
Castilian wikipedians were free to deny a Catalonian wikipedia?

I support fully the advent of a common Scandinavian wikipedia with
user-selected language interface and articles coordinated between the four
official languages (and with parallel articles being useful in many cases)
-- WHEN the time is ready.  But I also think it would be wrong to
specifically inhibit the Nynorsk language's opportunity to participate
fully and systematically in the building of material for a joined project
on equal terms, rather than to be forced into the mainly Bokm?l project as
a not very visible or transparently organised minority.

Please refer to the page http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Olve for
the discussion and consensus amongst the Nynorsk users at this early stage.

Our plans are to continue the development of http://nn.wikipedia.org/ and
to start recruiting new users actively when the user interface is more
complete and there are a few more articles. We also have made it very clear
in our discussion that we will strongly encourage these new writers to
participate on http://no.wikipedia.org/ as well -- thus making sure that
our project results in added diversity (through a Nynorsk wikipedia being
made available) as well as a general strengthening of the no,wikipedia project.

Rather than having non-users of the language Nynorsk closing down this one
out of the four separate Scandinavian written languages' wikipedias, it
would be constructive if we could have some assistance in uploading the
finished and available LanguageNn.php file and have one or more of the
Nynorsk writers (currently: Olve, Dittaeva, BjarteSorensen) be appointed as
an administrator/bureaucrat.

Any constructive dialogue and/or assistance is of course welcome!

Beste helsing (Best greetings),

Olve Utne

___________________

Olve Utne
http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%E4ndare:Olve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Olve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
In the section == Penalty for evasion== of the article [[Wikipedia:Banning
policy]]

Fred

> From: "Pedro Fortuny Ayuso" <pfortuny at sdf-eu.org>
> Reply-To: pfortuny at sdf-eu.org, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:57:48 +0200
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Censorship by China or bigots in Wikipedia?
>
> Yeah, it looks like, but where is that stated? I am probably asking
> for some well-known info, but...
>
> Thanks anyway for answering,
>
>
> Pedro.


from_name: Mr Paul Vogel

subject:
[WikiEN-l] When Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies Censor
	the Internet....

body:
Dear Jens, Pedro, Mark, etc. et al:

When any Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies
Censor the Internet...or RULE...EVERYONE ELSE ACTUALLY
PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE, as the events of 9/11/01 and
since have thereafter demonstrated.

Jews and Social-Marxists also obviously
do have control over both the Wikipedia
Arbitration Committee and in banning and
in censoring anything or banning or
censoring anyone editing Wikipedia
that is not considered "Kosher"
enough by them.
This is also the actual and real reason for
the undo one year ban and extensions, based
upon the dishonest and unfair judgement of
this same "Kosher" Arbitration Committee and
cabal of lying hypocrites and censors.

Like AIPAC and the Spy Scandal and Pollard
etc. ad nauseum, and the "Neo-Con", actually
"Zionist-Jewish" Kosher Conservative, invasion
of Iraq, soon Iran and then maybe Syria, based
upon lies and hypocrisy and instigated by
same-EVERYONE PAYS THE VERY HIGH PRICE for this biased
JEWISH and SOCIAL-MARXIST-PC CENSORSHIP and RULE!

For example:

A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby'
by Mark Weber

For decades Israel has violated well established
precepts of
international law and defied numerous United Nations
resolutions in
its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial
killings, and in
its repeated acts of military aggression.

Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and
especially its
oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and
criminal. This
international consensus is reflected, for example, in
numerous UN
resolutions condemning Israel, which have been
approved with
overwhelming majorities.

"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General
Kofi Annan
recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw
[from occupied
Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole
world ... can be
wrong." [1]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media
still fervently
support Israel and its policies. For decades the US
has provided
Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial
backing,
including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support
for Israel?

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded
the 1984 Nobel
Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The
Israeli
government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to
criticize it is
to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said.
"People are scared in
this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish
lobby is
powerful ? very powerful." [2]

Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up
only about three
percent of the US population, they wield immense power
and influence ?
vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.

As Jewish author and political science professor
Benjamin Ginsberg has
pointed out: [3]

Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable
influence in
American economic, cultural, intellectual and
political life. Jews
played a central role in American finance during the
1980s, and they
were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's
corporate mergers
and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent
of the nation's
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires
are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television
networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the
owners of the
nation's largest newspaper chain and the most
influential single
newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and
influence of Jews in
American politics is equally marked ...

Jews are only three percent of the nation's population
and comprise
eleven percent of what this study defines as the
nation's elite.
However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the
elite journalists
and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of
important
voluntary and public interest organizations, and more
than 15 percent
of the top ranking civil servants.

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National
Affairs of the
American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the
"disproportionate
political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound
the greatest of
any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to
explain that
"Jewish economic influence and power are
disproportionately
concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news
industry." [4]

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl
Raab, pointed
out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American
Scene: [5]

During the last three decades Jews [in the United
States] have made up
50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20
percent of
professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent
of partners in
the leading law firms in New York and Washington ...
59 percent of the
directors, writers, and producers of the 50
top-grossing motion
pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of
directors, writers, and
producers in two or more primetime television series.

The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes
the Israeli daily
Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size
of the community,
Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so
is the amount of
money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One
member of the
influential Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish
Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50
percent of the
funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election
campaign." [6]

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality
of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges
Michael Medved, a
well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of
the most
influential production executives at each of the major
movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish
names." [7]

One person who has carefully studied this subject is
Jonathan J.
Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish
community weekly
Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [8]

In a few key sectors of the media, notably among
Hollywood studio
executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that
calling these
businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a
statistical
observation ...

Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still
an industry
with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the
senior executives at
the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to
a lesser degree
directors are disproportionately Jewish ? one recent
study showed the
figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films.

The combined weight of so many Jews in one of
America's most lucrative
and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a
great deal of
political power. They are a major source of money for
Democratic
candidates.

Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are
routinely
portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy,
compassionate, and
deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of
Americans readily
accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is
impressed. "I am very
angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon
Brando during a
1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their
responsibilities
are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews,
and they should
have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people
who are
suffering." [9]
A Well-Entrenched Factor

The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a
new phenomenon,
but has long been an important factor in American
life.

In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of
Jewish power in
the media and government. The shy 39-year-old ? known
around the world
for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first
solo
trans-Atlantic crossing ? was addressing 7,000 people
in Des Moines,
Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US
involvement in
the war then raging in Europe. The three most
important groups
pressing America into war, he explained, were the
British, the Jews,
and the Roosevelt administration.

Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this
country lies in
their large ownership and influence in our motion
pictures, our press,
our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on:

... For reasons which are understandable from their
viewpoint as they
are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not
American, [they]
wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them
for looking out
for what they believe to be their own interests, but
we must also look
out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and
prejudices of
other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal
wrote in his
detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [10]

How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American
people?... It is
the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among
themselves and the
amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this
unprecedented power ...
In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist
connection
thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial,
social,
entertainment, and art circles.

As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote
Lilienthal, news
coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American
television,
newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic
to Israel. This
is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal
of Palestinian
"terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided
reportage on terrorism,
in which cause is never related to effect, was assured
because the
most effective component of the Jewish connection is
probably that of
media control."
One-Sided 'Holocaust' History

The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had
a profound
impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is
the well
entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious
than in the
"Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate
of Jews in
Europe during World War II.

Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor
at Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [11]

Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in
accordance with
the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with
empathy and
understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust
has become a
ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes
by without a new
TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books,
prose or poetry,
dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing
rather than
abating.

Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable
attention.
Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are,
for example,
the tens of millions of victims of America's World War
II ally,
Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of
victims of
China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million
Germans,
victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of
whom some two
million lost their lives.

The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational"
campaign is
crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula
Hyman, a
professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University,
has observed:
"With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to
forestall
political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces
the sense of
Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely
for their defense
only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering
endured by the
Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational
argument, and
is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of
current Israeli
government policy." [12]

Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught
political science
at City University of New York (Hunter College), says
in his book, The
Holocaust Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is
"a ploy to
delegitimize all criticism of Jews." [13] "By
conferring total
blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes
Israel and
American Jewry from legitimate censure ... Organized
Jewry has
exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of
Israel's and its
own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the
brazen
"shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other
countries by Israel and
organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The
Holocaust,"
Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the
'greatest robbery in
the history of mankind'."

Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against
Arabs, writes Israeli
journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute
certitude that now,
with the White House, the Senate and much of the
American media in our
hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our
own." [14]

Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of
Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the
Jewish-Israeli
hold on the United States: [15]

I've never seen a President ? I don't care who he is ?
stand up to
them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They
always get what
they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the
time. I got to
the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the
American people
understood what a grip those people have got on our
government, they
would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't
have any idea what
goes on.

Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and
Jewish
organizations, in collaboration with this country's
pro-Zionist "amen
corner," are prodding the United States ? the world's
foremost
military and economic power ? into new wars against
Israel's enemies.
As the French ambassador in London recently
acknowledged, Israel ?
which he called "that shitty little country" ? is a
threat to world
peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War
III because of
those people?," he said. [16]

To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in
the United
States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US
support for
Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to
American
interests. In fact, they often conflict.

As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains
entrenched, there
will be no end to the systematic Jewish distortion of
current affairs
and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S.
political
system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody
conflict
between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the
Israeli threat
to peace.
Notes
1.      Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19,
2002, p. 11.
2.      D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The
Guardian (Britain),
April 29, 2002.
3.      Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and
the State
(University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
4.      S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's
Changing
Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration
Policy," Center for
Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.
org/articles/2001/back1301.html
5.      Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and
the New American
Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
6.      Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors
of the Jewish
State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000.
Reprinted in
"Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to
The Washington
Report on Middle East Affairs.
7.      M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment,
Vol. 21, No. 4
(1996), p. 37.
8.      Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside
the American
Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280,
287-288. See
also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
9.      Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April
5, 1996. "Brando
Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4
(OC). A short time
later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his
remarks.
10.      A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New
York: Dodd, Mead,
1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229.
11.      From a 1992 lecture, published in: David
Cesarani, ed., The
Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and
New York:
Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.
12.      Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the
Holocaust," The New York
Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.
13.      Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry
(London, New
York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149.
14.      The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is
identified as a
columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli
daily newspaper,
"from which this article is adapted."
15.      Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted
in: Paul Findley,
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions
Confront Israel's
Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.
16.      D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel
Threatens World Peace,"
Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador
is Daniel
Bernard.

6/02
About the author

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical
Review. He
studied history at the University of Illinois
(Chicago), the
University of Munich, Portland State University and
Indiana University
(M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of
the IHR's Journal
of Historical Review.

Send $2 for a packet of literature and full listing of
books. Or,
order more copies of this leaflet, postpaid, at the
following prices:

10 copies: $2.00 ? 50 copies: $7.50
100 copies, or more: 10 cents each

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Post Office Box 2739 ? Newport Beach, California 92659

www.ihr.org

Free Speech Web Hosting

http://www.1st-amendment.net

Best regards,
Paul Vogel aka the NEEDLE
http://www.cosmotheism.net

We divinely conscious humans are not apart, but are a
meaningful and purposeful part of the whole physical
Cosmos. Humans are both a mental and a spiritual
_expression and manifestation of the universe coming
into a total conscious awakening and full awareness of
both KNOWING and COMPLETING itself. Humans are the
physical manifestation of the cosmos coming into a
total awareness of itself as a UNIFIED WHOLE through
arete' and via both creative and conscious evolution.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: yuanml

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
>English people and Japanese people also have the same universe, sun,
>planet, species, maths, logic, and universal history, yet we have
>separate Wikipedias for English and Japanese...
>By your logic, there shouldn't even be a zh: and we should only have
>one Wikipedia (which would probably be en: although I would much
>prefer is: or lb: or something of that sort)

You just missed my point. That's my fault not to express my point clearly.
I mean we have the same vocabulary in most cases,
we call things using the same name and same concepts in most cases,
this is important, this means we enjoy the same language.
The writing system is different, but most of them can be mapped each other.

>So what? One could make the same arguments for not having separate
>Wikipedias for different languages.

You can't synchronize en: and jp: easily,
because they are different language.
But we can someday find a way to synchronize zh-cn: and zh-tw: easily.
That is the different.

>But the difference between the two isn't merely a "difference of
>character sets". Rather than converting on the level of the individual
>character which will inevitably produce poor results, it is nessecary
>to convert documents on the level of lexemes, for which one needs some
>sort of artificial intelligence capable of separating Chinese texts
>into individual lexemes before conversion. It is also nessecary to
>convert names of countries, special terminology

Did you not try the link I mentioned above?
please visit http://fengzz.net/wiki/ to try.
We are using some markup to solve this lexemes problem,
and it works.

I agree with you that it is inconvenient for traditional Chinese users now.
and I think the request on creating zh-tw version is proper.
But we?d better have a good evaluation of different solutions before we decide.
In my opinion, to keep a single version is benefit for future,
and this is also the consensus of the Chinese Wikipedia community now.
Maybe we should discuss this issue more.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
>> Yes, if you setup zh-tw, people will go there and write articles.
>> But the split of the community will only weaken the growth of the
>> small project
>> and bring more difficult in the future. Suppose two project zh-cn and
>> zh-tw now,
>> and someday we want to synchronize them, and you will find it is very
>> difficult.
>>
>> Yes, if you don?t want synchronize the two, there is no problem.
>
>This is not the case - the two writing systems in the same documents do
>cause problems - merely different problems. The advantage of a
>technical fix to the character problem to have one version is that the
>problems don't grow with time, where as diverged versions do. The
>problem set of making two characters sets work isn't a fast moving
>target, where as keeping up with two sets of wikipedians is.

Stirling, What you said is what I want to say, but my English is poor.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
>This is not the case - the two writing systems in the same documents do
>cause problems - merely different problems. The advantage of a
>technical fix to the character problem to have one version is that the
>problems don't grow with time, where as diverged versions do. The
>problem set of making two characters sets work isn't a fast moving
>target, where as keeping up with two sets of wikipedians is.

Stirling, What you said is what I want to say, but my English is poor.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
To Jin Junshu/Mark

>English people and Japanese people also have the same universe, sun,
>planet, species, maths, logic, and universal history, yet we have
>separate Wikipedias for English and Japanese...
>By your logic, there shouldn't even be a zh: and we should only have
>one Wikipedia (which would probably be en: although I would much
>prefer is: or lb: or something of that sort)

You just missed my point. That's my fault not to express my point clearly.
I mean we have the same vocabulary in most cases,
we call things using the same name and same concepts in most cases,
this is important, this means we enjoy the same language.
The writing system is different, but most of characters can be mapped each other.

>So what? One could make the same arguments for not having separate
>Wikipedias for different languages.

You can't synchronize en: and jp: easily,
because they are different language.
But we can someday find a way to synchronize zh-cn: and zh-tw: easily.
That is the different.

>But the difference between the two isn't merely a "difference of
>character sets". Rather than converting on the level of the individual
>character which will inevitably produce poor results, it is nessecary
>to convert documents on the level of lexemes, for which one needs some
>sort of artificial intelligence capable of separating Chinese texts
>into individual lexemes before conversion. It is also nessecary to
>convert names of countries, special terminology

Did you not try the link I mentioned above?
please visit http://fengzz.net/wiki/ to try.
We are using some markup to solve this lexemes problem,
and it works.

I agree with you that it is inconvenient for traditional Chinese users now.
and I think the request on creating zh-tw version is proper.
But we?d better have a good evaluation of different solutions before we decide.
In my opinion, to keep a single version is benefit for future,
and this is also the consensus of the Chinese Wikipedia community now.
Maybe we should discuss this issue more.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
On Friday 10 September 2004 22:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > On Friday 10 September 2004 15:17, Jens Ropers wrote:
> >>it should not be too much work for a person competent in
> >>both traditional and simplified to add the traditional UI to the
> >>current simplified one.
> >>
> >>The plumbing for this again needs to be laid by our techies.
> >
> > I'm reminding that I wrote a patch which does exactly that.
>
> As discussed at the time, your patch suffered from a number of serious
> problems, notably the total incompatibility with $wgUseDatabaseMessages.

I remember the discussion, but I haven't understand at the time that
you/anyone thinks, and I still fail to see, that is this a serious problem.
The patch solves a problem. Each project (Wikimedia's or not) which wants to
have interface in multiple languages could choose is having ineditable
interface in more languages more or less important than having editable
interface in one language.

> Hashar's made some experimental check-ins on the 1.4 branch which are
> somewhat similar but it's now compatible with database messages: when a
> language setting has not been chosen the database messages are used,
> otherwise messages are pulled from the language file arrays.

OK, then that's a non-issue anyway.

> There is still the problem of navigation links, embedded messages, etc
> which needs to be resolved in a consistent manner to avoid cache
> corruption and probably link table corruption etc, as well as making the
> general navigation links consistently navigable.

I was falling back to English for those things, but I can't recall that anyone
told me that this is not good enough. I'll try to work on this.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Perhaps the nearest equivalent might be "Scots" vs. "English". Read
> http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm to get
> a flavor of Scots, which is an official language of the Scottish
> Parliament.

Of course, one still needs to distinguish between "Scots" as a dialect
of English, and "Scottish" as a Gaelic language.  In dealing with these
issues, however, one may find Scotch to be more useful. :-)

Ec


from_name: Pedro Fortuny Ayuso

body:
Yeah, it looks like, but where is that stated? I am probably asking
for some well-known info, but...

Thanks anyway for answering,

		Pedro.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]En nombre de Mark Pellegrini
> Enviado el: viernes, 10 de septiembre de 2004 22:35
> Para: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Asunto: [WikiEN-l] Censorship by China or bigots in Wikipedia?
>
>
> Pedro wrote:
>  "Paul Vogel's editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked for a period of
> one year." which to me does not mean "renewed each time he tries
> to edit".
>
> The ban renewal is not specifically mentioned in the decision
> because it applies to all
> Arbcom decisions. If you attempt to evade an arbcom ban, it gets
> renewed, period.
> That's what the punishment for attempting to evade a ban is. If
> there were no punishment
> for attempting to evade an arbcom ban, then there  would be
> nothing to stop people from doing it.
> Effectively, it means that people who ignore the arbcom end up
> banning themselves indefinitely.
>
> --Mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.757 / Virus Database: 507 - Release Date: 09/09/2004
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.757 / Virus Database: 507 - Release Date: 09/09/2004


from_name: Thomas Gries

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Wouldn't it be better to store Most of values in
 LocalSettings.php into database?

body:
Dear kissall, dear all,

I definitely **like** the idea of Kissall. Please allow me to extend
his/her idea: we could store most of the "$wg....." constants (those
which are suited for this) on a meta page such as MediaWiki:Localsettings.

During start, Setup.php would simply read wfMsg('
MediaWiki:Localsettings') to get the Admin settings for the former
LocalSettings.php . I mean, those, who the Admin wants to overwrite the
defaultsettings.

The disadvantage is a risk of lower security. I am interested in you
feedback.
Tom


from_name: Matthew Larsen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes

body:
you started this thread!

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:10:54 -0400, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:50:46 +0100, KNOTT, T <tknott at qcl.org.uk> wrote:
> > I don't think you understand. People have tried to talk to him.
> < [...]
>
> I'm a big fan of moderation and arbitration, but can we please not
> have these discussions on the mailing list?  "Please check out this
> RfC and comment on it" is a fine mailing list topic; an ensuing
> discussion of the RfC (which should really be included on that page)
> clutters up the list...
>
> --
> +sj+
> _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Matthew Larsen
   > mat.larsen at gmail.com
   > 07739 785 249


from_name: Neil Harris

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia - semi-automated
	markup-based approach

body:
yuanml wrote:

>To Mark Williamson:
>
>
>
>>By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was
>>merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC
>>users "living in the same universe" or something.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think I lose my point.
>
>tc/sc users enjoy the same concept structure of the universe,
>but en/jp, en/tc or en/sc are not same.
>For example planet Venus in English is a term related to a goddess,
>but in both sc/tc planet Venus is related to the same things - gold
>and star. In one word, tc/sc is the same language.
>This is my point.
>
>The tc/sc users not only enjoy the same grammar of language,
>but also most part of their knowledge systems.
>Let us not talk about Chinese native knowledge,
>such as Chinese history, Foreklore, but let us talk about mordern science.
>Terminologies of mordern science are introduced to China
>since Ming Dynasty hundreds of years ago, and increased vastly after 1900.
>The Chinese knowledge system evolve into their morder form
>just after the New Culture Movment around 1920.
>But the split of tc/sc is about at 1956,
>then the tc/sc enjoy the same backgroud of their knowledge systems.
>>From 1949 to 1980s tc/sc evolved independently for lack of communication,
>then some new terminologies are different, such as in computer science.
>But after 1980s, the communication between tc/sc increased comparatively.
>
>

Disclaimer: I can't read Chinese, so I don't know whether this is
similar to any of the current or proposed solutions, but I have read
some of the literature on the subject. My apologies if I'm going over
old territory.

The best analogy is (I think) the difference between en-us and en-gb:
the differences are mostly "spelling" and idioms. Automatic conversion
is entirely possible, but occasionally imperfect. However, it should be
possible to paraphrase around these problems where they occur and
produce a single text that can be displayed (and edited) in either
language and converted to-and-fro.

Perhaps one way to do it would be as in this fictitious example: if I
have a (say) simplified word that means "fish", but can be transformed
to either (say) "FISH" or "STONE" in the traditional script. Suppose we
auto-convert this '''into the Wiki source''' at edit time to markup like

  [fish=FISH|STONE]

which would display as "fish" highlighted in some way when the page is
rendered in simplified script to show there is a potential
transliteration problem, and as [FISH|STONE] when rendered in
traditional script.

Then it can be cleaned up in markup by writing:

  [fish=FISH]

or similar markup, which will force the traditional rendering to the
correct word, and remove the warning flag for simplified rendering,
since there is now a one-to-one mapping. The same would apply for in
reverse for ambiguous conversions in the opposite direction. With any
luck, this could be entirely lexicon-driven, and would need no AI
research, because we would be find all pages containing ambiguities
automatically, and then harness the copyediting skills of Wikipedians to
find and disambiguate all the problematic text. We could even harness
this when idioms or short phrases differ, to go:

  [idiom in simplified=IDIOM IN TRADITIONAL]

-- Neil


body:
Olve Utne wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 5, brion vibber wrote:
>
>> There's a bug in the new wiki creation script which allows zh-tw, zh-cn,
>> nn, and perhaps other language codes which are defined but had been
>> intended as aliases to be automatically created as separate wikis. Such
>> accidentally created wikis are not supported and may get closed down
>> when noticed and someone gets around to backing up their content.
>
>
> Tim Starling replied:
>
>> I've altered it now so that languages have to be listed in both langlist
>> and languages/Names.php before they can be created. So this sort of
>> thing shouldn't happen anymore.
>
>
> I see that nn (Nynorsk) is on your list of undesired entities.
> Nynorsk is *an official written language* (not dialect) of Norway
> beside the separate written language Bokm?l (nb or bm).
> Please note the following factors:
>
> * Nynorsk and Bokm?l are not "merely one language in different
>   alphabets" (such as can be argued for Chinese trad. / simplified,
>   Serbian / Croatian/Bosnian or Hindi / Urdu),
> * They are not merely a slight orthographic variation
>   of one language within different political entities
>   (such as UK/US English and European/Brazilian Portuguese).
> * They have a significant number of different basic terms,
>   as well as significant differences in orthography,
>   morphology and syntax.
> * The current no.wikipedia is predominantly Bokm?l,
>   with only a small minority of the articles being written in Nynorsk
> * There are only three registered Nynorsk users on bm.wikipedia,
>   and there is consensus amongst these three (see below) that the
>   development of nn.wikipedia should be worked on now -- partially
>   because of the greater ease in finding Nynorsk writers for a Nynorsk
>   wikipedia than for a Bokm?l wikpedia with occasional Nynorsk articles.
>   We also believe as a group (on nn.wikipedia) that Nynorsk writers
>   joining the project will join the no.wikipedia project as well --
>   thus hoping to strengthen the Norwegian wikipedia project as a whole.
> * The participation in more than one wikipedia project is the norm rather
>   than the exception amongst Scandinavian "wikipedians" in general.
>   I participate actively on nn, no/bm, sv and en.
> * Our "slogan" on the nn.wikipedia.org main page is:
>   "Samhald gjev styrke og mangfald gjev rikdom!"
>   This translates, with  as:
>   "Samhold gir styrke og mangfold gir rikdom!" (Bokm?l)
>   "Sammenhold giver styrke og mangfold giver rigdom!" (Danish)
>   "Gemenskap ger styrka och m?ngfall ger rikedom!" (Swedish)
>   (In English, roughly:)
>   "Cooperation gives strength and diversity gives wealth!"
>
I was told by a Norwegian that the Scandanavian languages are all so
closely related that they are effectively one language -- if you want to
look at it that way; or all quite different -- if you want to look at it
the other way. If that's true, it's certainly inconsistent to accept
"Norwegian" and Swedish as different languages, but regard Nynorsk as
merely a dialect of "Norwegian".

Perhaps the nearest equivalent might be "Scots" vs. "English". Read
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm to get a
flavor of Scots, which is an official language of the Scottish Parliament.

-- Neil


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
On Sep 11, 2004, at 12:25 PM, yuanml wrote:

> let us sum up basic fact, pro and con we had discussed in a NPOV
> manner.
>
> ==basic fact==
> *The same language: Chinese.
> *Two writing systems: TC & SC.
> *Chinese Wikipedia now mix TC and SC together.
> *Chinese Wikipedia community now have a consensus on unity.
> *SC artical vs TC artical at Chinese Wikipedia is about 10:1.
> *a unified solution is workable, although it is also acknowledged that
> there are significant challenges.
> *Someone tried to develop a solution for the differences in vocabulary
> among Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland, Singapore and Macau,
> the basic idea of the solution works.
> *there are huge and permanent implications of splitting up the two
>
> ==pros of a single version==
> *it makes the most sense from a language point of view
> *it makes the most sense from the point of view of having a top
> quality NPOV resource.
> *zh would work towards a traditional-simplified solution.
> *The advantage of a technical fix to the character problem
> to have one version is that the problems don't grow with time
> *The problem set of making two characters sets work isn't
> a fast moving target.
>

Someone mentioned another pro:

Technical work is of interest to other wikiprojects

> ==cons of a single version==
> *The SC UI is uncomfortable and scared away some of the TC users.
> *It is difficult for the TC users to look up some material such as
> names of places and people from traditional.

Also has been mentioned

Commits resources to a significant and non-trivial technical project.
Has political implications.

> ==pros of two seperate version==
> *attract more TC users.
> *there is a larger corpus of texts, many of them
> fundamental texts, which exist as originals
> in traditional characters.
>
> ==cons of two seperate version==
> *low quality on NPOV.
> *a technical fix to the character problem to
> diverged versions grow with time.
> *keeping up with two sets of wikipedians is
> a fast moving target.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
Hi,

Le Friday 10 September 2004 20:48, Mark Williamson a ?crit :
> In fact there are, from what I know, many French "dialects", some of
> which can be considered separate languages from French (ie Waloon, for
> which we have a separate Wikipedia, Gallo, etc etc) and others which
> are only minor regional variations.
>
> Of course its probably best if you ask somebody from France...

I see that you don't know what you are talking about.

I am from France, but I can't read nor understand Walloon, nor any other
"French dialects".

Reading the list, the issue with SC and TC is different. They are the same
language, but sometime written with in a different way.

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel's Ban (was: Censorship by China or bigots
	inWikipedia?)

body:
OK, now it's clear. Sorry for asking about something already settled.

Pedro.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org]En nombre de Charles Podles
> Enviado el: viernes, 10 de septiembre de 2004 22:36
> Para: English Wikipedia
> Asunto: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel's Ban (was: Censorship by China or bigots
> inWikipedia?)
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> >I don't know either where this extension of his ban is coming
> from. How many
> >times has he been trying to edit?
> >
> >Fred
> >
> >
> He has tried to edit repeatedly; see [[User:Paul Vogel]] and history
> thereof for the IP addresses he's been using,
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Penalty_for_evasion
> for the rationale
> behind the extensions of the ban.
>
> C. Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.757 / Virus Database: 507 - Release Date: 09/09/2004
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.757 / Virus Database: 507 - Release Date: 09/09/2004


from_name: Vina Wang

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
>So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC
>and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate
>of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have
>private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant
>Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.

Fairly over email is going to be quite impossible, as most people who should be discussing this does not read/write English, and a lot of the relevant fine points are lost in translation.

Also, I'm assuming that Tim and Jimbo is joining the discussion mainly from the software capability perspective, why would fair come into consideration at all?  Whichever way the Chinese wiki communitiy decide to go, they'll be looking at the amount of work to create/maintain software to support it (sorry to put words in your mouths :)

The other perspective that you have look at, is the amount of work that the sysops of the wikis will be looking at the amount of hours to maintain the wiki's quality. 100 hours is the same regardless language or nationality.

Sysops were the ones who had to keep up with the software development, keep versions in sync, run the interlanguage bot, etc. etc.  Before starting a new wiki, not only do you need to worry about how many people will contribute content (less than 100 currently active on Chinese), you also need to think about whether you have the time, and can find other people with the time and inclination to maintain the site, deal with vandals, correct typos, format, and guide the new users through the wiki system.  This is a lot regular, time-consuming and tedious work.

We've just started translating the dozens of pages related to categories.  It's already taken me personally over 20 hours to read through the English wiki, talk about it a bit on the Chinese wiki to see if there are interests, then start translating contents that fits, so Chinese wiki participant who don't read English can see what is being proposed and decide on what to do.  There are several others actively participating in it as well, and I have no idea how much time they sunk into this piece alone.

-Vina


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
>So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC
>and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate
>of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have
>private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant
>Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.

Deciding this fairly over email is going to be quite impossible, as most people who should be discussing this does not read/write English, and a lot of the relevant fine points are lost in translation.

Also, I'm assuming that Tim and Jimbo is joining the discussion mainly from the software capability perspective, why would fair come into consideration at all?  Whichever way the Chinese wiki communitiy decide to go, they'll be looking at the amount of work to create/maintain software to support it (sorry to put words in your mouths :)

The other perspective that you have look at, is the amount of work that the sysops of the wikis will be looking at the amount of hours to maintain the wiki's quality. 100 hours is the same regardless language or nationality.

Sysops were the ones who had to keep up with the software development, and deal with the day to day issues of having a large public website where anybody can come edit pages. This has been alluded to in various emails about having a separate wiki, but let me spell it out here.

As a sysop for a new wiki, not only do you need to worry about how many people will contribute content, you also need to think about whether you have the time, and can find other people with the time and inclination to maintain the site, deal with vandals, correct typos, format, and guide the new users through the wiki system.  This is a lot regular, time-consuming and tedious work.

We've just started translating the dozens of pages related to categories.  It's already taken me personally over 20 hours to read through the English wiki, talk about it a bit on the Chinese wiki to see if there are interests, then start translating contents that fits, so Chinese wiki participant who don't read English can see what is being proposed and decide on what to do.  There are several others actively participating in it as well, and I have no idea how much time they sunk into this piece alone.

-Vina


list: foundation-l

from_name: Kiss All

subject:
[Foundation-l] An urgent Proposal: A fair,
	effective and free rewarding system for WikiPedia volunteers

body:
Dear all,

This idea appeared in my mind when I was in bathroom this morning .
And hope I am using the right words and sentences to express my idea
because English is not my mother tongue. :-)

Proposal:

* We ***MUST*** find fair,effective, and free ways to reward, either
spiritually or financially, those volunteers who are diligently,
consistently creating and editing high-quality articles in wikipedia
site family.

* And We also **MUST** extend this reward method to any person who
directly or indirectly contributed or are contributing to wikipeida
site family by any means.

== Do we really need this? Absolutely! ==

By fairly and effectively rewarding those page creating and editing
volunteers, we can encourage and enable current volunteers to do even
better work and attract more new voluteers to participate in this
magnificent, world-wide cooperation
which will definitely benefit to our planet in the future .

Actually, a positive feedback cycle could be established in this way
and WikiPedia would have a model to grow rapidly and healthily:

volunteers write/edit good articles--> more people are willing to read
them, find they are useful and reward the volunteers  --> volunteers
get rewarding, either spiritually or financially -->voluteers are
encouraged and be able to write more good  articles --> ...

I am not treating volunteers as experimental white mice here(Remeber I
am one of them). But this cycle simply works! Doesn't it? Of course,
there are some people don't need any kind of reward to do excellent
work, just let them be and provide an option to turn off the rewarding
faucet to them :-)

== Mission Impossible? Fair, Effective, and Free? ==

=== How to be Fair? ===
*let all readers/visiters have an equally chance to participate in
grading any volunteer and any article (or even any section) in terms
of quality and quantiy.

* A convenient way for readers to grade current article or section.

* A convenient way for readers to grade each volunteer

* Or we can just focus the quality of the article, let computer derive
the grading of the volunteers from the articles ? No, I don't like
this way. Computers are not smart enough to identify real work or junk
work currently. And somebody could abuse it if he/she knows the
deriving algorithms.

===How to be Effective?===
Simply and easy: Give them Fame! && Give them money!

Needless to say, all volunteers deserve fame and money via their excellent work.
Again turn off the rewarding faucet to people who don't want those two :-)

==== Fame ====
* Showing their names (even nicknames work well enough for encouraging
purpose)explicitly under the title of each article(or even each
section if it is peice of enough work), sorted by grading numbers
provided by readers/visiters which can be used to identify the quality
and quantity of their work

* Better organization of the contribution information for individual
volunteers. I don't want talk too much about it this time, but the
current page for this is a mess.

* A centralized monument(a php page actually) carved in the important
names and their pictures(if they don't mind) who contributed a lot to
wikipedia in history (though it is a short history)

* A centralized room to showing current star volunteers with highest
grading number along with their pictures if they don't mind.

==== Money ====
* Let readers/visitors have changes to directly donate money
flawlessly(1 cent, 1 dollar or one house if they really want) to the
volunteers at their own will.

* Or let them donate all to WikiPedia and let WikiPida distribute
them? NO!NO!NO! Some bureaucrats could abuse their power and ruin the
whole direct and fair reward mechanism. We already have the option for
visitors to donate to WikiMedia
Foundation directly.Don't mess them up.

===How to be free? ===
It is actually care-free enough for WikiPedia Site family if we use
the methods I mentioned above.

===Is it feasible? ===
I cannot see any technical obstacles to prevent us from realizing this
grading-rewarding system. However, we need consult experts for the
non-technical issues, I am not a lawyer.

And more over, it is not a new idea at all. I saw something similar
happening in sourceforge.net.

== Its impact on the future==
Finally, what is the impact of this open, direct,and discrete
working-rewarding model on our world in the future?

I would say: A revolution has began! Why? This model can facilitate
people to do what they really have interested in while get the reward
they deserve if their interests can actually benefit a large group of
people in some way. The direct feature of this model also eliminates
most of the intermediate costs or overhead which is not unusual in
current world.

By contrast, traditionally, we have to be employeed by some
organizations for a relatively longer time to contribute our wisdom,
knowledge, and efforts to end-users indirectly. However, our interests
are usually changing and sometimes we are
feeling be forced to do something we no longer like to do. The worse
thing is that the reward from the end-user are so indirect that
sometimes the people between us and the users grab a large portion
from it in an amount of we think they do not
deserve. The result is quite obvious: we get really frustrated and
therefore work ineffectively.

Hey! I am not saying this model can completely phase off the
traditional work model. The people between the workers and users  are
indeed necessary for many big products, the presure imposed by
employers serves as stimulant for us to secrete more adrenalin to
become more powerful and energic than usual, and there is no detour to
gain real achievement without loyal to your original faith and
interest.

What I am really going to emphasize is that some real requirements in
our world can be fulfilled better in simpler, directer, and even
discrete way. And, We already have paid enough attention to the free
spirit of software sharing,knowlege sharing and so on and so forth. It
is time for us to see another  unadulterated side of this coin: the
sharing is also joyfull, profitable, and thus sustainable and
scalable.

In conclusion, please seriously consider my above proposal and the
meaning behind it.  Let's put it in roll as soon as possible! I bet it
will make a big difference to wikipedia site family, the whole free
resource community(no matter it is a
idea, a software, a valuable experience,an encyclopedia article, a
piece of knowledge or anything else useful to our world), and most
important, it may make a big difference to you, my lovely, respectable
friends combating in this money? world for the noble ideal of sharing
knowlege among the world for free.

I am also puting this initial, unmature proposal into page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_Fair%2C_Effective_and_Free_Rewarding_System_for_WikiPedia_Volunteers

Please refine it (English is a pain for me) and add your ideas or
comments if you are interested.

I am waiting for your response......

Best Regards,

kissall

--
Be good....


list: wikimedia-l


subject:
[Wikitech-l] An urgent Proposal: A fair,
	effective and free rewarding system for WikiPedia volunteers


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia - please publish!

body:
yuanml wrote:
> I really want to solve this problem, and I think I have the ability,
> but just now i only have no time. The other difficulty for me is that
> I don't have a thorough understand of the Squid cache.
>
> I think, to solve this problem, we must design a solution are conformable with the
> url, database and Squid cache requirement. Chinese Wikipedia community had discussed these problems
> for a long time, The real problem so far is that no programmer take the real step.
>
> I plan th solve it in the next year when I finnished my graduate thesis, if no one take the real step.
> It is very welcome that someone is interesting about the problem and work hard to solve it.

Please, please publish what you have done. It is not only the Chinese
Wikipedia community that is interested in solving this problem. Other
developers on the MediaWiki development team have the necessary
expertise in database and squid issues, but don't have the linguistic
knowledge.

We all understand that in a volunteer project, motivation comes and
goes. If you lose motivation, it's important that you publish what you
have done so that others may continue it.

I can give you CVS access if that would help.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
I would be curious to know who started the simple english wikipedia.
If it was discusssed/voted in the main english wikipedia...

and mostly why it was set...
whose public it is addressed to...

Anthere

yuanml a ?crit:
> To Mark Williamson:
>
>
>>By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was
>>merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC
>>users "living in the same universe" or something.
>
>
> I don't think I lose my point.
>
> tc/sc users enjoy the same concept structure of the universe,
> but en/jp, en/tc or en/sc are not same.
> For example planet Venus in English is a term related to a goddess,
> but in both sc/tc planet Venus is related to the same things - gold
> and star. In one word, tc/sc is the same language.
> This is my point.
>
> The tc/sc users not only enjoy the same grammar of language,
> but also most part of their knowledge systems.
> Let us not talk about Chinese native knowledge,
> such as Chinese history, Foreklore, but let us talk about mordern science.
> Terminologies of mordern science are introduced to China
> since Ming Dynasty hundreds of years ago, and increased vastly after 1900.
> The Chinese knowledge system evolve into their morder form
> just after the New Culture Movment around 1920.
> But the split of tc/sc is about at 1956,
> then the tc/sc enjoy the same backgroud of their knowledge systems.
>>From 1949 to 1980s tc/sc evolved independently for lack of communication,
> then some new terminologies are different, such as in computer science.
> But after 1980s, the communication between tc/sc increased comparatively.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
I think we also need to make a distinction between two different "two versions" depends on what is split.

There can be two versions of the UI, or two versions of the article content, or two versions of both, which is what the original split was.

Two versions of the UI/Skin is what someone is working on the software for (sorry I deleted the email already so I don't remember who it was).  This is for the ease of the readers more for the editors.  Editors are familiar with the layout, and can generally make out what the page is, even on completely unknown languages.  It is also the most important part to a completely new person to wiki, to showcase what wiki is about.

I haven't heard anyone who actually objects to this.

There can also be two versions of the content like the current Chinese wiki.  You really won't know which charset something is in until  you read it.

For people who are exclusively SC or TC users, the mixed version can be mildly annoying to completely revolting.  Each person has different tolerance level.  I can read TC, but can't edit in TC, since I don't know how to get my computer to take Pinyin and output TC.  A person who is well versed in both to the degree to edit articles in both is extremely rare.

This is a constant debate on Chinese wiki, and the most recent decision is to reduce duplicate articles in Chinese wiki where the tranditional and simplified version differs in charset only.  Pages that does not already have two versions does not get one created.  Instead, both charset goes on one page.  For Chinese wiki, this is a possible though imperfect solution since the two versions came from the same language source.

This is for the convience of the editors to not having to type in the same thing twice, also for the readers to get the most complete information currently available on wiki.  It is voted in by the editors, as only the editors vote, like any other voting pages on wiki.

Hence the ch-tw split which is a split for both, UI and articles.  What is being opposed by a lot of people is the complete split for articles.  It's a headache for editors but also a dis-service to a lot of readers.  Most Chinese readers would rather get a non-preferred version of TC or SC article, rather than not getting anything at all.  Interwiki links between the versions only work if there is a corresponding article.  Redirects does not bring you to the other wiki, but can be used to redirect between TC/SC on the same wiki.

-Vina
-----Original Message-----
From: Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net>
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:35:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

On Sep 11, 2004, at 12:25 PM, yuanml wrote:

> let us sum up basic fact, pro and con we had discussed in a NPOV
> manner.
>
> ==basic fact==
> *The same language: Chinese.
> *Two writing systems: TC & SC.
> *Chinese Wikipedia now mix TC and SC together.
> *Chinese Wikipedia community now have a consensus on unity.
> *SC artical vs TC artical at Chinese Wikipedia is about 10:1.
> *a unified solution is workable, although it is also acknowledged that
> there are significant challenges.
> *Someone tried to develop a solution for the differences in vocabulary
> among Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland, Singapore and Macau,
> the basic idea of the solution works.
> *there are huge and permanent implications of splitting up the two
>
> ==pros of a single version==
> *it makes the most sense from a language point of view
> *it makes the most sense from the point of view of having a top
> quality NPOV resource.
> *zh would work towards a traditional-simplified solution.
> *The advantage of a technical fix to the character problem
> to have one version is that the problems don't grow with time
> *The problem set of making two characters sets work isn't
> a fast moving target.
>

Someone mentioned another pro:

Technical work is of interest to other wikiprojects

> ==cons of a single version==
> *The SC UI is uncomfortable and scared away some of the TC users.
> *It is difficult for the TC users to look up some material such as
> names of places and people from traditional.

Also has been mentioned

Commits resources to a significant and non-trivial technical project.
Has political implications.

> ==pros of two seperate version==
> *attract more TC users.
> *there is a larger corpus of texts, many of them
> fundamental texts, which exist as originals
> in traditional characters.
>
> ==cons of two seperate version==
> *low quality on NPOV.
> *a technical fix to the character problem to
> diverged versions grow with time.
> *keeping up with two sets of wikipedians is
> a fast moving target.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Lorenzarius

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:43:55 -0700, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chances are, someday there will be a way to synchronize en: and jp:
> easily too. How is that relevant?

You are using an inappropriate comparison. How can one compare the
difference between English and Japanese to the difference between TC
and SC? Linguists would laugh to death on hearing this.

> Yes, I tried it. So what?

So what? That means we are solving the problem. While you're evading
the problem, by simply splitting zh into zh-tw and zh-cn.

> "Community consensus"? Let me give you a scenario here which I find
> comparable to the "community consensus" on zh:
>
> The People's Republic of China decides to hold a vote on the fate of
> Taiwan. Taiwanese people as well as mainlanders get to vote. The
> result is an overwhelming majority in favour of immediate
> "reunification" using force if nessecary. This is not a fair vote,
> because since the PRC is by far the majority here their opinion is
> much more well-represented than that of Taiwan. I think this is
> similar to the situation on zh:, with a group of simplified users -
> including you - and a mere handful of traditional users who agree with
> them reaching a "consensus" to keep a unified zh:.
>
> So, you have two choices here: we can run Wikipedia like it is the PRC
> and hold a sham vote where one group of people gets to decide the fate
> of another group of people, or we can run it *fairly* where we have
> private e-mail discussions between Traditional users and the relevant
> Wikipedia people, ie Tim Starling, Jimbo, etc etc.

This is not a comparable scenario.

Mainland Chinese does not live in Taiwan. They are not the people of
Taiwan. Thus they have no right to decide whether Taiwan should do
anything.

However, wikipedians from mainland does not only read SC exclusively.
Most of them can read both TC and SC. That makes them eligible to vote
on this TC/SC issue.

And why do you think mainlanders would vote in favor of unification?
Is that because you have some prejudice against people from mainland?
If this is so, this again shows you that you don't understand the zh
community.

Lorenzarius


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- Kiss All <kissall at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This idea appeared in my mind when I was in bathroom this morning .

<extra grande snip>

Personally, no.

My reward to volunteering for Wikipedia is that I get to do something
mostly fun with mostly fun people.

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

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] If you want to include a point-of-view, then write it.

body:
Jimbo writes:
> RK, you need to take it through the mediation process
> and if that fails, through the arbitration process.
> Ranting on the mailing list is not helpful.

You seem to misunderstand my point: Mediation is about
coming to terms on what should be in an article.
Fortunately, that particular kind of problem isn't being
discussed here.

Danny doesn't make any edits to these articles; I perceived
him as being abusive, and that is a violation of Wikipedia
etiquette. He has made it clear that he has no intention of
adding to the articles in question, despite my own repeated
invitations for him to do so. He just was insulting me,
which is not the point of our project.

As regards JFW, I didn't bring any concerns to the list, it
was JFW who did this!  I did reply, of course, to explain
my confusion at his letter.  Summary: JFW can add any info
he likes; I'd be happy to see this. I repeatedly have
agreed with him on all the points he makes about NPOV and
article content, and so I do not understand why he has made
himself believe the opposite.  I did, however, strongly
object made to a false claim about my not providing quotes
that he asked for. If someone doesn't like the content of
the quotes, they should complain to the author, not me!
(Of course, if you missed his original letter here, and
only saw my response, I can see how you would assume I was
venting inappropriately.)

Here is my point, and I think that its what everyone here
has always assumed as obvious:  If you want to include a
point-of-view, then write it.  Never criticise others for
not writing what you wish you had written yourself. This
point, which I have made twice now, surely is not
"ranting".

Sincerely,

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
Seconded. I edit Wikipedia because I want to, not because I'm getting rewards for doing so. I'd like it to stay that way.

--Slowking Man
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Christopher Mahan<mailto:chris_mahan at yahoo.com>
  To: Kiss All<mailto:kissall at gmail.com> ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<mailto:foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
  Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] An urgent Proposal: A fair,effective and free rewarding system for WikiPedia volunteers

  --- Kiss All <kissall at gmail.com<mailto:kissall at gmail.com>> wrote:

  > Dear all,
  >
  > This idea appeared in my mind when I was in bathroom this morning .

  <extra grande snip>

  Personally, no.

  My reward to volunteering for Wikipedia is that I get to do something
  mostly fun with mostly fun people.

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


subject:
[Wikitech-l] proposal: make page title a link (linking to => "what
	links here")

body:
On UseMod-Wiki, the rendered page titles are links. When you click onto
the page title, you get what is called there "backlinks" and what is
called on the MediaWiki "What links here".

My proposal is to implement this (back-)linked page titles also on
MediaWiki. It helps to save space on every page (you don't need that
extra "What links here" link).

Tom


subject:
[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia? Academic degrees have real
	usefulness

body:
A stable version of Wikipedia has a questionable future if
it does not rely on people with academic degrees as a very
imporant part of our editorial review process. Anything
less will result it in being considered one step above "fan
fiction" by high-school, college and university professors.

There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here,
and it doesn't help us. It seems to stem from a
misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia
contributors have. Some people seem to think that
egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant
to review an article. This is just as true as saying that
all people are equally tall, and that all food in a
supermarket is equally nutritious.  In other words, the
proposition is violently false.

I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s
in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and
corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
when it comes to reviewing Physics articles.  I'd honestly
be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American
Literature will produce better editorial oversight and
corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.

Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and
have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else
from contributing. It does not prevent anyone else from
offering corrections or edits.  It isn't even
anti-egalitarian.  True egalitarianism only means that all
people have a right to study a subject, and to try and
become experts in said subject.  It does *not* mean that
all people are already experts on said subject!

Robert (RK)

=====
I?m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it?s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

body:
On 11 Sep 2004, at 00:47, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/
>> 030521.html
>
> But this does nothing to address the criticism that our content is not
> vetted
> by experts. I agree that appeal to authority is largely a logical
> fallacy, but
> it nonetheless is followed like a religion by a great many people (who
> then
> blindly trust what the experts say). If we want to have them read our
> content,
> then we will have to give them that bit of comfort.
>
> -- mav

No. We. Don't.

Let me put it like this:

"But having an elected parliament and president does nothing to address
the criticism that our laws are not vetted by dukes and kings. Appeal
to authority may be flawed, but it's nonetheless followed by a great
many people. If we want them to abide our laws, then we will have to
give them that bit of comfort."

;-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

body:
Hey!
Brain wave!

Parliamentary democracy:

We crown Jimmy king and "'''Expertus universalis'''" -- and then
relegate him to the practically exclusively ceremonial role of
rubberstamping all decisions by the review club as outlined in
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
!
Then we have our authority and expert!!!

GOD SAVE KING JIMMY!

Psst. Jimmy! It would save you an awful lotta work. Set up some rules
in your email program:
IF email received with subject of "request for approval" THEN reply
with body text of "Approved." ENDIF
Wouldn't that be beautiful?

;-)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Making a stable version more prominent

body:
Ed Poor writes:
> For our first 3 1/2 years, *all* our articles were
> development versions. We had to do it that way because
> it was the only way to attract enough writers to get
> started. For our next 96 1/2 years, as we catch up to
> Britannica and World Book, I think we should adopt
> mav's idea. We should make our "stable" versions more
> prominent. When Google sends their robot by, to index
> the latest changes, tell the robot to look at the stable
> version -- not the latest "development version".

Wow, sounds like an excellent idea to me.

(But to make sure that everyone including Paul Vogel is
happy, let's make sure that the editors are not part of the
Jewish-Zionist-Socialist-Marxist conspiracy which controls
the internet.)

Robert (RK), Zionist Conspiracy member #100709,
sub-committee on controlling the weather and this season's
hem-lines.

=====
I?m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it?s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: RE (2): [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?

body:
On 11 Sep 2004, at 00:47, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
>
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/
>> 030521.html
>
> But this does nothing to address the criticism that our content is not
> vetted
> by experts. I agree that appeal to authority is largely a logical
> fallacy, but
> it nonetheless is followed like a religion by a great many people (who
> then
> blindly trust what the experts say). If we want to have them read our
> content,
> then we will have to give them that bit of comfort.
>
> -- mav

Seriously now, if our future review club (or whatever we decide upon)
does a markedly better job at reviewing articles, then people ''will''
learn that they ''can'' respect such an institution, even without
"expertism" (ie. without giving anybody's opinion more weight by merit
of the speaker's prior achievement, title, whatever). Good
contributions from "experts" will prevail ''anyway'', without us
''treating'' anybody as an "expert", as "better than the rest of us" or
as a "first class Wikipedian". In the area of article review as well,
sound views will prevail by their own merit -- regardless of who voiced
them.

Of course we will win over "experts" (and thus, those who follow them)
as well. (Because "experts" more often than not excel at critical
reading and if we do a good job, an increasing number of "experts" will
duly tell the doubters that we're actually quite good.) BUT we should
NOT provide a soapbox for any kind of such academic title, medal or
beauty contests ''within'' the Wikipedia. "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The rest is staying
the course and weathering some rough waves of criticism every once in a
while.

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


from_name: yuanml

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
To Mark Williamson:

> By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was
> merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC
> users "living in the same universe" or something.

I don't think I lose my point.

tc/sc users enjoy the same concept structure of the universe,
but en/jp, en/tc or en/sc are not same.
For example planet Venus in English is a term related to a goddess,
but in both sc/tc planet Venus is related to the same things - gold
and star. In one word, tc/sc is the same language.
This is my point.

The tc/sc users not only enjoy the same grammar of language,
but also most part of their knowledge systems.
Let us not talk about Chinese native knowledge,
such as Chinese history, Foreklore, but let us talk about mordern science.
Terminologies of mordern science are introduced to China
since Ming Dynasty hundreds of years ago, and increased vastly after 1900.
The Chinese knowledge system evolve into their morder form
just after the New Culture Movment around 1920.
But the split of tc/sc is about at 1956,
then the tc/sc enjoy the same backgroud of their knowledge systems.
>From 1949 to 1980s tc/sc evolved independently for lack of communication,
then some new terminologies are different, such as in computer science.
But after 1980s, the communication between tc/sc increased comparatively.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 10

body:
> Scr?obh Mark Williamson:
>
> > Yes, I tried it. So what?
>
> So, it means that there seems to be a technical way of doing these things,
> which most of the Chinese-speaking people on this list agree is either
> adequate, or close to being adequate.  Lets just look at what has been said
> thus far:

"most of the Chinese-speaking people"? You mean yuanml, shizhao,
fuzheado? All primarily users of Simplified.

> - Most Chinese people who understand "Traditional" can also read/write in
> "Simplified".  This does not necessarily apply in reverse, however.

No, you have it backwards. Most people born with Simplified can also
read and write in Traditional. But not the other way around.

> - There appears to be an automated technical way to translate from one
> system to the other, albeit one that occasionally mucks things up.

The same can be said for machine translation between any two given languages.

> - Most zh-language Wikipedians are in favour of a unified system.

The *majority*, not most. And guess who forms this majority mostly?
Simplified users.

> - There doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to split the project except,
> well, you.

...who has voiced their opinion on this list thus far. And it *does*
appear we have some Chinese speakers on this list at least who are
wanting to stay neutral but have said things in my favour.

> - I believe official policy is that splitting Wikipedias for
> nationalistic/patriotic reasons is that it doesn't happen.  See the
> Brazilian/Portugese debate that pops up every now and then for what happens.

Nationalistic/patriotic reasons? These languages use TWO DIFFERENT
WRITING SYSTEMS. They don't have just minor grammatical and
terminology differences every once in a while like pt-br and pt-pt.
(actually, they have almost no grammatical differences, but they have
plenty of terminology inconsistencies)

> Based on these opinions that have been put out over the past few days, I
> think it's obvious that the action that has been taken is the correct one.
> I've no idea of the quality of your submissions, but if they're good, why
> not port them over to the unified Wiki (under a seperate page, if necessary,
> ie: [[Topic]] and [[Topic (Traditional)]].  As far as I can see, nothing has
> been deleted yet, and numerous tools have been pointed out in the discussion
> that would make it an automated process.

Numerous = 1. I have pointed out that simple interwiki'ing will not
work because of article titles and because of the fact that many of
the articles with Traditional titles already exist, yet they are
partially or fully in Simplified. This means that such articles would
have to be sorted through manually.

Jin Junshu/mark


body:
Actually it is very different.

Simplified and Traditional is not just a difference in idioms and
terminology, it is a difference between writing systems and even
though the majority of characters have 1-to-1 correspondences,
accurate conversion nessecitates something that can tell from context
what traditional character is the proper equivalent for the simplified
character used.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:13:05 +0100, Neil Harris
<usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> yuanml wrote:
>
> >To Mark Williamson:
> >
> >
> >
> >>By the way, since when am I trying to compare en/jp and tc/sc? I was
> >>merely responding to something somebody else said about SC and TC
> >>users "living in the same universe" or something.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't think I lose my point.
> >
> >tc/sc users enjoy the same concept structure of the universe,
> >but en/jp, en/tc or en/sc are not same.
> >For example planet Venus in English is a term related to a goddess,
> >but in both sc/tc planet Venus is related to the same things - gold
> >and star. In one word, tc/sc is the same language.
> >This is my point.
> >
> >The tc/sc users not only enjoy the same grammar of language,
> >but also most part of their knowledge systems.
> >Let us not talk about Chinese native knowledge,
> >such as Chinese history, Foreklore, but let us talk about mordern science.
> >Terminologies of mordern science are introduced to China
> >since Ming Dynasty hundreds of years ago, and increased vastly after 1900.
> >The Chinese knowledge system evolve into their morder form
> >just after the New Culture Movment around 1920.
> >But the split of tc/sc is about at 1956,
> >then the tc/sc enjoy the same backgroud of their knowledge systems.
> >>From 1949 to 1980s tc/sc evolved independently for lack of communication,
> >then some new terminologies are different, such as in computer science.
> >But after 1980s, the communication between tc/sc increased comparatively.
> >
> >
>
> Disclaimer: I can't read Chinese, so I don't know whether this is
> similar to any of the current or proposed solutions, but I have read
> some of the literature on the subject. My apologies if I'm going over
> old territory.
>
> The best analogy is (I think) the difference between en-us and en-gb:
> the differences are mostly "spelling" and idioms. Automatic conversion
> is entirely possible, but occasionally imperfect. However, it should be
> possible to paraphrase around these problems where they occur and
> produce a single text that can be displayed (and edited) in either
> language and converted to-and-fro.
>
> Perhaps one way to do it would be as in this fictitious example: if I
> have a (say) simplified word that means "fish", but can be transformed
> to either (say) "FISH" or "STONE" in the traditional script. Suppose we
> auto-convert this '''into the Wiki source''' at edit time to markup like
>
>   [fish=FISH|STONE]
>
> which would display as "fish" highlighted in some way when the page is
> rendered in simplified script to show there is a potential
> transliteration problem, and as [FISH|STONE] when rendered in
> traditional script.
>
> Then it can be cleaned up in markup by writing:
>
>   [fish=FISH]
>
> or similar markup, which will force the traditional rendering to the
> correct word, and remove the warning flag for simplified rendering,
> since there is now a one-to-one mapping. The same would apply for in
> reverse for ambiguous conversions in the opposite direction. With any
> luck, this could be entirely lexicon-driven, and would need no AI
> research, because we would be find all pages containing ambiguities
> automatically, and then harness the copyediting skills of Wikipedians to
> find and disambiguate all the problematic text. We could even harness
> this when idioms or short phrases differ, to go:
>
>   [idiom in simplified=IDIOM IN TRADITIONAL]
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
I agree, (apart from when u went overboard on 'all mean are created
equal'  hollywood stuff)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:05:26 +0200, Jens Ropers <ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2004, at 00:47, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> >
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/
> >> 030521.html
> >
> > But this does nothing to address the criticism that our content is not
> > vetted
> > by experts. I agree that appeal to authority is largely a logical
> > fallacy, but
> > it nonetheless is followed like a religion by a great many people (who
> > then
> > blindly trust what the experts say). If we want to have them read our
> > content,
> > then we will have to give them that bit of comfort.
> >
> > -- mav
>
> Seriously now, if our future review club (or whatever we decide upon)
> does a markedly better job at reviewing articles, then people ''will''
> learn that they ''can'' respect such an institution, even without
> "expertism" (ie. without giving anybody's opinion more weight by merit
> of the speaker's prior achievement, title, whatever). Good
> contributions from "experts" will prevail ''anyway'', without us
> ''treating'' anybody as an "expert", as "better than the rest of us" or
> as a "first class Wikipedian". In the area of article review as well,
> sound views will prevail by their own merit -- regardless of who voiced
> them.
>
> Of course we will win over "experts" (and thus, those who follow them)
> as well. (Because "experts" more often than not excel at critical
> reading and if we do a good job, an increasing number of "experts" will
> duly tell the doubters that we're actually quite good.) BUT we should
> NOT provide a soapbox for any kind of such academic title, medal or
> beauty contests ''within'' the Wikipedia. "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The rest is staying
> the course and weathering some rough waves of criticism every once in a
> while.
>
> -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]
>     www.ropersonline.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Matthew Larsen
   > mat.larsen at gmail.com
   > 07739 785 249


subject: [Wikipedia-l] One Chinese - was nn (Norw. Nynorsk) wikipedia

body:
Not to muck up the ongoing discussion regarding Nynorsk/Bokm?l, on
which I have read a bit, but I'd like to point out something relevant
to the Chinese discussion.

Nynorsk and Bokm?l are for the most part mutually intelligible. They
use basically exactly the same writing system.

Yet Nynorsk has recently been awarded its own Wikipedia which has
around 60 articles (vs the over 700 "legitimate" articles in the
database of zh-tw:); not that I disagree with that but that for
various reasons, no: who had previously believed they could cooperate
are now splitting. Very accurate computer conversion between the two
is possible and exists although it is not 100% accurate. Nynorsk and
Bokm?l are close enough together that they wouldn't nessecarily even
need separate articles like Trad. and Simp. do ATM (pending the
implementation of the "solution" proposed by some of the Simplified
users) but could in most cases be in the same article, following a
similar policy to that of en: regarding US vs International English.

This is clearly a very sticky subject as is the other issue, but
ultimately it should be up to those raised using Nynorsk who use it in
their everyday lives who get to make the decision, not those who use
Bokm?l.

Mark/Jin Junshu

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:11:24 -0400, Olve Utne <utne at nvg.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 5, brion vibber wrote:
> >There's a bug in the new wiki creation script which allows zh-tw, zh-cn,
> >nn, and perhaps other language codes which are defined but had been
> >intended as aliases to be automatically created as separate wikis. Such
> >accidentally created wikis are not supported and may get closed down
> >when noticed and someone gets around to backing up their content.
>
> Tim Starling replied:
> >I've altered it now so that languages have to be listed in both langlist
> >and languages/Names.php before they can be created. So this sort of
> >thing shouldn't happen anymore.
>
> I see that nn (Nynorsk) is on your list of undesired entities.
> Nynorsk is *an official written language* (not dialect) of Norway
> beside the separate written language Bokm?l (nb or bm).
> Please note the following factors:
>
> * Nynorsk and Bokm?l are not "merely one language in different
>    alphabets" (such as can be argued for Chinese trad. / simplified,
>    Serbian / Croatian/Bosnian or Hindi / Urdu),
> * They are not merely a slight orthographic variation
>    of one language within different political entities
>    (such as UK/US English and European/Brazilian Portuguese).
> * They have a significant number of different basic terms,
>    as well as significant differences in orthography,
>    morphology and syntax.
> * The current no.wikipedia is predominantly Bokm?l,
>    with only a small minority of the articles being written in Nynorsk
> * There are only three registered Nynorsk users on bm.wikipedia,
>    and there is consensus amongst these three (see below) that the
>    development of nn.wikipedia should be worked on now -- partially
>    because of the greater ease in finding Nynorsk writers for a Nynorsk
>    wikipedia than for a Bokm?l wikpedia with occasional Nynorsk articles.
>    We also believe as a group (on nn.wikipedia) that Nynorsk writers
>    joining the project will join the no.wikipedia project as well --
>    thus hoping to strengthen the Norwegian wikipedia project as a whole.
> * The participation in more than one wikipedia project is the norm rather
>    than the exception amongst Scandinavian "wikipedians" in general.
>    I participate actively on nn, no/bm, sv and en.
> * Our "slogan" on the nn.wikipedia.org main page is:
>    "Samhald gjev styrke og mangfald gjev rikdom!"
>    This translates, with  as:
>    "Samhold gir styrke og mangfold gir rikdom!" (Bokm?l)
>    "Sammenhold giver styrke og mangfold giver rigdom!" (Danish)
>    "Gemenskap ger styrka och m?ngfall ger rikedom!" (Swedish)
>    (In English, roughly:)
>    "Cooperation gives strength and diversity gives wealth!"
>
> I cannot see that there is any reason to block Nynorsk as a separate
> wikipedia any more than it would make sense to block Bokm?l, Swedish or
> Danish as separate entities. Nynorsk is not any less defined as a language
> than the three other ones -- and all four of them are mostly mutually
> intelligible, by the way.
>
> Why is a Nynorsk wikipedia any more undesirable than an  Els?ssisch or
> Walon one? Or separate Portuguese/Gallego ones? Because some Bokm?l users
> (officially a different language) are sceptical? Would it be right if
> Castilian wikipedians were free to deny a Catalonian wikipedia?
>
> I support fully the advent of a common Scandinavian wikipedia with
> user-selected language interface and articles coordinated between the four
> official languages (and with parallel articles being useful in many cases)
> -- WHEN the time is ready.  But I also think it would be wrong to
> specifically inhibit the Nynorsk language's opportunity to participate
> fully and systematically in the building of material for a joined project
> on equal terms, rather than to be forced into the mainly Bokm?l project as
> a not very visible or transparently organised minority.
>
> Please refer to the page http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Olve for
> the discussion and consensus amongst the Nynorsk users at this early stage.
>
> Our plans are to continue the development of http://nn.wikipedia.org/ and
> to start recruiting new users actively when the user interface is more
> complete and there are a few more articles. We also have made it very clear
> in our discussion that we will strongly encourage these new writers to
> participate on http://no.wikipedia.org/ as well -- thus making sure that
> our project results in added diversity (through a Nynorsk wikipedia being
> made available) as well as a general strengthening of the no,wikipedia project.
>
> Rather than having non-users of the language Nynorsk closing down this one
> out of the four separate Scandinavian written languages' wikipedias, it
> would be constructive if we could have some assistance in uploading the
> finished and available LanguageNn.php file and have one or more of the
> Nynorsk writers (currently: Olve, Dittaeva, BjarteSorensen) be appointed as
> an administrator/bureaucrat.
>
> Any constructive dialogue and/or assistance is of course welcome!
>
> Beste helsing (Best greetings),
>
> Olve Utne
>
> ___________________
>
> Olve Utne
> http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
> http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%E4ndare:Olve
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Olve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Daniel Wunsch

subject:
[Wikitech-l] proposal: make page title a link (linking to =>
	"what links here")

body:
hi!

> My proposal is to implement this (back-)linked page titles also on
> MediaWiki. It helps to save space on every page (you don't need that
> extra "What links here" link).

personally i like this feature - but for the newbie it is not very intuitive.
'what links' here is selfdocumenting, these links are not.

daniel


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Robert,

Any problem can be addressed by talking to the other parties, negotiation,
Requests for comment, and mediation.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] If you want to include a point-of-view, then write it.
>
> Mediation is about
> coming to terms on what should be in an article.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: One Chinese Wikipedia

body:
Also, I think I should add that a split is inevitable.

If the Wikimedia Foundation chooses to not host it, those of us who
believe a separate Wikipedia is nessecary will fork - not just
linguistically, but the serious type of
different-server-different-domainname fork entailed in for example
Enciclopedia Libre (enciclopedia.us.es), wikinfo, wikiznanie.ru, etc.
I'm not 100% sure but I think a similar thing happened some years ago
when fr: was allowed to decide whether or not wa: was created, and
eventually it was transferred to Wikimedia Foundation servers.

Basically, what I am saying is this:

No matter how much the Simplified users (and perhaps a minority of
Traditional users) protest, there will be a forking. We (those
supporting a split) hope it can be done quietly and without a real
departure from zh: but rather one where interwiki cooperation will be
possible and even frequent and not stressful.

However, if the Wikimedia Foundation decides that zh-tw: is not
deserving of its own Wikipedia, we will pursue more radical measures,
ie complete separation which will make interwiki cooperation much more
difficult.

Please realise I am not threatening anyone, just letting you know that
this is going to happen no matter what, and that really what we are
discussing here is whether it can be hosted by Wikipedia and be
officially part of Wikipedia, or not.

Best,
Jin Junshu/Mark