from_name: Olivier Gerard

body:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:05:17PM +0100, Axel Boldt wrote:
> Gareth Owen writes:
>
> > Well it would be, if the legal settlement had been something other
> > than "Eric gets the shaft from CRC publishing"
>
> And it's not just Eric. I contributed to mathworld over the years here
> and there. I never signed over my copyrights. CRC have published my
> materials without permission. They will get a threatening letter from
> me soon. CRC textbooks are dead in our department.
>

I am sympathetic with you since I contributed also to Mathworld
(and to Eric TT) but:

If you think this is a good idea, I do not. It will only make it
worse for Eric, because his original contract with CRC like
most publishing contract have a clause saying
that the author of the book contends he is the original author or
has secured permission for all included material and
warrants the publisher against any copyright infringment
and liabilities.

> Axel
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?

body:
At 02:11 PM 11/8/01 -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
<snip>
>
>I personally am not at all opposed to the idea of having subpages on a
>commentary wiki.  In that context, I frankly don't care.  They also help
>people build their own "personal pages."  On the other hand, maybe we
>should agree that the latter is actually a bad thing.  :-/
>
I think it depends on what the personal pages contain. Mine is mostly a
list of wikipedia things I've done, or mean to do (incomplete in both cases),
and a few notes people wrote to me about my edits.

If I want to go on at great length about philosophy, or my life, or, well,
anything, either it belongs in a regular Wikipedia page (some philosophy
topics might), or it can go on my home page. My personal pages don't
live at wikipedia, they live at www.redbird.org.


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] TeX in Wikipedia: mathwiki code.

body:
Regarding the mathwiki code: it is indeed GPL'd, but you have to
request it by email from Serge Winitzki who currently maintains it.

I have a copy of the code and I can send it to anyone who's
interested. It's perl. The code is a bit rough still and you have to
experiment to get it to work, but it does work.

It has a ParseTeX.pm perl module which we can probably reuse.

A life example is running at
http://www.mathcircle.org/cgi-bin/mathwiki.pl

Axel


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moving commentary out of Wikipedia

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011108/0f3eb859/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] CIA World Factbook

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011108/dca35966/attachment.diff


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Proposal for a "#PARENT" command

body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> #PARENT [[Afghanistan]]

This would make wikipedia editing seem more like a programming
language and less like plain English.  And the original question comes
back: Is "Afghanistan" the only and natural parent/context for
"History of Afghanistan"?  Isn't "History" or at least "History of
Central Asia" just as natural a parent?  Can an article have more than
one #PARENT?  (That would be like multiple inheritance in C++ ...)

It is indeed very easy to start the article like this:

    The [[history]] of [[Afghanistan]] cannot be fully understood
    without the context of the [[history of Central Asia]].  Within
    this region of [[Central Asia]], Afghanistan plays a special role
    because of its high [[mountain]]s, bordering on the [[Himalayas]].

This is plain English, it doesn't require any software modifications,
it allows any number "parents" or other complex relationships between
articles.  However, it is the beginning of a *well-written* article,
which is really difficult to enforce through policies or software.

--
  Lars Aronsson
  <lars at aronsson.se>
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


from_name: Gareth Owen

in_reply_to: <lsanger@nupedia.com>'s message of "Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:11:01 -0800 (PST)"

body:
<lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> And let me apologize for making a decision when there were still plenty of
> people wanting to talk.
>
> But the decision has been made.

Fair enough  Doesn't really bother me.

So when subpages disappear, whats going to happen to all the subpages with
worthwhile content on?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...

body:
I'm very lazy, so I like typing things like [[algebra]]ic to create the word
"Algebraic" with a link to algebra.  This is convenient but ugly looking.

Are ther compelling reasons why software shouldn't convert the whole word into
a link, exactly like [[algebra|algebraic]] would?

--
Gareth Owen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another PD Resource

body:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
More along the lines of Proj. Gutenberg.  Lots of classical texts, and some
19th Century stuff.
--
Gareth Owen
Todays Fun Fact: Tufts University is the Alma Mater of Elaine Benes


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011109/f077d423/attachment.diff


from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

body:
Indeed, one possibility is that each namespace have its own [[recent
changes]] page.  If we were to do that and then install a "commentary:"
namespace, I think that might be an adequate solution to the problem.
Magnus?

Larry

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> On Friday 09 November 2001 00:19, you wrote:
>
> > The key reason I'm on board with Larry's proposal is because I think
> > RecentChanges on Wikipedia should show ''only'' changes to articles
> > and Talk ''about'' articles and ''no'' changes and talk about
> > meta-wikipedia issues.  The only way to do that is to push
> > meta-discussions completely out of the Wikipedia.
>
> Any reason we can't then have a link to "Recent discussions" next to
> "Recent changes"? Just for those who enjoy that sort of thing?
>
>


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
> > And let me apologize for making a decision when there were
> still plenty of
> > people wanting to talk.
> >
> > But the decision has been made.

Actually, I didn't see a final decision until this page, but now that it is
"official", I deactivated subpages on the PHP wikipedia altogether. Larry,
time for a celebration! :)

> So when subpages disappear, whats going to happen to all the subpages with
> worthwhile content on?

The ''pages'' and their contents will stay, of course. Just the linking is
altered. What happens is:
* One day, not so far away, a script will convert the UseMod wiki pages into
MySQL. All [[/Bar]] links on a Foo page will automatically be converted into
[[Foo/Bar]]. That was already done on the tarball you can see at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml (compare World War II,
[[/Battle of Britain]] became [[World War II/Battle of Britain]]).
* Plain-text links like /Bar will ''not'' work anymore. No subpages, no link
on /.
* [[/Bar]] will ''not'' work anymore. It leads to a page with an error
message.
You can try it out on the page above, it's all working.
----
I just saw the other post with [[algebra]]ic. I could easily make it a rule
that ''upon pressing the Save button'' on the edit page, all "[[foobar]]xyz"
occurrences would become "[[foobar|foobarxyz]]". That would include "]]ic",
"]]s", "]]es", etc. Opinions?

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

body:
Jimbo asked if he should create meta.wikipedia.com and I said "yes."  I
don't know when it will be created, but it should be fairly soon.

This will help us test both the installation and the operability of the
new software in a live situation, not just a "test" situation.  If we
like, we can always move the stuff back to a "discussion:" or
"commentary:" namespace on www.wikipedia.com.  But it might turn out that
we'll like it just fine as it is.

When the wiki is up, we'll let you know.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] CIA World Factbook

body:
On 9 Nov 2001, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:

> Failing that, Wikipedians just need to train their habits: If you read
> about a election in the papers (in your country, or anywhere), that
> should immediately beg the question: has Wikipedia been updated yet?

I couldn't agree more.  :-)

Larry


from_name: Tim Chambers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

body:
--- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at htec.com> wrote:
> This is good, but I think it should only be short term.
>
> Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option...
> I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia
> information in its own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software.

I think Mark makes good arguments for this.

<>< Tim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


from_name: Jimmy Wales

in_reply_to: <r5iwv0zvnpm.fsf@orr.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:49:41PM +0000

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> > IMHO there's far too much talk about letting the software do all the work
> > lately ...
>
> Is that not what software is for?

Yes, but I've been giving a lot of thought to LDC's remarks the other
day about what computers are good at, and what they are not good at.
One thing they are not good at is conceptual relationships, etc.

The exact proposal you guys are talking about is fairly minor, and I
can see it going either way.  But in general, I think we should be
wary of taking control away from the user.  Maybe a user wants to have
part of a word linked (even if we might think it is ugly), for a good
reason.

Why remove that option?  For convenience in other cases.  It's a
tradeoff, and perhaps we should be reluctant to make tradeoffs for
convenience that take choices away from authors.

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


in_reply_to: <r5isnbnvm22.fsf@orr.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 06:25:25PM +0000

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> > Maybe a user wants to have part of a word linked (even if we might
> > think it is ugly), for a good reason.  Why remove that option?
>
> So don't remove the option, just change the default.
> If one can force it to be ugly, but its beautiful by default, everyones
> happy.

That's a sensible response!  Can you clarify then, how exactly you
propose that this work?

Try on this example: 'work' and 'working'.

Currently:
[[work]] shows _work_ (underlined, see?) and links to [[work]].

[[work|working]] shows _working_, and links to [[work]]

[[work]]ing shows _work_ing and links to [[work]]

Your objection seems to be that #2 is more commonly what we want, but
more typing, and #3 is easier, but not often wanted.

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

body:
This is good, but I think it should only be short term.

Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option. I'm swamped with
other things right now, but I've been reading this list, and I'd like to
weigh in briefly.  I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia information in its
own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software.

That way, we could show encyclopedia changes in one table, with meta pages
(including the Talk: namespace) in another table.  We want the
meta-information to be easily accessible, and easily linked (at least in
user's minds) to the relevant Talk and Article namespaces.  That way we can
easily move information back and forth (refactoring discussion to add
information to encyclopedia articles, and to add policy decisions to the
MetaWikipedia namespaces.)

So, I'm all for a metawikipedia wiki for now, as a testing ground for the
concept, and as a testing ground for no-subpages, but I am convinced that in
the end, we'll really want all of this to be "together" so we can have easy
access to all the information about wikipedia in one place.  This also lets
us write code that will allow us to gather and present even more information
in simple ways.  For example it would be nice to see the % of meta page
edits to  actual article edits over a given period, so we can track how "on
task" we've been.

Yours
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: lsanger at nupedia.com [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:33 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

Jimbo asked if he should create meta.wikipedia.com and I said "yes."  I
don't know when it will be created, but it should be fairly soon.

This will help us test both the installation and the operability of the
new software in a live situation, not just a "test" situation.  If we
like, we can always move the stuff back to a "discussion:" or
"commentary:" namespace on www.wikipedia.com.  But it might turn out that
we'll like it just fine as it is.

When the wiki is up, we'll let you know.

Larry

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

body:
Sounds plausible to me, as long as indeed the namespace has its own recent
changes page.

Larry

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> --- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at htec.com> wrote:
> > This is good, but I think it should only be short term.
> >
> > Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option...
> > I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia
> > information in its own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software.
>
> I think Mark makes good arguments for this.
>
> <>< Tim
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] meta.wikipedia.com is up!

body:
Let's start transferring stuff!

http://meta.wikipedia.com/

Stuff to transfer includes [[Wikipedia commentary]] stuff as well as all
personal essay-type stuff.  It doesn't include Wikipedia policy and
utility pages.

Larry


body:
Actually since the word typed in is [[ox]]en, we won't need a database or
anything, we just use the section inside the double brackets to define the
page reference, and the whole word (defined by the area between spaces) as
the link.  The feminism, feminine issue is a red herring, because we
wouldn't link to part of either of these words.  Sophistry and Sophism,
would still require the [[xxx|yyy]] format, as it does now.  The only
benefit of this software change would be to pretty up partially linked
words.

Frankly partially linked words don't particularly bother me, so it seems
like time better spent on other things, but I don't really care one way or
the other. The downside of the suggested modification is that someone could
link to postmodern[[ism]], leading an unsuspecting person to click on a link
to --postmodernism--, and get our page on --ism--.  So, I do think it
essential to provide a way to override this behavior if you really, really
want make a partial word a link.

-----Original Message-----
From: Manning Bartlett [mailto:manning at bartlett.net]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:06 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...

hmmmm... I could see how this would work with systematic suffixes such as
"cow/cows", but how would it convert"oxen" to "ox", "sophistry" to "sophism"
or "misanthropic" to "misanthropy"?

I think we'd need either a consistent language (which is not likely in our
lifetimes), or else a huge database of how terms link to one another. Even
then we'd run the risk of words like"feminine" being linked to "feminism"
which is not accurate.

Manning

----- Original Message -----
From: Gareth Owen
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...

I'm very lazy, so I like typing things like [[algebra]]ic to create the word
"Algebraic" with a link to algebra.  This is convenient but ugly looking.

Are ther compelling reasons why software shouldn't convert the whole word
into
a link, exactly like [[algebra|algebraic]] would?

--
Gareth Owen
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:

> OK - call me dumb, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how
> the new world works.
>
> I thought subpages were going, but LMS seems to still have them.

I don't think so.  / is just another character.  If you'll look on

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Manning_Bartlett/Contributions

you'll see there's no link back to [[Manning Bartlett]].  Moreover,
[[/Foo]] on your [[Manning Bartlett/Contributions]] will not link to
[[Manning Bartlett/Foo]].

> Do we have to recreate all the links to Wikipedia articles?

So it appears.

This would *not* be the case, by the way, if the metawiki simply lived on
a namespace.  In that case, unprefixed links point to the main article
namespace.

> How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes
> (~~~) but I can't get it to work.

Type

	--~~~

after you have logged in.  I'm not sure if the two dashes before is
necessary, but maybe it is.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:

> Where's everybody else then?

You can't expect everyone to jump onto it on a Friday...

Actually using the software is a sobering experience.  I'm liking the idea
of a commentary namespace more and more.  On the other hand, maybe it's
really quite a *good* thing to have the wikis so decidedly separate.

Let's try out meta.wikipedia.com for a while, anyway, and see what
happens.  At the very least we'll get a very good idea of what problems we
want Magnus to solve before we move the whole website to that software.

Larry


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] CIA World Factbook

body:
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com writes:

> the [[/Government]] pages are the only ones that obsolesce quickly.
> The rest (People, Communications, Military, Transportation, Economy,
> History)--barring catastrophes or other newsworthy events that people
> would really think of adding anyway--are fairly static.

Indeed.

> Maybe we could just come up with a script to update the Government
> each year? (I can think of a few that are past due right now) ;-)

Failing that, Wikipedians just need to train their habits: If you read
about a election in the papers (in your country, or anywhere), that
should immediately beg the question: has Wikipedia been updated yet?

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011109/ff688685/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: planetmath and wikipedia

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> For now, you have to wait for Ted to make your image for you, but
> someday we will surely find a way to automate this.  One problem is
> that TeX is not just a typesetting thing, but a programming language,
> so blindly letting the webserver interpret it is very dangerous.

I'd do it through a whitelist. From the top of my head:

[a-z0-9_^~{}] are always ok
\ is ok if followed by a known command: sum, over, etc.

Building a list of 50 commands that worked for 90 % of all useful (to
Wikipedia) math code should not be hard. One can always add commands
later, should they be needed.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011109/6a541c23/attachment.pgp


in_reply_to: Michel Clasquin's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2001 19:44:32 +0200"

body:
Michel Clasquin <clasqm at mweb.co.za> writes:

> Against.  I've found occasional good uses for "prefix[[snafu]]suffix" that
> I don't want to lose - for instance it is possible to say [[peace]]fully
> or [[peace|peacefully]] and they link to the same page.

I don't follow.  Or rather, I can't see any good uses.  Can you enlighten me?

> But an adjective or adverb as a link doesn't look right in an encyclopedia
> context.

Maybe not, but does [[peace]]fully look any better?

> IMHO there's far too much talk about letting the software do all the work
> lately ...

Is that not what software is for?

(very OT aside:  I blame GUIs. I see so many people doing repetitive tasks
    manually with Windows file manager that I can see why people don't
    classify computers as labour-saving devices any more.)
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:08:52 -0600"

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> But in general, I think we should be wary of taking control away from the
> user.

Certainly.

> Maybe a user wants to have part of a word linked (even if we might
> think it is ugly), for a good reason.  Why remove that option?

So don't remove the option, just change the default.
If one can force it to be ugly, but its beautiful by default, everyones
happy.

--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:28:54 -0600"

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> Currently:
> [[work]] shows _work_ (underlined, see?) and links to [[work]].
>
> [[work|working]] shows _working_, and links to [[work]]
>
> [[work]]ing shows _work_ing and links to [[work]]
>
> Your objection seems to be that #2 is more commonly what we want, but
> more typing, and #3 is easier, but not often wanted.

Yes, thats exactly right.

Heres how Gaz's Perfect Wiki would work...

[[work]]ing shows _working_, links to [[work]]
[[work|working]] shows _working_, links to [[work]] (backwards compatible)
[[work|]]ing shows _work_ing, links to [[work]]]
      ^
      |-- Any uncommon ASCII character will do.  `|' seems reasonable since it
          already has a special meaning, but one that makes no little or no
          sense in this context
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


from_name: Michel Clasquin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] CIA World Factbook

body:
On Friday 09 November 2001 08:03, you wrote:
> the [[/Government]] pages are the only ones that obsolesce quickly.
> The rest (People, Communications, Military, Transportation, Economy,
> History)--barring catastrophes or other newsworthy events that people
> would really think of adding anyway--are fairly static.  Maybe we
> could just come up with a script to update the Government each year?

But I spent quite some time wikifying [[South Africa/Government]] and if
some damn script comes and wipes that out, I'll start an edit war with it!
<g>

Perhaps each country could have two sections - one for the latest raw CIA
data and another properly mantained by wikipedians. Of course, then we
might as well use an external link straight to the CIA site for the first
one.

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn


subject: [Wikipedia-l] opencourse.org

body:
Here's an interesting project that bears many similarities to Nupedia and
Wikipedia:

http://www.opencourse.org/

Another website that concerns the intersection of the open source movement
and education is:

http://www.opensourceschools.org/

I wrote an article for the latter website:

http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20011020160315930

Larry


body:
On Friday 09 November 2001 00:19, you wrote:

> The key reason I'm on board with Larry's proposal is because I think
> RecentChanges on Wikipedia should show ''only'' changes to articles
> and Talk ''about'' articles and ''no'' changes and talk about
> meta-wikipedia issues.  The only way to do that is to push
> meta-discussions completely out of the Wikipedia.

Any reason we can't then have a link to "Recent discussions" next to
"Recent changes"? Just for those who enjoy that sort of thing?

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn


subject: [Wikipedia-l] no #PARENT, no #CHILD, implement in a much simpler way

body:
On Friday 09 November 2001 02:09, you wrote:

>     I would like to see wiki software that allows for enumeration
>     of generic terms that would trigger navigation links to
>     appear on article pages automatically. It's a natural
>     consequence of [[Wikipedia is not paper|Wikipedia not being
>     paper]]. Using the baseball articles as examples, "baseball"
>     should be tagged as one of those generic terms. Then any page
>     with "baseball" in the title would get a link to the
>     [[Baseball]] article, and the [[Baseball]] article would list
>     links to all the other baseball articles.

An intriguing idea, Tim, but let me play devil's advocate for a second.

Suppose I put in an entry in [[special:generic terms]] called

[[England]]

That would create lots of useful links in pages on English history,
British politics, etc etc

It would also create lots of irrelevant links to any article that uses the
term "New England" in the title or that discusses any person who uses
"England" as his/her surname.

If someone else now enters [[New England]] as a term in [[special:generic
terms]] the software will be trying to flag the same word twice. Which one
gets priority?

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn


body:
On Friday 09 November 2001 12:11, you wrote:
> I just saw the other post with [[algebra]]ic. I could easily make it a
> rule that ''upon pressing the Save button'' on the edit page, all
> "[[foobar]]xyz" occurrences would become "[[foobar|foobarxyz]]". That
> would include "]]ic", "]]s", "]]es", etc. Opinions?

Against.  I've found occasional good uses for "prefix[[snafu]]suffix" that
I don't want to lose - for instance it is possible to say [[peace]]fully
or [[peace|peacefully]] and they link to the same page. But an adjective
or adverb  as a link doesn't look right in an encyclopedia context.

IMHO there's far too much talk about letting the software do all the work
lately ...

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> You can't expect everyone to jump onto it on a Friday...
>
> Actually using the software is a sobering experience.

And you certainly can't expect us to all be sober on Friday!

;-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another PD Resource

body:
Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
> More along the lines of Proj. Gutenberg.  Lots of classical texts, and some
> 19th Century stuff.

Ummm:

>> The materials on the Perseus Project Web pages (including all
>> texts, translations, images, descriptions, drawings etc.) are
>> provided for the personal use of students, scholars, and the
>> public. Any commercial use or publication of them without
>> authorization is strictly prohibited. All materials are copyrighted
>> and are not in the public domain. Copying of materials on the
>> Perseus Web pages is not permitted.

(from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)

It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
(they didn't create them, and all(?) of the authors are long dead);
but they can copyright the collection, I think.

(FWIW, they share a disadvantage with Wikis in that their links
(autogenerated it seems) are sometimes faulty. E.g. the verb "bourne"
links to a list of people and places of that name.)

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011109/08dc8c94/attachment.pgp


in_reply_to: Mark Christensen's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:24:53 -0500"

body:
Mark Christensen <mchristensen at HTEC.com> writes:

> Frankly partially linked words don't particularly bother me,

Me neither (and it was my idea)

> so it seems like time better spent on other things,

It just didn't seem like it would be much work (spoken like a true
non-programmer, eh?)
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another PD Resource

in_reply_to: Robert Bihlmeyer's message of "09 Nov 2001 22:10:27 +0100"

body:
Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki at orcus.priv.at> writes:
> (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
>
> It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts

Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
would not be at Perseus

> (they didn't create them, and all(?) of the authors are long dead);
> but they can copyright the collection, I think.

If you deal with the texts individually, you can do what you like to any one
of them.  But you certainly couldn't mirrot their site w/o permission, or
borrow their HTML, but who would want to?
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/4dd11556/attachment.diff


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/45da99b4/attachment.diff


from_name: Manning Bartlett

body:
hmmmm... I could see how this would work with systematic suffixes such as "cow/cows", but how would it convert"oxen" to "ox", "sophistry" to "sophism" or "misanthropic" to "misanthropy"?

I think we'd need either a consistent language (which is not likely in our lifetimes), or else a huge database of how terms link to one another. Even then we'd run the risk of words like"feminine" being linked to "feminism" which is not accurate.

Manning

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gareth Owen
  To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
  Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:55 PM
  Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...

  I'm very lazy, so I like typing things like [[algebra]]ic to create the word
  "Algebraic" with a link to algebra.  This is convenient but ugly looking.

  Are ther compelling reasons why software shouldn't convert the whole word into
  a link, exactly like [[algebra|algebraic]] would?

  --
  Gareth Owen
  [Wikipedia-l]
  To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
  http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/05236937/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
OK - call me dumb, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how the new world works.

I thought subpages were going, but LMS seems to still have them.

Do we have to recreate all the links to Wikipedia articles?

How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes (~~~) but I can't get it to work.

Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/0eff09b2/attachment.htm


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal Pages

body:
I'm not sure what the status is on personal Wikipedian pages. I know that
we're moving personal essays to meta.wikipedia.com, but what about the
pages themselves? Are we keeping them? If so, where will they be located?

Personally, I would like to see them stay on Wikipedia itself, in the user:
namespace. However, I think the pages should only be used to provide an
introduction, to exchange messages, and for encyclopedia writing purposes
(to do lists, contribution lists, etc). Personal essays and the like should
go on MetaWikipedia. Anything not related to Wikipedia would go elsewhere,
like a personal Geocities page.

-- Stephen Gilbert


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
Actually I probably spoke too soon - I didn't realise that this is really a companion to the Wikipedia for commentary, and not a meta-repository for the wikipedia as a whole.

And the log-in thing seems to have sorted itself out, though I have no idea how.

Where's everybody else then?

Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/29917eb1/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
What do you mean "Friday"??? It's nearly lunchtime on a lovely Saturday - perfect Wiki weather.

MB

PS - Yes, I'm getting the hang of it, and see the advantages. The unfamiliar is always unsettling at first. The layout is certainly *much* better - I love the side bar.
  > Where's everybody else then?

  You can't expect everyone to jump onto it on a Friday...

  Actually using the software is a sobering experience.  I'm liking the idea
  of a commentary namespace more and more.  On the other hand, maybe it's
  really quite a *good* thing to have the wikis so decidedly separate.

  Let's try out meta.wikipedia.com for a while, anyway, and see what
  happens.  At the very least we'll get a very good idea of what problems we
  want Magnus to solve before we move the whole website to that software.

  Larry

  [Wikipedia-l]
  To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
  http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/40ce4889/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

body:
I agree.  Basically, we need to be able to get rid of some of this clutter
in recent changes.

I'd also like to suggest the possibility that meta.wikipedia changes would
not show up in the recent changes log by default, but that they could be
turned on in your user preferences, and that they should always show up in a
different color to mark them off from real encyclopedia changes.

In fact, I'd like to also be able set up my recent changes page to exclude
Talk: namespaces, and Wikipdians: namespaces as well as the proposed Meta
namespace.  That way, I could see only the changed articles without any of
the other clutter.   If we did this for everybody by default, I'd also like
to see another special page that only shows the recent changes for the meta,
talk, and wikipedians namespace.

-----Original Message-----
From: lsanger at nupedia.com
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Sent: 11/9/01 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!

Sounds plausible to me, as long as indeed the namespace has its own
recent
changes page.

Larry

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> --- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at htec.com> wrote:
> > This is good, but I think it should only be short term.
> >
> > Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option...
> > I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia
> > information in its own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software.
>
> I think Mark makes good arguments for this.
>
> <>< Tim
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] the meta wikipedia

body:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
> How does the login thing work? You said something about three tildes
> (~~~) but I can't get it to work.

I wondered about that, too. It doesn't show up in preview mode, but when you
save, it gets converted to your login. For instance, mine converts to
[[user:tbc|tbc]]. So --~~~ converts to --[[user:tbc|tbc]].


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Personal Pages

body:
I think we can just leave our personal pages on the main wikipedia for
now.  As for me, I'm going to move my essays out, and turn my main
wikipedia page into a real profile and "scratch space" for people to
talk to me about pages I'm working on, etc.

Stephen Gilbert wrote:

> I'm not sure what the status is on personal Wikipedian pages. I know that
> we're moving personal essays to meta.wikipedia.com, but what about the
> pages themselves? Are we keeping them? If so, where will they be located?
>
> Personally, I would like to see them stay on Wikipedia itself, in the user:
> namespace. However, I think the pages should only be used to provide an
> introduction, to exchange messages, and for encyclopedia writing purposes
> (to do lists, contribution lists, etc). Personal essays and the like should
> go on MetaWikipedia. Anything not related to Wikipedia would go elsewhere,
> like a personal Geocities page.
>
> -- Stephen Gilbert
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Big thumbs up for the new meta software

in_reply_to: <ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGMEEICEAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de>; from Magnus.Manske@epost.de on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 05:14:25PM +0100

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> I fixed #1 and #2 (and #4, partially) from your list. It's running on
> wikipedia.sourceforge.com, and I mailed the updated files to Jason.

Just so everyone knows -- I think Jason is out of town for the
weekend.  He might see the stuff from Magnus and install it while he's
away, but probably this will be Monday.

I'd do it myself, but I'm leaving town in a little while too.

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


body:
First, thanks for the praise! Makes an ol' programmer happy :)

I fixed #1 and #2 (and #4, partially) from your list. It's running on
wikipedia.sourceforge.com, and I mailed the updated files to Jason.

Concerning #5, currently the skins (normal and Star Trek) are coded within
the source (file "wikiUser.php"). Adding or adjusting a skin is easy, but
for now, maybe we should stick to these two until the rest of the damned
thing is running OK ;)

#6 means to create a special version of the script just for
meta.wikipedia.com. I might even do that, but it takes time.

Thanks again, and keep being picky ;)

Magnus
  -----Original Message-----
  From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Manning Bartlett
  Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:40 AM
  To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
  Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Big thumbs up for the new meta software

  OK - if you'll look you'll notice that I've been in the new meta
environment all day. It is FANTASTIC - I really like it.

  A few minor bugs however...

  1 - On the preferences tab, there is no option to reset the time that I
could find - I am 19 (!) hours ahead of the server and it is really
frustrating to have to read the wrong time (from my perspective) all the
time.

  2 - When you create a new profile, the welcome message has a spelling
error: "Don't forget to personalize your wikipedia perferences!" - should be
"preferences". (I created the dummy account "Test delete please" while
verifying this - please delete it)

  3 - Someone needs to write the help page and the help page for the user
preferences tab. I stayed out of it, due to inferior expertise. Apologies
for the "where's the help then" remark :)

  4 - I'd prefer to see the Page Titles in blue and bold as they are on the
old Wikipedia - it just looks better.

  5 - The star trek skin is cool, but hard to read. Different font colours
would be nice. Is there someway we can add more skins?

  6 - is there ever going to be an easy way to link between the two
environments? Say using [[[ (a triple bracket) or even something weird like
%% to indicate links to the opposite environment. I've moved a bunch of
pages, but it is just too daunting to go through and rebuild all the links
just yet... I'll get around to it.

  Apologies if I am sounding picky - so let me restate that the new software
utterly ROCKS! Absolutely... I can't wait until we port the full Wikipedia
to it.

  Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/f01bfdd4/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Security of evaluating arbitrary TeX code

body:
The mathwiki code I mentioned does not take ane precautions when
evaluation TeX code, and that is indeed a security hole.

I asked around on usenet
(http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=d55ab765.0111091929.1e4b9af4%40posting.google.com&rnum=1)
and found out that TeX can write to arbitrary files and can also
execute shell scripts, but fortunately, both of those features can be
switched off, at least in the tetex distribution which is the standard
on Linux/Unix.

Axel


body:
OK - if you'll look you'll notice that I've been in the new meta environment all day. It is FANTASTIC - I really like it.

A few minor bugs however...

1 - On the preferences tab, there is no option to reset the time that I could find - I am 19 (!) hours ahead of the server and it is really frustrating to have to read the wrong time (from my perspective) all the time.

2 - When you create a new profile, the welcome message has a spelling error: "Don't forget to personalize your wikipedia perferences!" - should be "preferences". (I created the dummy account "Test delete please" while verifying this - please delete it)

3 - Someone needs to write the help page and the help page for the user preferences tab. I stayed out of it, due to inferior expertise. Apologies for the "where's the help then" remark :)

4 - I'd prefer to see the Page Titles in blue and bold as they are on the old Wikipedia - it just looks better.

5 - The star trek skin is cool, but hard to read. Different font colours would be nice. Is there someway we can add more skins?

6 - is there ever going to be an easy way to link between the two environments? Say using [[[ (a triple bracket) or even something weird like %% to indicate links to the opposite environment. I've moved a bunch of pages, but it is just too daunting to go through and rebuild all the links just yet... I'll get around to it.

Apologies if I am sounding picky - so let me restate that the new software utterly ROCKS! Absolutely... I can't wait until we port the full Wikipedia to it.

Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011110/a7f50db0/attachment.htm


from_name: Henry House

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Another PD Resource -- afraid not

body:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki at orcus.priv.at> writes:
> > (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
> >
> > It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
>
> Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
> would not be at Perseus

I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived
as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose
"Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is
partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each
copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with
copying errors of its own.

The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are
different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the
original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's
Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor
has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the
likely errors are.

This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and
therefore a new copyright under US law.

--
Henry House
The attached file is a digital signature. See <http://romana.hajhouse.org/pgp>
for information.  My OpenPGP key: <http://romana.hajhouse.org/hajhouse.asc>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011111/1a4feae7/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Merrill

body:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 06:04:27AM -0800, Henry House wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
> > Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki at orcus.priv.at> writes:
> > > (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
> > >
> > > It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
> >
> > Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
> > would not be at Perseus
>
> I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived
> as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose
> "Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is
> partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each
> copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with
> copying errors of its own.
>
> The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are
> different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the
> original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's
> Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor
> has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the
> likely errors are.
>
> This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and
> therefore a new copyright under US law.

Exactly right, and you have to watch even some more recent texts, for
example Shakespeare. Unfortunately that means we miss out on some more
modern scholarship, but there's no way around that except to wait for
copyright to expire.

--
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

We turn the wheel to welcome her
	Every breath is sacred
Opening, we welcome her
	Every breath is sacred
As we walk this ancient path
	Every breath is sacred
We are stronger than we know
	Every breath is sacred
		-- The Midwife's Song, Calla Unsworth


body:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 05:44:36PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
[...]
> Exactly right, and you have to watch even some more recent texts, for
> example Shakespeare. Unfortunately that means we miss out on some more
> modern scholarship, but there's no way around that except to wait for
> copyright to expire.

There is a way: do that same scholarship ourselves and encourage academic
scholars to un-restrict their work. ;-)

--
Henry House
The attached file is a digital signature. See <http://romana.hajhouse.org/pgp>
for information.  My OpenPGP key: <http://romana.hajhouse.org/hajhouse.asc>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011112/df64f9bb/attachment.pgp


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011112/7b04674a/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A copyright quickie (or two)

body:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 08:00:06PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
> i) I added an example villanelle and [[villanelle/Example]] and I'm pretty
>    sure I'm in the clear on copyright.  But IANALNDIPOOTV[0], so can someone
>    with the appropriate smarts check it out.  I put the relevant dates on.
>
> ii)Someone asked about pictures of [[Blind Blake]] on [[Blind Blake/Talk]]
>    I found the only one in existence[1] (which dates from 1930) but have no
>    idea how to check its copyright status.  Anyone?

Have a look at <http://www.gutenberg.net/vol/pd.html>.

--
Henry House
The attached file is a digital signature. See <http://romana.hajhouse.org/pgp>
for information.  My OpenPGP key: <http://romana.hajhouse.org/hajhouse.asc>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011112/72bbb8f2/attachment.pgp


from_name: Balanone

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Totally different topic with same name

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Background:  I just created a page concerning the Temple of Set.
Obviously, one of the natural links on that page should be to Set, the
ancient Egyptian god. There is no such page at this time that I could
find.

There is already a page, http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Set, which refers
to sets within Set theory. It references the Set theory page, and is
referenced by the Set theory page.

The only page I see dealing with ancient Egyptian religion is
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Egyptian_Mythology which is extremely
fragmentary.

1) If I were to choose to create a page for the Egyptian god Set, what
should that page be called?

2) If I choose not to create a page for Set, but do want to create a link
on the Temple of Set page to inspire someone else to create that page for
Set, how should I build that link?

Reading through the Wikipedia FAQ, it looks like one solution is to move
the current Set page to a page named "Set (Set theory)", create a page
named "Set (Egyptian god)", and use the current "Set" page simply to
point to these two. (At least shortly, when parenthesis will be allowed
in article titles.) Is this what people would suggest?

3) When I create a page, what is the best way to scan through the
Wikipedia to a) verify that links to the page are appropriate, and b)
find articles which should contain links but do not so I can add those
links?

Thanks for any guidance.

Balanone
   PP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3

iQA/AwUBO/CJqHAR60BhEzDuEQIZRwCeO9hFkONu2VXMpdsVUnE/tNIwpmkAnRKH
6TB8+1ycPKW6UMYFWPmBDL7O
=j9nS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ian

body:
However, someone must have done this before 1929 of whatever the thershold
is. Getting your hands of such a copy is the hard part.

Ian Monroe
http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean/

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Henry House hajhouse at houseag.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:50:58PM +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:
> > Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe+wiki at orcus.priv.at> writes:
> > > (from <URL:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/copyright.html>)
> > >
> > > It's not clear to me how much copyright they can place on the texts
> >
> > Anything classical is PD, the translations can be copyright, but then they
> > would not be at Perseus
>
> I'm afraid that's not necesarily true. Most classical "texts" have survived
> as many-times-copied manuscripts mouldering away in libraries. Suppose
> "Euclid's Geometry" is available to us as four manuscripts, one of which is
> partial. Each of these is based on former copies that have not survived. Each
> copy was made by hand, an error-prone process, from an older copy with
> copying errors of its own.
>
> The result is that each surviving manucript has a few dozen words that are
> different, and some are missing entire passages. Which is the closest to the
> original? None is particilarly close. So a good modern edition of "Euclid's
> Geometry" is based on a study of all available manuscripts, which the editor
> has used to correct each other, given certain assumptions about what the
> likely errors are.
>
> This sort of extensive editing would certainly create a new edition and
> therefore a new copyright under US law.
>
> --
> Henry House


body:
Balanone <Balanone at yahoo.com> writes:

> 1) If I were to choose to create a page for the Egyptian god Set, what
> should that page be called?

"Set (Egyptian god)" like mentioned below would be fine. Until
parantheses work, "Set/Egyptian god" or "Set -- Egyptian god" seem ok
alternatives.

> 2) If I choose not to create a page for Set, but do want to create a link
> on the Temple of Set page to inspire someone else to create that page for
> Set, how should I build that link?

Simply choose one of the above names, and link to it in your text,
e.g. [[Set -- Egyptian god]]

> Reading through the Wikipedia FAQ, it looks like one solution is to move
> the current Set page to a page named "Set (Set theory)", create a page
> named "Set (Egyptian god)", and use the current "Set" page simply to
> point to these two. (At least shortly, when parenthesis will be allowed
> in article titles.) Is this what people would suggest?

Yes, but until a Set-the-god page exists, I'd leave the Set page
as-is. When someone, possibly you, writes a page about the god, the
Set page can be moved and a link page be put in its old place.

Actually, in this case I'd prefer "Set theory" to "Set (Set theory)".

It would be nice to modify all links to the former Set page to point
to its new location instead.

> 3) When I create a page, what is the best way to scan through the
> Wikipedia to a) verify that links to the page are appropriate, and b)
> find articles which should contain links but do not so I can add those
> links?

When viewing a page, a click on its title will bring up a list of
pages that link to that page. Hmm,
<URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/search.fcgi?request=Set> brings up no
hits ... perhaps it's a stopword?

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011113/03b1bfe7/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] FW: [Info-gne]LaTeX Wiki

body:
This might be interesting, so I forward it to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: info-gne-admin at gnu.org [mailto:info-gne-admin at gnu.org]On Behalf Of
Kyle Cranmer
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:37 PM
To: info-gne at gnu.org
Subject: [Info-gne]LaTeX Wiki

Hello,

I have seen so little traffic on this site that I'm not sure that if it's
the one about GNUPedia and WikiPedia and such.  If so, I think this is a
pretty relevant message... it's about a nice way to display math symbols -
particularly LaTeX - on the web in a very low-impact way.  Below is the
standard email I use to tell people about LaTeX Wiki, or just go to:
		http://latexwiki.rootnode.com

Hello,

Some friends of mine at Open Software Services wrote a cool patch to
Zope (the web application server we use).  It's called LaTeX Wiki.  A Wiki
is a kind of web page that the user can edit from within their web browser
(no need for access to the server or knowledge of HTML).  What they did
was to make it so that the Wiki parses LaTeX code natively and inlines the
rendered LaTeX automatically.

LaTeX Wiki is a great tool for collaborative work that requires many
mathematical symbols.  It could revolutionize the way that homework is
collected and graded, mathematicians and physicists collaborate, and how
math is presented on the web in general.

There are other tools like latex2html and new standards like MathML which
promise the same; however, LaTeX Wiki is easier to use and more versatile
than latex2html and much more human readable/writable than MathML.  Best
of all, this technology is available right now.

Please check it out at http://latexwiki.rootnode.com/ and pass this
message on to anyone you think may be interested.

Kyle

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Cranmer	Email: Kyle.Cranmer at cern.ch	Phone: (608) 259-0645
Address: 1124 Emerald #2, Madison, WI 53715   http://cern.ch/~cranmer
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Info-gne mailing list
Info-gne at gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gne


from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] attribution policy

body:
Good question!  I haven't thought about this for a few weeks.  I *think*
we still have a fair bit of work to do to get our use of the license
perfect, with all t's crossed and i's dotted.  What I would plan to do,
anyway, is add to the relevant page something to the effect that it's
perfectly OK if people add "plain text" (non-table) links back to the
original source of an article.  Hereby soliciting suggestions as to exact
wording!

Larry

On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, David Merrill wrote:

> Has a final decision been made on exactly how Wikipedia content must
> be attributed when used in derivative works? I am the collection
> editor for the Linux Documentation Project, and I would like to write
> some scripts that will pull selected documents out of Wikipedia to be
> installed on users' machines along with the LDP documents. It
> shouldn't be too hard of a job with perl or python, although polishing
> it up might take some finesse, like removing links that go to
> documents that aren't being included.
>
> Eventually, when the Linux documentation database, ScrollKeeper,
> supports online document registration, I will instead link directly to
> Wikipedia. I will install the initial set but use the online version
> if a network connection is available.
>
> I would ask that you please do not require an html table but a plain
> attribution. LDP documents are formatted so they display in a console
> web browser (e.g., lynx and links). People who install server machines
> often don't install a GUI, and lynx doesn't support tables.
>
> What I would like to do ideally is format the document similar to
> the way we credit FOLDOC on Wikipedia:
>
> ---EXAMPLE---
> Foo
> Wikipedia.com
>
> Foo (19xx - 19xx) was a bar bazzer especially noted for his skill in
> xyxxy. Blah blah. :-)
>
> ----
>
> This document was created by Wikipedia.com
> ---EXAMPLE---
>
> So Wikipedia.com is credited as the "author".
>
> On top or at the bottom, I'm not sure how it will lay out until I
> get to doing it and looking at it. If we think that's good enough for
> crediting FOLDOC then we shouldn't ask more of *our* downstream users.
> If I weren't a Wikipedia fan, I would probably want it at the bottom,
> but I happen to know how powerful the community effort is. I want very
> much to send Linux users to Wikipedia to help improve our
> documentation by building that community.
>
> Wikipedia.com would be a "live" link, of course.
>
> Is there any particular reason you want to require a table? Just
> because it looks nice?
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] attribution policy

body:
Has a final decision been made on exactly how Wikipedia content must
be attributed when used in derivative works? I am the collection
editor for the Linux Documentation Project, and I would like to write
some scripts that will pull selected documents out of Wikipedia to be
installed on users' machines along with the LDP documents. It
shouldn't be too hard of a job with perl or python, although polishing
it up might take some finesse, like removing links that go to
documents that aren't being included.

Eventually, when the Linux documentation database, ScrollKeeper,
supports online document registration, I will instead link directly to
Wikipedia. I will install the initial set but use the online version
if a network connection is available.

I would ask that you please do not require an html table but a plain
attribution. LDP documents are formatted so they display in a console
web browser (e.g., lynx and links). People who install server machines
often don't install a GUI, and lynx doesn't support tables.

What I would like to do ideally is format the document similar to
the way we credit FOLDOC on Wikipedia:

---EXAMPLE---
Foo
Wikipedia.com

Foo (19xx - 19xx) was a bar bazzer especially noted for his skill in
xyxxy. Blah blah. :-)

----

This document was created by Wikipedia.com
---EXAMPLE---

So Wikipedia.com is credited as the "author".

On top or at the bottom, I'm not sure how it will lay out until I
get to doing it and looking at it. If we think that's good enough for
crediting FOLDOC then we shouldn't ask more of *our* downstream users.
If I weren't a Wikipedia fan, I would probably want it at the bottom,
but I happen to know how powerful the community effort is. I want very
much to send Linux users to Wikipedia to help improve our
documentation by building that community.

Wikipedia.com would be a "live" link, of course.

Is there any particular reason you want to require a table? Just
because it looks nice?

--
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that
our way is the way to go.
	--Bill Gates


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...

body:
Of course I would enjoy seeing my script doing the "real job" on wikipedia,
and as you can see on the meta wiki and the "bugs" page at the test site,
except for some details, it is already running pretty well.

BUT - as I mentioned on several occasions, I am currently pretty busy
learning for my finals (right before christmas, actually;). And even though
the script looks pretty stable, if a major malfunction shows up, I might not
have the time for extensive corrections now. If you are willing to take that
(very small) risk, or someone else is familiar enough with the code to make
some hotfixes if needed, you have a go from me ;)

Magnus
  -----Original Message-----
  From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Manning Bartlett
  Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:56 PM
  To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
  Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...

  Well it has to be asked...

  Do we have a timeframe for porting the Wikipedia to Magnus's new script?
I'm personally all for it, the sooner the better.

  Do we need to get an action plan for the migration? After all I think
there will be a lot of housekeeping to take care of.

  Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011114/4c3e75d4/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...

body:
The bugs page is here:

http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=wikipedia%3ABugs

I guess it would be better not to make the big switcheroo until Magnus is
ready to handle serious problems.  Besides, this will give us all more
time to get used to the wiki and to catch potentially important bugs.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google and Static pages

body:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Those only appear to be static pages, through the magic of apache's
> mod_rewrite.
>
> Yes, I can set up mod_rewrite for Magnus's program.  I should do it on
> the meta site, if I can get the time in the next day or two.

Yes, please, sometime soon.  There are zillions of links to Wikipedia
pages that will be broken.

(This is only one example of the sort of "housekeeping" we'll have to do
in making the change, Manning...  Ugh.)

Larry

> Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:
>
> > I believe Google is now sending trafic to static wikipedia pages. For
> > example, Recent Changes is indexed at Google with the adress:
> >
> > http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Recent_Changes
> >
> > This may be a problem when we change to the script made by Magnus
> > Manske. Does the new script creates stactic pages with the same
> > URL?
> >
> > Joao
> > http://www.nonio.com
> > [Wikipedia-l]
> > To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> > http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google and Static pages

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011114/8efaf576/attachment.diff


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Static Wikipedia (was: attribution policy)

body:
David brought up the idea of publishing some Wikipedia documents as
part of the Linux Documentation Project. That reminded me of an old
idea: publish a snapshot of the Wikipedia as a downloadable set of
static HTML pages that people can use without a net connection, and
that could also be burned on CD. No wiki.cgi script needed. If someone
clicks on an edit link or RecentChanges, they are directed to the
corresponding life Wikipedia page.

By the way, it would be nice if the wikipedia tarballs could be
updated, to encourage experimentation like this.

Axel


from_name: João Mário Miranda

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google and Static pages

body:
I believe Google is now sending trafic to static wikipedia pages. For
example, Recent Changes is indexed at Google with the adress:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Recent_Changes

This may be a problem when we change to the script made by Magnus
Manske. Does the new script creates stactic pages with the same
URL?

Joao
http://www.nonio.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...

in_reply_to: <ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGIEFBCEAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de>; from Magnus.Manske@epost.de on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:05:42PM +0100

body:
Magnus, I was having trouble finding the 'bugs' page.  I noticed a
couple of them, and wanted to leave some comments.  Can anyone point
me in the right direction?

Magnus Manske wrote:

> Of course I would enjoy seeing my script doing the "real job" on wikipedia,
> and as you can see on the meta wiki and the "bugs" page at the test site,
> except for some details, it is already running pretty well.
>
> BUT - as I mentioned on several occasions, I am currently pretty busy
> learning for my finals (right before christmas, actually;). And even though
> the script looks pretty stable, if a major malfunction shows up, I might not
> have the time for extensive corrections now. If you are willing to take that
> (very small) risk, or someone else is familiar enough with the code to make
> some hotfixes if needed, you have a go from me ;)
>
> Magnus
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Manning Bartlett
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:56 PM
>   To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>   Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...
>
>
>   Well it has to be asked...
>
>   Do we have a timeframe for porting the Wikipedia to Magnus's new script?
> I'm personally all for it, the sooner the better.
>
>   Do we need to get an action plan for the migration? After all I think
> there will be a lot of housekeeping to take care of.
>
>   Manning

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google and Static pages

in_reply_to: <3BF2A7C0.9E7810B5@explicacoes.com>; from jmiranda@explicacoes.com on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 05:20:00PM +0000

body:
Those only appear to be static pages, through the magic of apache's
mod_rewrite.

Yes, I can set up mod_rewrite for Magnus's program.  I should do it on
the meta site, if I can get the time in the next day or two.

Jo?o M?rio Miranda wrote:

> I believe Google is now sending trafic to static wikipedia pages. For
> example, Recent Changes is indexed at Google with the adress:
>
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Recent_Changes
>
> This may be a problem when we change to the script made by Magnus
> Manske. Does the new script creates stactic pages with the same
> URL?
>
> Joao
> http://www.nonio.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


in_reply_to: <200111141616.RAA26729@linde.uni-paderborn.de>; from axel@uni-paderborn.de on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 05:16:37PM +0100

body:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 05:16:37PM +0100, Axel Boldt wrote:
> David brought up the idea of publishing some Wikipedia documents as
> part of the Linux Documentation Project. That reminded me of an old
> idea: publish a snapshot of the Wikipedia as a downloadable set of
> static HTML pages that people can use without a net connection, and
> that could also be burned on CD. No wiki.cgi script needed. If someone
> clicks on an edit link or RecentChanges, they are directed to the
> corresponding life Wikipedia page.

No, let me be clear. I am going to distribute portions of Wikipedia
along with LDP documents. The wikipedia documents will be Wikipedia
documents, not part of the LDP. In fact, I am thinking about having a
live link directly to "edit this page" so all readers can edit the
documentation. Just bundling Wikipedia content into the LDP would be
somehow rude.

Imagine having a live dictionary about Linux at your disposal,
complete with HOWTOs. It's such a cool project.

> By the way, it would be nice if the wikipedia tarballs could be
> updated, to encourage experimentation like this.

Yes yes, please. Although perhaps rsync would be more efficient for
those of us who will want periodic automated updates.

--
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

Asked how small software companies could compete on products that Microsoft
wants to fold into Windows, [Microsoft COO Bob] Herbold told Bloomberg News
they could either fight a losing battle, sell out to Microsoft or a larger
company or 'not go into business to begin with.'
	--Newsweek, March 1998


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google and Static pages

in_reply_to: <200111150014.fAF0EJR12152@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 04:14:19PM -0800

body:
RewriteRule ^/wiki/(.*)$ http://www.x.com/wiki.fcgi?$1 [L,P,E=REMOTE_ADDR:%{REMOTE\_ADDR}]
RewriteRule ^/$ http://www.x.com/wiki.fcgi?HomePage [L,P]

(I made it be 'x.com' for the example so the line wouldn't warp so
horribly.

'L' means 'last rule to match, stop here if you match'
'P' means 'proxy' (as opposed to redirect)
'E' means 'set this environment variable'

If you don't set the environment variable, then edits appear under the
*server's* ip, instead of the *user's* ip.

You need to compile in mod_proxy, too, for the proxying to work, but
you don't need to turn proxying ON, oddly enough.  (And you don't want
to turn it on, I think.)

Please ask more questions if this isn't completely helpful.

lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Those only appear to be static pages, through the magic of
> > apache's mod_rewrite.
>
> So you're the one who did that?  I tried to do that for my
> personal Wiki <http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl>, but I
> couldn't get it right.  Would you mind posting (or sending to
> me) the actual lines from your httpd.conf?
>
> I asked Clifford the same question, since I assumed he did it--
> it also requires tweaking UseMod to get the links on the pages
> in the new format--but he never got back to me.  I've already
> done a lot of hacking on UseMod, so I'm comfortable with that,
> but mod_rewrite has so far eluded me.0

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Magnus's new script...

body:
Well it has to be asked...

Do we have a timeframe for porting the Wikipedia to Magnus's new script? I'm personally all for it, the sooner the better.

Do we need to get an action plan for the migration? After all I think there will be a lot of housekeeping to take care of.

Manning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011114/3e808e11/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Layout of Wikipedia pages: "Wikipedia" missing

body:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that our regular Wikipedia article pages don't mention
> the word "Wikpedia" anywhere. That's not good. Especially if somebody
> prints out an article, the word Wikipedia needs to appear somewhere.

Yes, absolutely (Jimbo)!

> I suggest that we change "You can edit this page right now!" in the
> second line to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"

I would disagree with that particular wording.  The sentiment conveyed
isn't just that someone can contribute (somehow), but that they can edit
this page right now.  ("Edit this page" should be a link to the edit
function--I don't know why it's not...)

> Also, "HomePage" should be changed to "Home page" or preferably "Main
> page".

I agree with that too.  Little things like this can spell the difference
between a pedant joining us and a pedant turning his nose up at us--and,
sure, we need all the pedants we can get!  :-)

> At the bottom, I would write "Search Wikipedia" instead of "Search".

Yes!

> Also, the double link to "Edit texto of this page" is superfluous.

Also agreed!

> Maybe just replace the "You can edit..." with the same slogan from
> above "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"

Yes!

> Axel

A veritable fount of good advice.

Larry


subject: Printable version (was RE: [Wikipedia-l] Why Wikipedia needs linkbacks)

body:
Catching up with old mail, here.

The "printable version" is pretty slick.

I think it would be better to leave links off entirely (just delete all
<a> tags), for purposes of printing.

The bottom-of-page text, i.e.,

	This article is from Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.com), the free
	online encyclopedia. You can find this article at
	http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page

is just fine.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> On the PHP script (you knew I'd mention that again, right? ;) every article
> now has a link to its "printable version", currently without the logo and
> the links, just the article text, with a single line below it, stating the
> adress of both wikipedia and the article itself on the web.
> As people will prefer that version for printout (no links and other
> distracting stuff), the "paper linkback" should be solved by that.
>
> IMHO, that linkback table is a little overkill for people who only want to
> use a single article (or just a part of it). Thinking about it, how about a
> little button to append at the end of the text (like the Nupedia "N") that
> links back to wikipedia.com or to the article itself? Linking to
> wikipedia.com might be better in the long run, because we can give a
> one-line-source for the button that needs no change; and, people who follow
> the link will see what we have to offer *in addition to* that specific
> article (which they can find using search pretty easy).
> Also, a small button wouldn't ruin layouts, is smaller than even a text
> link, but can still be quite visible (how about a white W on black
> background?)
>
> Magnus
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why Wikipedia needs linkbacks

body:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> IMHO, that linkback table is a little overkill for people who only
> want to use a single article (or just a part of it). Thinking about
> it, how about a little button to append at the end of the text (like
> the Nupedia "N") that links back to wikipedia.com or to the article
> itself? Linking to wikipedia.com might be better in the long run,
> because we can give a one-line-source for the button that needs no
> change; and, people who follow the link will see what we have to offer
> *in addition to* that specific article (which they can find using
> search pretty easy). Also, a small button wouldn't ruin layouts, is
> smaller than even a text link, but can still be quite visible (how
> about a white W on black background?)

The main problem I can see with a button is that many people wouldn't know
what it would mean, if that's *all* that were included--that is, they
wouldn't know that it's a link back to Wikipedia, which defeats the
purpose of the linkback.


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Layout of Wikipedia pages: "Wikipedia"
  missing

body:
At 04:28 PM 11/15/01 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just noticed that our regular Wikipedia article pages don't mention
>> the word "Wikpedia" anywhere. That's not good. Especially if somebody
>> prints out an article, the word Wikipedia needs to appear somewhere.
>
>Yes, absolutely (Jimbo)!
>
>> I suggest that we change "You can edit this page right now!" in the
>> second line to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"
>
>I would disagree with that particular wording.  The sentiment conveyed
>isn't just that someone can contribute (somehow), but that they can edit
>this page right now.  ("Edit this page" should be a link to the edit
>function--I don't know why it's not...)

How about "You can edit this Wikipedia page right now!"?


in_reply_to: <200111160005.BAA05336@linde.uni-paderborn.de>; from axel@uni-paderborn.de on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 01:05:21AM +0100

body:
I made some of these changes.

The change from "HomePage" to "Home Page" is essentially a change from
[[HomePage]] to [[Home Page]], if you see what I mean.  I'm reluctant
to make that one without giving it some thought as to the
ramifications for the software.

Axel Boldt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that our regular Wikipedia article pages don't mention
> the word "Wikpedia" anywhere. That's not good. Especially if somebody
> prints out an article, the word Wikipedia needs to appear somewhere.
>
> I suggest that we change "You can edit this page right now!" in the
> second line to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"
>
> Also, "HomePage" should be changed to "Home page" or preferably "Main
> page".
>
> At the bottom, I would write "Search Wikipedia" instead of "Search".
> Also, the double link to "Edit texto of this page" is superfluous.
> Maybe just replace the "You can edit..." with the same slogan from
> above "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"
>
> Axel
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


body:
Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue for "Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people
think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you start it up, and others use the term as in "personal
home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.

Axel


in_reply_to: <20011115220644.A8703@aristotle.bomis.com>; from jwales@bomis.com on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:06:22PM -0600

body:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:06:22PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I made some of these changes.
>
> The change from "HomePage" to "Home Page" is essentially a change from
> [[HomePage]] to [[Home Page]], if you see what I mean.  I'm reluctant
> to make that one without giving it some thought as to the
> ramifications for the software.

Yes, well, it seems the way to do it is to duplicate the page
wholesale, and leave both active for a while, until you know it's
stable. So [[HomePage]] and [[Home Page]] are the same page. Then, set
up a redirect. Will that solve the problem?

And remember there are external folks linking to HomePage, probably.
The redirect (at least) should stay active for a pretty long time.

--
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

But for Microsoft's interference, the market would be much more dynamic as
new technologies and fresh innovations challenged the company's present
dominance.
	--Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee


body:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 06:58:45PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
> Catching up with old mail, here.
>
> The "printable version" is pretty slick.
>
> I think it would be better to leave links off entirely (just delete all
> <a> tags), for purposes of printing.
>
> The bottom-of-page text, i.e.,
>
> 	This article is from Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.com), the free
> 	online encyclopedia. You can find this article at
> 	http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page
>
> is just fine.

Absolutely. Require that text at the bottom of each page, then? If I
decide I want to do something slightly different, can I approach you
with my proposal? I suggest you state in the copyright and GFDL
implementation text that you can be approached for special situations.
No general solution is going to work for everyone.

Does Bomis hold official copyright on Wikipedia? I didn't see it on
the site. You really should post a copyright notice on the main page,
directly, which includes the implementation of the license in it.

I am concerned that you run into a violation of the *spirit* of the
GFDL, if not the precise letter, if you require some large or
intrusive attribution on derivative works that doesn't exist on the
live Wikipedia pages. In my case especially, since it isn't really a
`derivative work' but just a downstream packaging of Wikipedia
content, as it were.

Hopefully, given my track record of unpaid volunteer work for the
Linux Documentation Project, and now some fair amount of unpaid
volunteer work for the Wikipedia, you know that I'm not a money
grubber who is trying to take advantage of Wikipedia or Bomis. I want
to see you get fair attribution. My goals, in large part, are your
goals. I want you to succeed. However, I also want the maximum
flexibility in how I attribute you, within reasonable parameters of
course. Your suggestion here sounds like something I can live with.

I've also decided definitely that all Wikipedia content that is
packaged beside the LDP documents in Linux distributions will contain
a live linkback to directly edit the page. That could easily bring a
million Linux users to Wikipedia every month. More if you count the
local page views. That is a good thing for Wikipedia and for Linux.

Please give me your views or guidelines on how I might approach this
effort. My goal is to start having Wikipedia content used as part of
Linux help, but I don't want to move the LDP over wholesale (and it
would be rude to my authors, even those who GFDL'ed), nor do I want to
simply leech. I'm just knocking around ideas right now, so if you can
suggest any I should consider I'd appreciate hearing them.

I will be formatting the output differently from Wikipedia, though. I
will make the output look as similar as I can to the other documents.
I have to merge man pages, html, and docbook documents, and it is a
challenge to make the presentation of all those documents seamless
across format, but that's what I'm trying to do. I want the transition
to and from Wikipedia pages within the Linux documentation database to
be similarly seamless. I'll attribute Wikipedia pages, and probably
put up a logo for graphical browser users.

I will run the final stylesheets past you once I get to that point.
Live release in actual Linux distributions is probably six months
away, so there is no hurry. I promise to be very amenable to following
your suggestions, as long as you keep in mind that the user experience
comes first in my page layout philosophy!

Thanks for resolving this issue quickly. It really is fundamental and
the sooner you resolve it, the better for everyone. Then it becomes a
non-issue and we can all get back to work where we should be. :-)

Regards,

--
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   david at lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org

We turn the wheel to welcome her
	Every breath is sacred
Opening, we welcome her
	Every breath is sacred
As we walk this ancient path
	Every breath is sacred
We are stronger than we know
	Every breath is sacred
		-- The Midwife's Song, Calla Unsworth


body:
Hi,

I just noticed that our regular Wikipedia article pages don't mention
the word "Wikpedia" anywhere. That's not good. Especially if somebody
prints out an article, the word Wikipedia needs to appear somewhere.

I suggest that we change "You can edit this page right now!" in the
second line to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"

Also, "HomePage" should be changed to "Home page" or preferably "Main
page".

At the bottom, I would write "Search Wikipedia" instead of "Search".
Also, the double link to "Edit texto of this page" is superfluous.
Maybe just replace the "You can edit..." with the same slogan from
above "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"

Axel


body:
If you go to http://meta.wikipedia.com, which looks like what wikipedia will
look lige in a month or two, you'll see there's already "Main Page" in
place. Won't make much sense changing it to anything else than "Main Page",
except we agree on something else for my script.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Axel Boldt
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:40 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Layout of Wikipedia pages: "Wikipedia" missing
>
>
> Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue
> for "Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people
> think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you
> start it up, and others use the term as in "personal
> home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.
>
> Axel
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: another copyright issue

body:
On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry"
rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
Then, we say why the article was removed on a Talk page, and ask
the contributer to clarify whetheror not the article was a violation of
copyright. Usually an email to Larry will serve as "proof" that a
copyright holder is releasing his materialfor use on Wikipedia.

- Stephen Gilbert

PS - Actually, I think your English is rather good. :)

On 16 Nov 01, at 7:46, wikipedia-l-request at nupedia.com wrote:

> Message: 12
> From: "Kurt Jansson" <jansson at gmx.net>
> To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:36:57 +0100
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
>
> Hello wikipeople!
>
> How can we ever be sure, that those people who (often anonymously) write
> new articles for wikipedia didn't just copy'n'paste it from another
> site?
>
> I think we can't.
>
> Take for example
> http://de.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Gopher
> http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/rus/42/internet/gopher.html
> and chapter 2.6 here:
> http://www.fitug.de/bildung/allgem/inetein2.html
>
> Is it all from the same author? Or is the wikipedia article just a
> ('stolen') copy? Or the copy of a revised (but 'stolen') copy? Or is the
> source under the GNU Free Documentation License?
>
> How can we be sure about that?
>
> I think nobody wants that just authors with prooved identities (who are
> responsible for their writing) are allowed to contribute to wikipedia.
>
> But are we on the save side if we just close our eyes and wait for
> people to come and force us to delete articles that many people have put
> much work in, but that are based on their text?
>
> Sorry for my bad English, I'm German. If you don't understand what I'm
> talking about I'll try my best to make it clearer.
>
> Bye,
> Kurt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue

in_reply_to: <003e01c16eb4$8b4e07c0$1d7558d9@maximilian>; from jansson@gmx.net on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:36:57PM +0100

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
> How can we ever be sure, that those people who (often anonymously) write
> new articles for wikipedia didn't just copy'n'paste it from another
> site?
>
> I think we can't.

We can't be certain.  But it's my butt on the line, legally speaking,
and I think that under the DMCA as a provider of Internet services, my
obligation only extends so far as to take down material when there is
a complaint.  I'm actually much more proactive than that, in that we
take down anything for which there is a suspicion.  This is partly
because I believe that it is wrong for us to take materials.

Opinions on copyright differ, but even those who are opposed to the
legal situation with copyrights will tend to agree that taking
people's work without appropriate permission and credit is unethical,
or at least unprofessional.

> But are we on the save side if we just close our eyes and wait for
> people to come and force us to delete articles that many people have put
> much work in, but that are based on their text?
>
> Sorry for my bad English, I'm German. If you don't understand what I'm
> talking about I'll try my best to make it clearer.

Your English is at least as good as many Americans on Usenet, my
friend.  :-)

Anyhow, our policy should be that whenever we suspect that something
has been used without appropriate permission, we should get rid of it
ASAP.  This is partly to save me from legal troubles, but more
importantly, it should be a point of pride with us that we created the
encyclopedia from scratch, ourselves, using only our own minds, or the
work of people who gave permission for us to use it.

--
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
*  pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can   *
*  certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper    *
********************************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] another copyright issue

body:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
>
> Hello wikipeople!
>
> How can we ever be sure, that those people who (often anonymously) write
> new articles for wikipedia didn't just copy'n'paste it from another
> site?

One thing you should do in such a case is a Google search.

--
jo?o
http://www.nonio.com