body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>
>
>>But is there a way to transliterate it without using any conjugators
>>or verb stem modifiers?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Yes, there is, but it isn't going to produce a "wiki" sound.   Native
>languages (ours included) have evolved to incorporate
>expression of the physical world in spiritual terms.  Because of this,
>misuse of the language is perceived by most native
>speakers as an extreme form of disrespect.  For example:
>
>"di" means plural of nonliving objects and
>
>"u" or "una" means plural of a living sentient being
>
>
And in some dialects, Tsu, du, and duna are also used to make human
words plural or singular, expansion here.

:-)

Jeff

>using "di" to make a human word plural is a form of insult.   diyvwi
>would mean (its not a real word but could be used) to call
>a person or group of people "subhuman".  You have to be careful with
>native languages in doing transliteration.  Every Cherokee I
>have shown wi-gi-que-di-ya to has rolled their eyes (oh brother roll
>your eyes) or laughed because of the name.   The fact is, I dount
>if we named the main Wikipedia site "The bad place put together in the
>past we should keep our hands off of because its part of an animal and has
>a lot of people dwelling there" would not serve to attract people to
>edit there.
>
>aniyvwiya is a very respectful way of saying cherokee people becaue the
>word yvwi means "it has a spirit".  Another example is Hello in Cherokee.
>Modenr speakers in Okalhoma use two forms.  osiyo and just siyo.  siyo
>is not respecful and is an impersonal "what do the h_ll do you want"
>form of hellow because it drops the "o" sound.  "o" in front of the word
>means "I treat you as an equal and greet you" instead of just "I greet
>you".  One example.
>
>Here's some other suggestions which are broad and will attract Cherokee
>editors to the site:
>
>????? ???
>
>"Aniyvwiya gadugi"  - The human people of the creator working together
>
>?????
>
>"Aniyvwiya" - The human people of the creator.
>
>??????
>
>"Aniyvwiyayi" - The place of the human people of the creator
>
>??? ???
>
>"Tsalagi gadugi" - Cherokee people working together
>
>??? ???? ????
>
>"tsalagi digoweli gatsanula" -    Cherokee fast books
>
>??? ????
>
>"tsalagi digoweli" - Cherokee books
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>>ja.wikipedia (???????) transliterates as U-I-KI-PE-DI-A! So they
>>transliterated too.
>>
>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How amusing!
>>>>
>>>>For a language like Cherokee then (agglutinative), it seems
>>>>appropriate to not use transliteration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You can use transliteraton, but there are rules to avoid using
>>>conjugators and verb stem modifiers in trasliterations since these
>>>create meanings in the word and may create something unintended.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thinking about agglutinative languages, do you know what the Japanese
>>>>Wikipedia is called (I would imagine that it too avoids
>>>>transliteration).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not a clue.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary", and
>>>>>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
>>>>>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
>>>>>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
>>>>>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The name should be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>???? ????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
>>>>>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
>>>>>>>language, and was synthesized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just a suggestion...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
>>>>>name can create something you do not intend.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's look at it:
>>>>>
>>>>>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
>>>>>
>>>>>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
>>>>>gi - to combine
>>>>>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
>>>>>di - plural for a non living object
>>>>>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area or
>>>>>topic)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not to mention "di" is always at the start of a pural word, "gi" is a
>>>>>modifier always at the end of a word, que isn't a word at all, and "wi"
>>>>>is a tense modifer always at the end of word.
>>>>>
>>>>>Translation:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Something very negative in the past was put together for (??? -
>>>>>something that resembles a contraction of the word nesgi which means
>>>>>keep your hands off of it) , and there were a bunch of them (di) that
>>>>>dwell in a large area.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, its current name implies "negative place to keep your
>>>>>hands off of and there's a whole bunch of us here".
>>>>>
>>>>>Based on the edit history of the site, seems to have been the course
>>>>>followed.  Perhaps we should change its name?
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Cherokee Wikipedia Name Suggestion


list: foundation-l

body:
James Hare wrote:

>I don't know if we want the Cherokee name of Wikipedia to feature words like
>"books", since there might be a Cherokee Wikibooks someday.
>
>

Give me a list of concepts and I will translate them for you.  If you
have other suggestions, please post them here and
lets get all the options out on the table.

Jeff

>On 7/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But is there a way to transliterate it without using any conjugators
>>>or verb stem modifiers?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, there is, but it isn't going to produce a "wiki" sound.   Native
>>languages (ours included) have evolved to incorporate
>>expression of the physical world in spiritual terms.  Because of this,
>>misuse of the language is perceived by most native
>>speakers as an extreme form of disrespect.  For example:
>>
>>"di" means plural of nonliving objects and
>>
>>"u" or "una" means plural of a living sentient being
>>
>>using "di" to make a human word plural is a form of insult.   diyvwi
>>would mean (its not a real word but could be used) to call
>>a person or group of people "subhuman".  You have to be careful with
>>native languages in doing transliteration.  Every Cherokee I
>>have shown wi-gi-que-di-ya to has rolled their eyes (oh brother roll
>>your eyes) or laughed because of the name.   The fact is, I dount
>>if we named the main Wikipedia site "The bad place put together in the
>>past we should keep our hands off of because its part of an animal and has
>>a lot of people dwelling there" would not serve to attract people to
>>edit there.
>>
>>aniyvwiya is a very respectful way of saying cherokee people becaue the
>>word yvwi means "it has a spirit".  Another example is Hello in Cherokee.
>>Modenr speakers in Okalhoma use two forms.  osiyo and just siyo.  siyo
>>is not respecful and is an impersonal "what do the h_ll do you want"
>>form of hellow because it drops the "o" sound.  "o" in front of the word
>>means "I treat you as an equal and greet you" instead of just "I greet
>>you".  One example.
>>
>>Here's some other suggestions which are broad and will attract Cherokee
>>editors to the site:
>>
>>????? ???
>>
>>"Aniyvwiya gadugi"  - The human people of the creator working together
>>
>>?????
>>
>>"Aniyvwiya" - The human people of the creator.
>>
>>??????
>>
>>"Aniyvwiyayi" - The place of the human people of the creator
>>
>>??? ???
>>
>>"Tsalagi gadugi" - Cherokee people working together
>>
>>??? ???? ????
>>
>>"tsalagi digoweli gatsanula" -    Cherokee fast books
>>
>>??? ????
>>
>>"tsalagi digoweli" - Cherokee books
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>>ja.wikipedia (???????) transliterates as U-I-KI-PE-DI-A! So they
>>>transliterated too.
>>>
>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How amusing!
>>>>>
>>>>>For a language like Cherokee then (agglutinative), it seems
>>>>>appropriate to not use transliteration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You can use transliteraton, but there are rules to avoid using
>>>>conjugators and verb stem modifiers in trasliterations since these
>>>>create meanings in the word and may create something unintended.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thinking about agglutinative languages, do you know what the Japanese
>>>>>Wikipedia is called (I would imagine that it too avoids
>>>>>transliteration).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Not a clue.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
>>>>>>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
>>>>>>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
>>>>>>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>system?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The name should be:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>???? ????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
>>>>>>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
>>>>>>>>language, and was synthesized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just a suggestion...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
>>>>>>name can create something you do not intend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's look at it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
>>>>>>gi - to combine
>>>>>>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
>>>>>>di - plural for a non living object
>>>>>>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>or
>>
>>
>>>>>>topic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not to mention "di" is always at the start of a pural word, "gi" is a
>>>>>>modifier always at the end of a word, que isn't a word at all, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>"wi"
>>
>>
>>>>>>is a tense modifer always at the end of word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Translation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Something very negative in the past was put together for (??? -
>>>>>>something that resembles a contraction of the word nesgi which means
>>>>>>keep your hands off of it) , and there were a bunch of them (di) that
>>>>>>dwell in a large area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In other words, its current name implies "negative place to keep your
>>>>>>hands off of and there's a whole bunch of us here".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Based on the edit history of the site, seems to have been the course
>>>>>>followed.  Perhaps we should change its name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
There's something I've never understood about our use of the GFDL. I
assume it is not the case that we are stuck with whatever version of
the GFDL was around in September 2001? There must be some kind of
provision in the text of the GFDL to automatically update the license
to the latest version, am I right? If this isn't the case then we're
as far from GFDL 1.3 as we are from CC-by-sa.

PS. For good measure I'm just about to multilicense :)

On 12/07/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Oldak Quill schrieb:
> > Doing another multi-licensing drive is the next best thing (though
> > time machines are alot more fun). I forget which user performed the
> > last multi-license drive (he/she used a bot to post on user's talk
> > pages, quite controvertial at the time). I, personally, would happily
> > multilicense into CC-by-sa for the sake of the project (I'm surprised
> > I haven't done it yet).
> >
> To be of any use, all authors of an article would have to multi-license
> their work (I did;-) which is unlikely for most articles. Also, it seems
> impossible to get an additional license from anons.
>
> Jimbo said he's working with the FSF to make the GFDL compatible with CC
> in the next version, and I trust that he will get that done. After all,
> we're working towards the same goal; open source shouldn't have
> incompatible proprietary licenses just because we can ;-)
>
> Magnus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
2006/7/12, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com>:
> Can an individual organisation such as Wikimedia change their
> requirements, despite the license, to something more lenient as you
> are suggesting? Even if they did, could some external
> organisation/person have a problem with it? Could the Free Software
> Foundation claim that we're misusing the GFDL? If they did, could they
> demand we use a different license (I think not, but I'll ask anyway)?
> Well, I'm just speculating, but they're questions that should be
> considered.

No, technically we cannot. I don't think the FSF can make such a
claim, but the individual authors of that Wikipedia page might well
have a point if they claim it is violating their copyright.

I sometimes wished I had a time machine so I could go to January 2001
and warn Jimbo about the problems of the GFDL, advising him to find or
create another license for Wikipedia.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Should we block unregistered AOL users?

body:
This tool will certainly help a lot, but we mustn't get carried away
with its power by blocking whole swathes of the Internet. Anons are
valuable, and their editing Wikipedia is a fundamental principle of
ours. Anons should be afforded as many rights as are possible without
exposing ourselves to too much vandalism.

On 12/07/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> Fantastic.
>
> - nathanrdotcom
>
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Angela wrote:
>
> > I've just had confirmation that this should be working. From AOL this morning:
> >
> > > I have just now added all the domains you have listed below to our
> > > config to get XFF headers. You should see them sometime later today when
> > > the process is finished updating all of our web proxies.
> >
> > Thanks to Jim Sheafer for setting this up, and to Mike Wise for
> > putting me in contact with him.
> >
> > Hopefully this means you can now block one AOL user without affecting
> > another one.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_AOL_users should
> > probably be updated when we're sure this is working.
> >
> > Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Angela

body:
I've just had confirmation that this should be working. From AOL this morning:

> I have just now added all the domains you have listed below to our
> config to get XFF headers. You should see them sometime later today when
> the process is finished updating all of our web proxies.

Thanks to Jim Sheafer for setting this up, and to Mike Wise for
putting me in contact with him.

Hopefully this means you can now block one AOL user without affecting
another one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_AOL_users should
probably be updated when we're sure this is working.

Angela.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
Hi Berto,

consider that it is less of a problem when the authors are for example
three/four you know. If you all agree to publish that specific article
under another license (for example cc-by) you can do that - this means:
each author can publish the own work under various licenses.

Small wikipedias like us (pms, nap, lmo etc.) have less problems in that
way - it is enough that you take the article, contact all contributors
(of course anonymous contributors cannot be contacted ... don't really
know how to deal with that one) and have them state that the article may
be used under license xyz for the publication in newspaper abc. Creative
Commons licenses are somewhat better ... you do not have to include the
whole text of a license there.

Another possibility for us small wikipedias who want to go that way is:
ask contributors to state that they would agree to a double-licensing
(for example cc-by) of their work. I suppose most of us will gladly do
that, because we want to spread the information and not close it down in
an electronical format.

Ciao, Sabine

Berto schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> can a newspaper publish an article from a wiki, provided that they quote the
> source page? I am thinking to propose this to a number of small local
> newspapers, but I am not clear on the copyright matter, since these
> newspapers are actually sold. Obviously, it would be just an article, the
> paper is 99,5% made of their own stuff. It would do great to get a better
> media exposure.
>
> B?rto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
Oldak Quill schrieb:
> Doing another multi-licensing drive is the next best thing (though
> time machines are alot more fun). I forget which user performed the
> last multi-license drive (he/she used a bot to post on user's talk
> pages, quite controvertial at the time). I, personally, would happily
> multilicense into CC-by-sa for the sake of the project (I'm surprised
> I haven't done it yet).
>
To be of any use, all authors of an article would have to multi-license
their work (I did;-) which is unlikely for most articles. Also, it seems
impossible to get an additional license from anons.

Jimbo said he's working with the FSF to make the GFDL compatible with CC
in the next version, and I trust that he will get that done. After all,
we're working towards the same goal; open source shouldn't have
incompatible proprietary licenses just because we can ;-)

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060712/a065323b/attachment.pgp


body:
geni wrote:

>On 7/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>James Hare wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't know if we want the Cherokee name of Wikipedia to feature words like
>>>"books", since there might be a Cherokee Wikibooks someday.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Give me a list of concepts and I will translate them for you.  If you
>>have other suggestions, please post them here and
>>lets get all the options out on the table.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>Well wiki is suposed to come from fast. Pedia probably comes from the
>greek for something like "general education". So the direct
>translation into english would be something like "fast general
>education"
>
>A short defintion of wiki in english would be hard but soemthing like:
>
>Editable general education /changeable general education
>
>

??????? ??????

anedeloquasgv digaleyvsgv

"editing of the teachings"

????? ??????

vgatahvi digaleyvsgv

"editing of the knowledge"

>might be one aproach
>
>collaborative general education
>
>

????? ????? ?? ???

vgatahvi anotlvsgv ale gadugi

"making knowledge and working together"

(Note "ale" is often meant and used as "or" and not "and" in modern
times, however, the 1800 dialects and Cherokee new testament use
"ale" instead of appending "tanv" to the end of words. Otali uses "tanv"
at the end of words, but its more proper to use "ale" in context --
point of order -- ale can be dropped and infered as follows).

????? ????? ???

vgatahvi anotlvsgv gadugi

"making knowledge and working together"

>might be another
>
>Other than that just tranliterate an accept that there may be other
>reasons people don't want to work on it (after all our welsh language
>wikipedia only has 4,563 articles)
>
>
I personally am embarassed by the name -- its dorky, wrong, and
offensive to some folks.

Jeff


from_name: James Hare

body:
I don't know if we want the Cherokee name of Wikipedia to feature words like
"books", since there might be a Cherokee Wikibooks someday.

On 7/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> >But is there a way to transliterate it without using any conjugators
> >or verb stem modifiers?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, there is, but it isn't going to produce a "wiki" sound.   Native
> languages (ours included) have evolved to incorporate
> expression of the physical world in spiritual terms.  Because of this,
> misuse of the language is perceived by most native
> speakers as an extreme form of disrespect.  For example:
>
> "di" means plural of nonliving objects and
>
> "u" or "una" means plural of a living sentient being
>
> using "di" to make a human word plural is a form of insult.   diyvwi
> would mean (its not a real word but could be used) to call
> a person or group of people "subhuman".  You have to be careful with
> native languages in doing transliteration.  Every Cherokee I
> have shown wi-gi-que-di-ya to has rolled their eyes (oh brother roll
> your eyes) or laughed because of the name.   The fact is, I dount
> if we named the main Wikipedia site "The bad place put together in the
> past we should keep our hands off of because its part of an animal and has
> a lot of people dwelling there" would not serve to attract people to
> edit there.
>
> aniyvwiya is a very respectful way of saying cherokee people becaue the
> word yvwi means "it has a spirit".  Another example is Hello in Cherokee.
> Modenr speakers in Okalhoma use two forms.  osiyo and just siyo.  siyo
> is not respecful and is an impersonal "what do the h_ll do you want"
> form of hellow because it drops the "o" sound.  "o" in front of the word
> means "I treat you as an equal and greet you" instead of just "I greet
> you".  One example.
>
> Here's some other suggestions which are broad and will attract Cherokee
> editors to the site:
>
> ????? ???
>
> "Aniyvwiya gadugi"  - The human people of the creator working together
>
> ?????
>
> "Aniyvwiya" - The human people of the creator.
>
> ??????
>
> "Aniyvwiyayi" - The place of the human people of the creator
>
> ??? ???
>
> "Tsalagi gadugi" - Cherokee people working together
>
> ??? ???? ????
>
> "tsalagi digoweli gatsanula" -    Cherokee fast books
>
> ??? ????
>
> "tsalagi digoweli" - Cherokee books
>
> Jeff
>
> >ja.wikipedia (???????) transliterates as U-I-KI-PE-DI-A! So they
> >transliterated too.
> >
> >On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>How amusing!
> >>>
> >>>For a language like Cherokee then (agglutinative), it seems
> >>>appropriate to not use transliteration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You can use transliteraton, but there are rules to avoid using
> >>conjugators and verb stem modifiers in trasliterations since these
> >>create meanings in the word and may create something unintended.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thinking about agglutinative languages, do you know what the Japanese
> >>>Wikipedia is called (I would imagine that it too avoids
> >>>transliteration).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Not a clue.
> >>
> >>Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary",
> and
> >>>>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
> >>>>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
> >>>>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
> >>>>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration
> system?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The name should be:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>???? ????
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
> >>>>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
> >>>>>>language, and was synthesized.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just a suggestion...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jeff
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>foundation-l mailing list
> >>>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
> >>>>name can create something you do not intend.
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's look at it:
> >>>>
> >>>>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
> >>>>
> >>>>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
> >>>>gi - to combine
> >>>>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
> >>>>di - plural for a non living object
> >>>>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area
> or
> >>>>topic)
> >>>>
> >>>>Not to mention "di" is always at the start of a pural word, "gi" is a
> >>>>modifier always at the end of a word, que isn't a word at all, and
> "wi"
> >>>>is a tense modifer always at the end of word.
> >>>>
> >>>>Translation:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Something very negative in the past was put together for (??? -
> >>>>something that resembles a contraction of the word nesgi which means
> >>>>keep your hands off of it) , and there were a bunch of them (di) that
> >>>>dwell in a large area.
> >>>>
> >>>>In other words, its current name implies "negative place to keep your
> >>>>hands off of and there's a whole bunch of us here".
> >>>>
> >>>>Based on the edit history of the site, seems to have been the course
> >>>>followed.  Perhaps we should change its name?
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>foundation-l mailing list
> >>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
For some reason the syllabary did not transmit, resending:

Editable general education /changeable general education:

??????? ??????

anedeloquasgv digaleyvsgv

"editing of the teachings"

????? ??????

vgatahvi digaleyvsgv

"editing of the knowledge"

collaborative general education :

????? ????? ?? ???

vgatahvi anotlvsgv ale gadugi

"making knowledge and working together"

(Note "ale" is often meant and used as "or" and not "and" in modern
times, however, the 1800 dialects and Cherokee new testament use
"ale" instead of appending "tanv" to the end of words. Otali uses "tanv"
at the end of words, but its more proper to use "ale" in context --
point of order -- ale can be dropped and infered as follows).

????? ????? ???

vgatahvi anotlvsgv gadugi

"making knowledge and working together"

Jeff


body:
geni wrote:

>On 7/12/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>vgatahvi anotlvsgv gadugi
>>
>>"making knowledge and working together"
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Is there a way of switching that to something like recording
>knowledge/teachings while working together? "Making" conflicts with no
>original research,
>
>

Sure. "giving", "writing/recording" and "making" are verb roots in
Cherokee here are some exmaples to give you an idea (I give to you
something (person) (tsi-ne-ha), I give something flexible and non-living
(tsi-nv-ne-ha), I give something liquid (tsi-ne-ne-ha), I give something
linear and nonliving (tsi-de-ha))

vgatahvi anowelisgv gadugi

"I am writing/recording knowlege and working together"

vgatahvi anadanehv gadugi

"I am giving knowlege and working together"

>
>
>
>>I personally am embarassed by the name -- its dorky, wrong, and
>>offensive to some folks.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>It is a proper noun though.
>

Not in Cherokee its not.

>It isn't as if the compound parts of it
>are really English words
>

Wiki is Hawiian for "fast"

>(wiki probably is these days but pedia is
>Greek if it is anything).
>
>Just avoid refernces to a creator (risks
>anoying athiests)
>

The language is what it is. The word for "person" is "yvwi" -- "it has a
spirit" or "it is a sentient being".

nigo disgesdi (that's just the way it is)

> and Cherokee people (since non Cherokee people who
>speak the langauge are of course welcome).
>
>
>
>
>
They are welcome, but they had better be prepared to learn Cherokee. :-)

Jeff


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
On 7/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's something I've never understood about our use of the GFDL. I
> > assume it is not the case that we are stuck with whatever version of
> > the GFDL was around in September 2001? There must be some kind of
> > provision in the text of the GFDL to automatically update the license
> > to the latest version, am I right? If this isn't the case then we're
> > as far from GFDL 1.3 as we are from CC-by-sa.
>
> The GFDL allows any work to also be licensed under the GFDL, *or* any
> later version of the GFDL. This allows for small technical fixes
> ("oops, clause seventeen clashes with an obscure 1927 publishing law
> and means GFDL material can't ever appear on cardboard, better fix
> that comma and call it 1.3"), but (at least in spirit) means you can't
> just replace it with "GFDL 2.0" where clause one is "you must give
> Stallman lots of money", because that would be a different license
> entirely rather than an incremental upgrade.

Somewhere (I think it might be in the GFDL itself) is a clause that
says that any future version of the license will be "in the spirit of"
the original GFDL.

--
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
Oldak Quill schrieb:
> There's something I've never understood about our use of the GFDL. I
> assume it is not the case that we are stuck with whatever version of
> the GFDL was around in September 2001? There must be some kind of
> provision in the text of the GFDL to automatically update the license
> to the latest version, am I right? If this isn't the case then we're
> as far from GFDL 1.3 as we are from CC-by-sa.
>

Yes. The license is "GFDL 1.2 or any later version", IIRC.

However, Stallmann (and thus the FSF) did /not/ endorse the CC licenses
because there's a noncommercial one, and if he won't endorse one of the
licenses, he won't recommend the others in the CC bundle either.

So much for his reasonig, if it can be called that ;-)

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060712/597d0c9f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Printed on Demand Books from Wikipedia articles

body:
Volker Haas wrote:

>Hi everybody,
>
>as the title suggests I would like to introduce a website to the
>wikimedia community that offers books consisting of wikipedia articles
>that areprinted on demand.
>
>
I am curious how you plan to compile these books in a format that looks
good on paper and not strictly as a web format.  While this can be
automated to an extent, I do think there are some issues that come from
trying to move content from a web format to a printed page, and not all
of these can be completely automated.  As I havn't been able to preview
a book yet,

>
>* we e-mailed with Angela Beesley (member of the Board of Trustees of
>the Wikimedia Foundation) and Brad Patrick (general counsel to  the
>Wikimedia Foundation) who did not see anything problematic with our service.
>
>
While notifying the Wikimedia Foundation board may be demonstrating good
faith, I want to emphasis that it is not necessary to seek permission in
order to republish Wikimedia project content.  The GFDL spells out the
terms and conditions quite clearly and in theory should be sufficient
for non-lawyers to get into print versions of Wikimedia content.

This does get back to the point in question that I raised with my first
posting about print versions of Wikimedia content.  What should
reasonable project guidelines be for links to print versions like this?
 As I've pointed out, this is but the beginning of a huge number of
request that will be coming for services like this, and telling
everybody to get their own legal counsel and duke it out in the
courtroom is not going to be a pleasant experience for anybody.

Not permitting any links to services like this might be a solution, and
encouraging independent advertising of these services outside of
Wikimedia projects as the only real advertising venue.

There is, however, some value for individuals who want to purchase print
versions and it would be logical to offer some links to printed
versions.  This would be a service to our "readers" that may want to get
some added value to Wikimedia projects.  Some sort of standard should be
applied *if* we permit some external links, even if of the variety like
the ISBN links to on-line booksellers.  That we do offer links to
commercial services on Wikimedia projects already for books should
demonstrate at least some sort of precedence to permit reprint links as
well, as long as they are just as descrete and don't clutter up the
article/project pages.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

body:
On 7/12/06 3:09 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice
> that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*.  I just now
> semi-protected it.

I'm beginning to think that any article with [[Category:Living people]] in
it should be semi-protected by default.

-Travis


body:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>Oldak Quill wrote:
>
>
>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary", and
>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration system?
>>
>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The name should be:
>>>
>>>???? ????
>>>
>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
>>>
>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
>>>
>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
>>>language, and was synthesized.
>>>
>>>Just a suggestion...
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
>name can create something you do not intend.
>
>Let's look at it:
>
>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
>
>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
>gi - to combine
>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
>di - plural for a non living object
>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area or
>topic)
>
>
While it is interesting some of the points and counter points about this
issue, isn't this something better left to be discussed on project pages
by participants and made as a local decision?  At least I would feel
more comfortable with people who are involved with the development of
the project (aka Cherokee Wikipedia content developers) instead of
getting European or Austrialian attitudes from people who may never even
add a single word to that project.

This whole discussion strikes me as something very similar to when the
name Wikipedia itself was coined, along with all of the other major
sister projects and their names.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

>There's something I've never understood about our use of the GFDL. I
>assume it is not the case that we are stuck with whatever version of
>the GFDL was around in September 2001? There must be some kind of
>provision in the text of the GFDL to automatically update the license
>to the latest version, am I right? If this isn't the case then we're
>as far from GFDL 1.3 as we are from CC-by-sa.
>
>
You're right, we're not stuck with the current GFDL.  This isn't
explicitly a feature of the GFDL, but is a result of the way people
usually license their work under the GFDL, which is intended for exactly
this sort of issue.

The en: Coyprights page states our license as follows:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
Texts."

So if the FSF published a Version 1.3, third parties could at their
option choose to comply with that license instead of the current Version
1.2.

-Mark


from_name: Sue Reed

body:
----- Original Message ----
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:09:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

> If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source,
> then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not
> make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on
> what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who
> wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!

--Jimbo

Jimbo and others,

I've been struggling with what to remove and what to keep on certain Living Person biographies that are on my watchlist. Most of them are athletes and finding the line between encyclopaedic writing and fan cruft is difficult. (It's not difficult for me to see, but it causes friction when you try to remove statements like the following and the "fan" that wrote them thinks they are perfectly okay.)

>From one article:
" ... he had another fine season ..."
" ... bounced back with another quality season ... "
" He was also one of the best players ... "
" ...  the season was an unqualified success ... "
" The news came as a shock ... "
" The trade request was harshly received by Edmontonians ... "

None of those statements is sourced in any way. And I can find at least that many similar statements in several articles on my watchlist. Can I delete all that on the spot? If it's "positive" can I mark it with [citation needed] and leave it alone?

Sue Anne


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Neil Harris wrote:
>
>
>>Arwel Parry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message
>>>John Lyden writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 6/17/06, Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ok, stop... you're making me all nostalgic. I think it all started to go
>>>>>downhill when the modems became capable of transferring text faster than
>>>>>you could read it (aka 2400 baud). :]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>By that measure, my downhill was 9600 baud.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, I jumped right from my 1200 baud Multitech to a 14.4K on my
>>>>486. Jump to lightspeed!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Some of us started out on 10 c.p.s. teletypes and input our first
>>>programs on paper tape....
>>>
>>>
>>Paper tape? Luxury. What's wrong with toggling your programs in using
>>the panel switches?
>>
>>
>(mutters something about the luxury of switches and having to rely on
>compass needles twiddling and having to wave magnets, uphill both ways
>in the snow)
>
I do remember paper tape and drum memories.  The panel switches were an
improvement over having to reconfigure patch-cords.  (IMSAI?)  The
needles and magnets appear to have more to do with the Heathkit analog
computer that you had to put together.  Unfortunately I wasn't old
enough to afford one of those.  I also do remember a first printing
desktop calculator that could automatically multiply; it was a heavy
beast that made one hell of a racket for that operation.  Still that was
an improvement over comptometers that required you to configure your
fingers according to the multiplicand and push and shift in accordance
with the multiplier.  Some early machines would get very confused when
students would naturally try to get them to divide by zero.

Ec


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Jimmy, I think this is a case where your famous divine intervention
> might be helpful to establish a general principle, so I'd appreciate
> your input.
>
> We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_%283rd_nomination%29
>
>
> The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been
> cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go
> through.

Eek.

Let me think about this a bit, because the ramifications could be
enormous either way.  There is something to be said for existing
procedures on AfD (and I say this as a full-fledged charter member of
the "AfD is broken" club!).

I personally think, and would vote this way if I were voting, that
factors like:

...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela)
...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable
person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers)
...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian
Chase)

...can and should all matter, and be taken into account by people
commenting at AfD.

This is in direct opposition to a certain faction with a different read
on what it means to be the 'sum' of all human knowledge, a read which
comes closer to a 'data dump' of all human knowledge. :)

---------

There is a problem with two relatively tiny groups of people that should
be at least mentioned here.

First, there are the Wikipedia lovers who insist that everything about
Wikipedia is super duper important and who love to fill Wikipedia with
Wikipedia fan cruft *and* to work really hard to look up negative
information about anyone who has ever been hostile to Wikipedia.  This
is a very tiny group of people generally, and in some cases people fall
into this trap mostly because they had a run-in with someone who hates
Wikipedia because the bio about them is bad, etc.

Second, there are the Wikipedia haters who insist that every negative
thing about Wikipedia should be dug up and stuck into the encyclopedia
at every possible point.  It is important to note that the current
trouble with my bio and Angela's bio started when a banned user came in
and made rather a strange mess of both articles, including original
research that was flatly wrong, as well as strangely intimidating
personal data (and if you do not know the whole story behind this,
please trust me, I am not kidding about this).

So... bios of living persons, a perennially difficult area for us.  And
this spills over into deletion debates.


body:
"Morally", as you put it, this project raises no concerns. I would say
that it is "morally" good - using the work we have created, providing
Wikipedia in more media and raising money for Wikimedia. I wish you
the best of luck. Perhaps the only problem in this respect is that the
articles will be unedited (I assume?) and unverified. Our mistakes
will forever be distilled in ink. This is not a great concern since
there is currently no way to get 100% verified Wikipedia articles yet
anyway. Will you include a description of what Wikipedia is and a
disclaimer at the front of each book?

Legally, there are some issues to take note of. As I'm sure you know,
each book would need to contain a full copy of the GFDL 1.2 license
and would have to provide the names of a certain number of authors for
each article (as you mention in your post).

There have been some attempts at this kind of thing from within
Wikipedia. They are called "Readers" - compilations of articles (on,
say, Mammals) which are edited and presented in quite a pleasant
format. I suggest you attempt to work with the users who have worked
on Readers to get ideas for presentation/editing. It would be better
for all parties if you stay in communication with the community rather
than simply exist coldly outside.

May I ask how you are planning on printing and binding these books?
Will they be hardback or softback? What kind of presses, papers and
inks will you be using? Will you provide "template books" (like the
above readers) with precollated selections of articles on mammals or
whatnot?

Wikipedia's allowance for commercial use has always had these kind of
projects in mind. I wish you luck again and hope you keep in
communication with us.

On 12/07/06, Volker Haas <volker.haas at brainbot.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> as the title suggests I would like to introduce a website to the
> wikimedia community that offers books consisting of wikipedia articles
> that areprinted on demand. The unique feature is that every user can
> individually pick arbitrary articles from the wikipedia (currently only
> from the english version) and add them to his book. Once the user is
> satisfied with the book's content, he can download a pdf-preview and
> check how the book will look like when printed. The last step is to
> order the book and get a unique encyclopedia containing only selected
> wikipedia articles.
>
> The service is located at http://www.pediapress.com and has not yet been
> publicly announced.
>
> I would like to know the opinion of the wikimedia community about this
> service, since I am aware of the fact that a couple of copyright and
> also "moral" issues are related to selling wikipedia content.
>
> Some of these issues are pointed out in the thread "Offering Wikibooks
> content for sale"
> (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/63024).
>
> I would like to give you some details about our efforts to comply with
> the GFDL and also the spirit of the wikipedia content and community:
>
> * on the pediapress.com website and in the printed books it is clearly
> stated that all articles have their origin in the wikipedia project
>
> * below each article a link (in case of the book the plain URL) to the
> original wikipedia article is shown
>
> * all principle authors are listed below an article in the book if possible
>
> * pediapress does not generate any unnecessary traffic on wikipedia
> since we use the wikipedia dumps
>
> * we e-mailed with Angela Beesley (member of the Board of Trustees of
> the Wikimedia Foundation) and Brad Patrick (general counsel to  the
> Wikimedia Foundation) who did not see anything problematic with our service
>
> Last but not least I want to point out that the pediapress affiliate
> program has the goal to generate donations to the wikimedia foundation:
> after ordering a book, users have the option to publish and promote
> their book. Thereby others are able to buy the published book. The
> publisher receives a provision of 10% of the books price which he can
> donate to the wikimedia foundation.Please note that pediapress is still
> in a "beta" phase even though compiling, printing and ordering books is
> perfectly possible. But since all processing and layouting is done
> automatically there are still some shortcomings that will be fixed asap.
>
> I don't want to deny that my company (brainbot technologies AG -
> http://brainbot.com) and I hope that pediapress supports itself
> financially. The main motivation nevertheless was to give something back
> to the wikipedia community. Since me and my colleagues aren't exactly
> good writers but heavy consumers of the wikipedia, we thought it would
> be a better idea to try to promote the offline usage of the wikipedia by
> building pediapress.
>
> Thanks for your patience - I hope some of you check out pediapress and
> post their opinions.
>
> Volker Haas
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rollback for trusted users

body:
On 7/12/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>
> There are a lot of ways in which any user can already cause much more
> damage much more quickly and easily than with rollback.  Of course, the
> rollback feature probably would facilitate revert warring, but we
> already have a social solution to that: 3RR.

Revert wars at warp speed!

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
You mention trying to get permanently featured as "not everyone knows
that" sections on the fun pages of newspapers. Could this not fuel a
perception of Wikipedia as somewhat frivelous? Couldn't it encourage
more people to see our contents as a random collation of facts rather
than a great source of information?

On 12/07/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'll better explain the whole story... our situation is:
> 1) after getting some nice media exposure traffic started to rise (about 5
> published articles since March, 27; 2 of them on national media)
> 2) people do register, but actually 90% of what we get is from anon users,
> from the grammar mistakes they usually make I'd say it's at least 4 main
> contributors working almost every day, but all efforts to contact them have
> proved unsuccesful this far
>
> Now, I get the impression that a number of papers could use us as a free
> source for some kind "Not everybody knows that..." section of their papers.
> This would:
> 1) get a permanent exposure to the wiki
> 2) increase wiki's authorithy as a public data source
> 3) get people in touch with the written form of their language.
>
> The main contribution waves came exactly when important media published pms
> text quoted from the wiki, so it seems to make sense to work on this. Most
> people are not familiar both with reading and writing the language and with
> the very concept of a wiki. By acquiring some stable presence in the paper
> media we could use the trend that is manifesting itself on spontaneous
> basis.
>
> It's not a problem to have a small copyright related text published in small
> chars, from our marketing POV we'd want the wiki URL published in bigger
> chars. Please bear in mind that given the current trend we'll have NO way to
> contact 90% of the authors.
>
> ??: "Andre Engels" <andreengels at gmail.com>
> > This article is an adaptation from the Wikipedia article "Nonsense",
> > which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense. It falls
> > under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that it can be
> > copied and distributed by anyone in modified in modified or unmodified
> > form as long as the new publication is under the same license. See
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html for the text of the license. A
> > copy of this article can be found on our website at
> > http://www.somenewspaper.com/article/08-11/fromwikipedia.htm.
>
> Newspapers will need a much shorter text, IMHO. We are going to stand
> somewhere in the "local chronicle" page, sometimes in the "Culture" section,
> we cannot really expect them to waste this much room. What about writing:
> "The original text is published at http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/article and
> released under a GNU Free Documentation License. Details can be obtained at
> http://pms.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia/GNUFDL "
>
> At this point we would use a template to point readers of the original
> article to a machine readable copy inside the wiki, in a special namespace
> (say Printed_Articles:), where one could know who published what and were.
>
> If it seems to make sense to the people here I'll try my luck in asking the
> board to issue an official authorisation for this use.
> Thanks
> B?rto
>
> PS I suggest to all minor language edition to try this marketing trick. And
> the smaller and more local the paper mentioning you, the more contributors
> you seem to get. Just make sure that text gets published in the same
> language as the original.
>
>
> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> ??: "Sabine Cretella" <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
> ????: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> ??????????: 12 ???? 2006 ?. 14:45
> ????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question
>
>
> > Hi Berto,
> >
> > consider that it is less of a problem when the authors are for example
> > three/four you know. If you all agree to publish that specific article
> > under another license (for example cc-by) you can do that - this means:
> > each author can publish the own work under various licenses.
> >
> > Small wikipedias like us (pms, nap, lmo etc.) have less problems in that
> > way - it is enough that you take the article, contact all contributors
> > (of course anonymous contributors cannot be contacted ... don't really
> > know how to deal with that one) and have them state that the article may
> > be used under license xyz for the publication in newspaper abc. Creative
> > Commons licenses are somewhat better ... you do not have to include the
> > whole text of a license there.
> >
> > Another possibility for us small wikipedias who want to go that way is:
> > ask contributors to state that they would agree to a double-licensing
> > (for example cc-by) of their work. I suppose most of us will gladly do
> > that, because we want to spread the information and not close it down in
> > an electronical format.
> >
> > Ciao, Sabine
> >
> >
> >
> > Berto schrieb:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > can a newspaper publish an article from a wiki, provided that they quote
> the
> > > source page? I am thinking to propose this to a number of small local
> > > newspapers, but I am not clear on the copyright matter, since these
> > > newspapers are actually sold. Obviously, it would be just an article,
> the
> > > paper is 99,5% made of their own stuff. It would do great to get a
> better
> > > media exposure.
> > >
> > > B?rto
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
> >  http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Volker Haas

body:
Hi everybody,

as the title suggests I would like to introduce a website to the
wikimedia community that offers books consisting of wikipedia articles
that areprinted on demand. The unique feature is that every user can
individually pick arbitrary articles from the wikipedia (currently only
from the english version) and add them to his book. Once the user is
satisfied with the book's content, he can download a pdf-preview and
check how the book will look like when printed. The last step is to
order the book and get a unique encyclopedia containing only selected
wikipedia articles.

The service is located at http://www.pediapress.com and has not yet been
publicly announced.

I would like to know the opinion of the wikimedia community about this
service, since I am aware of the fact that a couple of copyright and
also "moral" issues are related to selling wikipedia content.

Some of these issues are pointed out in the thread "Offering Wikibooks
content for sale"
(http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/63024).

I would like to give you some details about our efforts to comply with
the GFDL and also the spirit of the wikipedia content and community:

* on the pediapress.com website and in the printed books it is clearly
stated that all articles have their origin in the wikipedia project

* below each article a link (in case of the book the plain URL) to the
original wikipedia article is shown

* all principle authors are listed below an article in the book if possible

* pediapress does not generate any unnecessary traffic on wikipedia
since we use the wikipedia dumps

* we e-mailed with Angela Beesley (member of the Board of Trustees of
the Wikimedia Foundation) and Brad Patrick (general counsel to  the
Wikimedia Foundation) who did not see anything problematic with our service

Last but not least I want to point out that the pediapress affiliate
program has the goal to generate donations to the wikimedia foundation:
after ordering a book, users have the option to publish and promote
their book. Thereby others are able to buy the published book. The
publisher receives a provision of 10% of the books price which he can
donate to the wikimedia foundation.Please note that pediapress is still
in a "beta" phase even though compiling, printing and ordering books is
perfectly possible. But since all processing and layouting is done
automatically there are still some shortcomings that will be fixed asap.

I don't want to deny that my company (brainbot technologies AG -
http://brainbot.com) and I hope that pediapress supports itself
financially. The main motivation nevertheless was to give something back
to the wikipedia community. Since me and my colleagues aren't exactly
good writers but heavy consumers of the wikipedia, we thought it would
be a better idea to try to promote the offline usage of the wikipedia by
building pediapress.

Thanks for your patience - I hope some of you check out pediapress and
post their opinions.

Volker Haas


body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>
>>Oldak Quill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary", and
>>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
>>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
>>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
>>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration system?
>>>
>>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The name should be:
>>>>
>>>>???? ????
>>>>
>>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
>>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
>>>>
>>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
>>>>
>>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
>>>>language, and was synthesized.
>>>>
>>>>Just a suggestion...
>>>>
>>>>Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
>>name can create something you do not intend.
>>
>>Let's look at it:
>>
>>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
>>
>>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
>>gi - to combine
>>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
>>di - plural for a non living object
>>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area or
>>topic)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>While it is interesting some of the points and counter points about this
>issue, isn't this something better left to be discussed on project pages
>by participants and made as a local decision?  At least I would feel
>more comfortable with people who are involved with the development of
>the project (aka Cherokee Wikipedia content developers) instead of
>getting European or Austrialian attitudes from people who may never even
>add a single word to that project.
>
>This whole discussion strikes me as something very similar to when the
>name Wikipedia itself was coined, along with all of the other major
>sister projects and their names.
>
>
>
There are no participants on the site.   The site has been dead for
months.  Probably because NONE OF THEM SPEAK CHEROKEE.
Perhaps best thing is to close the site completely and I'll just manage
the fork off Wikipedia.

Jeff

Jeff


body:
/me waves at Andrew Orlowski, confident that this post will be
misrepresented in The Register tomorrow.

Delirium wrote:
> Deleting the articles is of course one way of making sure they contain
> no low-quality content, but that seems less direct that simply removing
> the low-quality content while keeping the verifiable content.  In Seth's
> case, for example, it's undisputed that he formed the Censorware
> Project, that he either coined or at least popularized the term
> "censorware", and so on.  I see no reason that an article stating these
> verifiable and notable facts should be deleted.  If it contains other
> nonsense, then that nonsense should be removed, rather than used as an
> excuse to delete the entire article.

Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice
that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*.  I just now
semi-protected it.

For a few weeks, the article contained this little bit of garbage:

"Finkelstein is, however, legendary for his willingness to mount
personal attacks against those who disagree with him.[citation needed]"

When I met Seth, he explained to me how this happened.  The vandal used
a classic trick... the double edit.  The first edit was the vandalism,
the second edit was innocent.  So if you checked the diffs incorrectly,
you would not see the attack paragraph.

Personal attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=42851913&oldid=42493158

Innocent edit to cover it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=42854644&oldid=42851913

Is this not sad?  That Seth Finkelstein has to personally monitor his
own entry in Wikipedia?  His situation is similar to that of Xeni
Jardin, for example, who has had to deal with a stalker/attackblog
altering her entry unfairly and then boasting about it on the blog!

Ok, yes, that is sad.  But it is not the saddest part, no.

The saddest part is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Finkelstein&diff=56146142&oldid=53417848

A Wikipedian in good standing, with thousands of edits, reads this
obvious personal attack, and instead of *removing* it, chooses instead
to put a {{fact}} template around it.  Ouch.  We need to radically
improve our education of editors to understand that this is NOT THE
RIGHT ANSWER.

If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source,
then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not
make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on
what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who
wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!

--Jimbo


body:
Sorry, just a one more question (shame mailing lists don't have edit buttons!).

Will you be avoiding inclusion of fair use images? I would highly
recommend this as it is quite hard to know where you are with fair
use.

As Erik suggests, working within Wikipedia itself might be useful,
might I suggest that you operate transparently. What I mean by this is
that you tell us that you have had an order for a book and the client
has specified a particular list of articles. Knowing this we can help
you select the best versions of the article from the history, edit
these versions for spelling and grammar, help you remove fallacious
statements within these versions and help select which images to
include. If you agree with this it would be a good idea to set up a
Wiki so that this kind of editing can easily be done.

On 12/07/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Volker,
>
> this is very powerful stuff, and it's great that you're doing it. A
> couple of technical questions:
>
> 1) Are you using the highest quality images available for the PDF
> generation?  Is the quality setting deliberately low?
> Comparing, for instance,
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Chirpedpulse.jpg
> with the image used in the PDF under "Wigner quasi-probability
> distribution", the PDF image seems to have much more pronounced
> compression artifacts.
>
> 2) What mechanism do you use to generate the PDF files? Is there any
> chance that part of the software might become open source, if it isn't
> already? I know many people who would be interested in this
> functionality outside the context of Wikipedia.
>
> If this service works well, from my perspective (I don't have any
> Foundation authority) it would be great if this could be developed
> into a larger partnership, with the project being featured prominently
> on our side (perhaps in return for a larger percentage of the
> profits).
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question

body:
Just two points:
-information added by locals on their customs/traditions will have to
be verifiable. We cannot accept original research.
-I don't think distribution in newspapers will change the *type* of
vandalism we'll get. I'm not even sure if it will increase the volume
of vandalism greatly. Regardless, as you say we will have a larger
admin base and more refined tools and bots.

Other than that, it seems like a good idea.

On 12/07/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
> ??: "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill at gmail.com>
> ????: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
> ??????????: 12 ???? 2006 ?. 19:01
> ????: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Marketing: a question
>
>
> > You mention trying to get permanently featured as "not everyone knows
> > that" sections on the fun pages of newspapers. Could this not fuel a
> > perception of Wikipedia as somewhat frivelous? Couldn't it encourage
> > more people to see our contents as a random collation of facts rather
> > than a great source of information?
> This is strictly related to the kind of content you allow in the wiki.
> Actually I never knew myself that Cristoforo Colombo was a native PMS
> speaker and that there is even a museum dedicated to him and opened by one
> of his descendants in the village in where he was born. I learned that by
> verifying the content we get, andf I hardly can imagine this sort of notions
> having a bad impact on the wiki as such. Obviously, some care must be taken
> from the very start.
>
> But on the other hand, having such data about small cities and villages
> published on the papers will give the people :
> 1) a clear idea of the kind of data the wiki community rates as interesting
> 2) the image of a wiki as a way to "store and share knowledge"
> 3) a first crucial contact with written minor languages as means of
> communication
> 4) the idea that they all hold knowledge that can be shared
>
> Point 4) is crucial for our project "Native atlas". We can manage to
> properly collect a full atlas of toponims in native languages ONLY if we can
> involve local people. Many of them will limit their contribution to adding
> data on their own close geographic area, but a percentage of these people
> will also add data on local traditions, life styles, etc. These data alone
> have an immense value for researchers who cross-reference toponims to infer
> old extinct languages like PIE, ligurian and lepontian. I'd rate this quite
> far from being "frivelous". In addition, we would present the material
> toghether with a call for partecipation in the "Native Atlas" project, and
> present the project itself for what it is: a giant scale data collection
> that researchers will eventually use.
>
> The last thing we need is people coming in to add a page about their own
> dog's birthday, obviously. Because it would only add extra admin work in
> getting rid of it. But this far I do not see any such trend, although it
> will definitely happen, if traffic grows enough for that. But at that point
> we'll also have a bigger admin structure and we'll be able to cope with the
> flow.
>
> I do not think that this marketing channel "as such" can send a peculiar
> image of the wiki. As all channels, it really depends on what you use it
> for.
>
> B?rto
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
I invented something quite similar to Wikipedia back in August 2001 -
shame I didn't implement it! ;)

On 12/07/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a very good idea.
>
> Y'know, I came up with this same idea yesterday!
>
> On 7/12/06, Volker Haas <volker.haas at brainbot.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > as the title suggests I would like to introduce a website to the
> > wikimedia community that offers books consisting of wikipedia articles
> > that areprinted on demand. The unique feature is that every user can
> > individually pick arbitrary articles from the wikipedia (currently only
> > from the english version) and add them to his book. Once the user is
> > satisfied with the book's content, he can download a pdf-preview and
> > check how the book will look like when printed. The last step is to
> > order the book and get a unique encyclopedia containing only selected
> > wikipedia articles.
> >
> > The service is located at http://www.pediapress.com and has not yet been
> > publicly announced.
> >
> > I would like to know the opinion of the wikimedia community about this
> > service, since I am aware of the fact that a couple of copyright and
> > also "moral" issues are related to selling wikipedia content.
> >
> > Some of these issues are pointed out in the thread "Offering Wikibooks
> > content for sale"
> > (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/63024).
> >
> > I would like to give you some details about our efforts to comply with
> > the GFDL and also the spirit of the wikipedia content and community:
> >
> > * on the pediapress.com website and in the printed books it is clearly
> > stated that all articles have their origin in the wikipedia project
> >
> > * below each article a link (in case of the book the plain URL) to the
> > original wikipedia article is shown
> >
> > * all principle authors are listed below an article in the book if
> > possible
> >
> > * pediapress does not generate any unnecessary traffic on wikipedia
> > since we use the wikipedia dumps
> >
> > * we e-mailed with Angela Beesley (member of the Board of Trustees of
> > the Wikimedia Foundation) and Brad Patrick (general counsel to  the
> > Wikimedia Foundation) who did not see anything problematic with our
> > service
> >
> > Last but not least I want to point out that the pediapress affiliate
> > program has the goal to generate donations to the wikimedia foundation:
> > after ordering a book, users have the option to publish and promote
> > their book. Thereby others are able to buy the published book. The
> > publisher receives a provision of 10% of the books price which he can
> > donate to the wikimedia foundation.Please note that pediapress is still
> > in a "beta" phase even though compiling, printing and ordering books is
> > perfectly possible. But since all processing and layouting is done
> > automatically there are still some shortcomings that will be fixed asap.
> >
> > I don't want to deny that my company (brainbot technologies AG -
> > http://brainbot.com) and I hope that pediapress supports itself
> > financially. The main motivation nevertheless was to give something back
> > to the wikipedia community. Since me and my colleagues aren't exactly
> > good writers but heavy consumers of the wikipedia, we thought it would
> > be a better idea to try to promote the offline usage of the wikipedia by
> > building pediapress.
> >
> > Thanks for your patience - I hope some of you check out pediapress and
> > post their opinions.
> >
> > Volker Haas
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Delirium wrote:
> I don't think we should do so in less-notable cases
> either---an article should only be deleted if there really is no reason
> to have an article on the topic, not because it's a vandalism magnet.

If we find our social and technological systems are not up to the task
of creating and maintaining biographies of barely notable people,
particularly those who are flame-magnets, then we are better not having
them at all.

> Other measures, like semi-protection, having some people put it on their
> watchlists, or even temporary outright protection, are better ways to
> combat vandalism IMO.  Perhaps we even need new anti-vandalism measures,
> but deleting articles entirely is sort of a silly way of keeping them
> from being vandalized.

I agree with you completely on that.  What I want to wake people up to,
and this is something I have been saying increasingly loudly for months,
with _good results_ so far, although I think there is a long way to go:
biographies of barely notable living persons present a particularly
difficult challenge.

--Jimbo


list: commons-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Radical proposal

body:
stevertigo wrote:
> Crossposted to
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
>
> Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not
> require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article
> pages function as if they were a category?
> It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of
> dynamic likage (ie. categories).
>
> "Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would
> seem to defy convention.
> Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages,
> or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
>

"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on
Commons.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060712/fa62a8c9/attachment.pgp


body:
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
> On 7/12/06 3:09 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, the article survived AfD, sensibly enough, even today I notice
>> that Seth has had to revert vandalism *personally*.  I just now
>> semi-protected it.
>
> I'm beginning to think that any article with [[Category:Living people]] in
> it should be semi-protected by default.

Probably not "by default" -- the vast majority of articles are not like
the unusual cases.  And in most cases, semi-protecting the problem ones
is not going to just push the vandalism (of this type) elsewhere.

Two types of vandalism:
1. I am a general purpose idiot and I like to do stupid things on the
Internet.
2. I hate person X with an irrational passion, and I am going to camp
out on their article to make sure it tells the world how awful they are.

The general purpose idiots, I think we have well under control.

The specific haters, we have under control if the subject is George W.
Bush or Bill Gates, because those are popular topics and lots of people
watch them.

If you are a borderline notable person, though... *and* you have a
stalker or are somehow a flame-magnet... then I would say that a liberal
application of semi-protection and *bonking* is worthwhile.

--Jimbo


subject: [Commons-l] PLEASE HELP the Welcome log

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 11/07/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since the welcome template is entirely non-personal, why not get someone to
>> design a bot to do this job? Within minutes of a user signing up a message
>> could be left by the bot so giving them some introductory information. It is
>> preferable that the bot have some inbuilt delay between signup and message
>> so that the user can see the message pop-up after a few minutes editing.
>
> A bot *does* do this job.... I am not asking people to welcome users.
> I am asking them to check the user's uploads.
>
> The bot only welcomes new users after they have made at least one edit
> or one upload.
>

Can we ask the operator of the bot to check the New User Log instead?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060712/a6b6ad68/attachment.pgp


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> This is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase, but a true one. People get
> insanely twitchy if they think something is removed by request; they
> *asked* us to remove it? that means they don't want people to know it!
> it must be important! we must fight to keep it!

Exactly.  I am generally reluctant to tell people exactly what the
complainer has said, because there is a tiny minority who seems to think
that this is some kind of censorship by me or the Wikimedia Foundation
and/or a call to arms.

Usually, it is just an article that sucks, and a POV warrior grasping at
straws to protect nonsense.

> There are times that I think adopting the rule jp.wiki has on
> biographies would be a damn good idea...

AH!!!!! Please tell us!  I love cross-cultural wikipedia differences.

It seems that (not to raise a completely other absurd Wikipedia issue)
the Germans have taught us how to deal with idiotic userboxes... can the
Japanese teach us how to deal with bios?

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


references:
<44B4BACD.6020804@wolfmountaingroup.com>
	<54f6f2050607120353w64019cd1l18f4bc052d0d5f01@mail.gmail.com>
	<44B5271B.6020406@wolfmountaingroup.com>

body:
How amusing!

For a language like Cherokee then (agglutinative), it seems
appropriate to not use transliteration.

Thinking about agglutinative languages, do you know what the Japanese
Wikipedia is called (I would imagine that it too avoids
transliteration).

On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> >Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary", and
> >"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
> >this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
> >Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
> >least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration system?
> >
> >On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The name should be:
> >>
> >>???? ????
> >>
> >>(digoweli gatsanula)
> >>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
> >>
> >>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
> >>
> >>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
> >>language, and was synthesized.
> >>
> >>Just a suggestion...
> >>
> >>Jeff
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
> name can create something you do not intend.
>
> Let's look at it:
>
> Wi-gi-que-di-ya
>
> wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
> gi - to combine
> que - incomplete verb root about an animal
> di - plural for a non living object
> ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area or
> topic)
>
> Not to mention "di" is always at the start of a pural word, "gi" is a
> modifier always at the end of a word, que isn't a word at all, and "wi"
> is a tense modifer always at the end of word.
>
> Translation:
>
> "Something very negative in the past was put together for (??? -
> something that resembles a contraction of the word nesgi which means
> keep your hands off of it) , and there were a bunch of them (di) that
> dwell in a large area.
>
> In other words, its current name implies "negative place to keep your
> hands off of and there's a whole bunch of us here".
>
> Based on the edit history of the site, seems to have been the course
> followed.  Perhaps we should change its name?
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>We have Angela (Beesley) on AfD now:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_%283rd_nomination%29
>
>The fact that Angela does not want this article to exist has been
>cited as a reason to delete. It looks like this deletion will go
>through.
>
>Two related examples are Seth Finkelstein:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein
>
>
These nominations confuse me, because they seem to identify a problem
but then propose a solution other than the obvious one.

In both cases the primary complaint is that the articles contain (or
have at times contained) untrue, misleading, or irrelevant information.
The obvious way to fix that problem is to remove such information, and
make the articles contain only information that is: 1) sourced; 2)
presented neutrally; and 3) of sufficient relevance to be worth
mentioning in an encyclopedia article.

Deleting the articles is of course one way of making sure they contain
no low-quality content, but that seems less direct that simply removing
the low-quality content while keeping the verifiable content.  In Seth's
case, for example, it's undisputed that he formed the Censorware
Project, that he either coined or at least popularized the term
"censorware", and so on.  I see no reason that an article stating these
verifiable and notable facts should be deleted.  If it contains other
nonsense, then that nonsense should be removed, rather than used as an
excuse to delete the entire article.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2. being printed by a respected newspaper means that at the very least
>> the newspaper has put their own capital and respect on the line for a
>> story. This of course does not guarantee truth *in the slightest* but
>> does get closer to accountability of information than you have
>> elsewhere on the internet (where there is generally no real
>> accountability).
>
> This is the crucial point. Someone can trust an article in the New
> York Times about as much as they trust the New York Times itself.

About as far as I can throw it.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060712/3ef67a07/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Israel News Agency

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 7/9/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm startled that Google News finds "Israel News Service" worthy of
>> inclusion among its sources.
>
> I'm not so sure Google News has much of a bar to inclusion.
>

Their bar to inclusion is that they've spidered it.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060712/8d63d1e0/attachment.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> If you are a borderline notable person, though... *and* you have a
>> stalker or are somehow a flame-magnet... then I would say that a liberal
>> application of semi-protection and *bonking* is worthwhile.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bonking
>
> Hmm, I must say that "a liberal application of bonking" does sound
> nice. I'm not sure it would help, though. ;-)
>
> What did you really mean by that?

*g*  Someone needs to update that site.

Here's a more reliable reference from our friends at wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bonk

1. To strike or collide with something.

The idea I meant was a liberal application of bonking the trolls on the
head with a cluestick.

--Jimbo


body:
But is there a way to transliterate it without using any conjugators
or verb stem modifiers?

ja.wikipedia (???????) transliterates as U-I-KI-PE-DI-A! So they
transliterated too.

On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> >How amusing!
> >
> >For a language like Cherokee then (agglutinative), it seems
> >appropriate to not use transliteration.
> >
> >
> You can use transliteraton, but there are rules to avoid using
> conjugators and verb stem modifiers in trasliterations since these
> create meanings in the word and may create something unintended.
>
> >Thinking about agglutinative languages, do you know what the Japanese
> >Wikipedia is called (I would imagine that it too avoids
> >transliteration).
> >
> >
>
> Not a clue.
>
> Jeff
>
> >On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Oldak Quill wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Most Wikimedia projects don't translate "Wikipedia", "Wiktionary", and
> >>>"Wikimedia", they transliterate them. Even non-Latin alphabets do
> >>>this: Russian Wikipedia is called "?????????" which transliterates as
> >>>Ve-I-Ka-I-Pe-Ye-De-I-Ya (those are the names of the letters, at
> >>>least). Does Cherokee have some kind of formal transliteration system?
> >>>
> >>>On 12/07/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The name should be:
> >>>>
> >>>>???? ????
> >>>>
> >>>>(digoweli gatsanula)
> >>>>"the books = pedia " " that are fast = wiki "
> >>>>
> >>>>to match the actual meanings of the words "wiki" and "pedia".
> >>>>
> >>>>The current name of the site, while catchy, is not accurate for the
> >>>>language, and was synthesized.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just a suggestion...
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>foundation-l mailing list
> >>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yes. it does have one for words like this, but taking potshots at the
> >>name can create something you do not intend.
> >>
> >>Let's look at it:
> >>
> >>Wi-gi-que-di-ya
> >>
> >>wi  - (negative imperfect past tense)
> >>gi - to combine
> >>que - incomplete verb root about an animal
> >>di - plural for a non living object
> >>ya - broad area of concern (means "pertains to or covers a broad area or
> >>topic)
> >>
> >>Not to mention "di" is always at the start of a pural word, "gi" is a
> >>modifier always at the end of a word, que isn't a word at all, and "wi"
> >>is a tense modifer always at the end of word.
> >>
> >>Translation:
> >>
> >>"Something very negative in the past was put together for (??? -
> >>something that resembles a contraction of the word nesgi which means
> >>keep your hands off of it) , and there were a bunch of them (di) that
> >>dwell in a large area.
> >>
> >>In other words, its current name implies "negative place to keep your
> >>hands off of and there's a whole bunch of us here".
> >>
> >>Based on the edit history of the site, seems to have been the course
> >>followed.  Perhaps we should change its name?
> >>
> >>Jeff
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> Basically, if you're not a "public figure" (which seems to be defined
> quite narrowly - perhaps in a similar way to the Western defamation
> definition?), *you don't get named* at all, much less have an article
> on you. I'm not a public figure. Angela's not a public figure. Daniel
> Brandt's not a public figure. You probably are, and so's Xeni, but
> there's the cutoff, I guess.

I wonder what that cutoff might be, though, and how the ja community
makes the decision without internal warfare.

--Jimbo


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Rollback for trusted users

body:
On 12/07/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> Of course, if there was a way to rollback with a custom edit summary...

There already is, and anyone can do it. You go to the history, pick
the old version, hit edit, give a reason and hit Save. But you already
knew that.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Joke

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
>
> I removed the jokes.  Mikka reverted.  My reasoning:
> * no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
> classes of joke discussed
> * this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
> (and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally
> abysmal jokes]])
> * several are gratuitously offensive.  It should be possible to read
> the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be
> subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
> * WP:NOT a joke book
> * cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft.  Most are drive-bys.
>

Drive-by cruft is a good case for [[Wikipedia:Stable versions now]].

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060712/e3441064/attachment.pgp


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Volker,

this is very powerful stuff, and it's great that you're doing it. A
couple of technical questions:

1) Are you using the highest quality images available for the PDF
generation?  Is the quality setting deliberately low?
Comparing, for instance,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Chirpedpulse.jpg
with the image used in the PDF under "Wigner quasi-probability
distribution", the PDF image seems to have much more pronounced
compression artifacts.

2) What mechanism do you use to generate the PDF files? Is there any
chance that part of the software might become open source, if it isn't
already? I know many people who would be interested in this
functionality outside the context of Wikipedia.

If this service works well, from my perspective (I don't have any
Foundation authority) it would be great if this could be developed
into a larger partnership, with the project being featured prominently
on our side (perhaps in return for a larger percentage of the
profits).

Erik


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source,
>then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not
>make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on
>what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who
>wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!
>
>
Yeah, I agree with all that, I just don't see this as related to
semi-notability or legitimately addressed by deletion.  All these same
problems arise with extremely notable people as well, especially
controversial ones.  With very notable people obviously we aren't going
to delete the article because, say, [[George W. Bush]] keeps getting
vandalized.  I don't think we should do so in less-notable cases
either---an article should only be deleted if there really is no reason
to have an article on the topic, not because it's a vandalism magnet.
Other measures, like semi-protection, having some people put it on their
watchlists, or even temporary outright protection, are better ways to
combat vandalism IMO.  Perhaps we even need new anti-vandalism measures,
but deleting articles entirely is sort of a silly way of keeping them
from being vandalized.

-Mark


body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:54:18 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>...does the borderline notable subject ask not to have a bio? (Angela)
>>...does a mature respect for human dignity of a borderline notable
>>person suggest that a bio is not needed? (Brian Peppers)
>>...is Wikipedia horribly naval-gazing at times? (Jeremy Rosenfeld, Brian
>>Chase)
>>
>>
>
>Jimmy, I am glad you have not forgotten Brian Peppers.  Neither have
>the YTMNDers.  They will be back; I will be there when they come.  I
>hope you will be too.
>
>
They may have sources and proof of notability by then, since some books
on internet fads are currently in preparation, and I know that at least
one of them will have a section on the Brian Peppers
phenomenon---including mention of the debate at Wikipedia---as a case
study.  Will you still favor deleting it then?

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit

body:
On 7/12/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am, and I hope you do not have a problem with the idea of a paid general
> counsel having as one of his primary responsibilities the generation of
> 'speculative pronouncements on the law.'  That is rather the point.  My
> client, my ethical obligation, and the recipient of my professional legal
> advice is the Board.  It's my bar card on the line.  It is not my job to wax
> eloquent on the law for the sake of making people on a listserv have more to
> rant about.

In my initial mail in this thread, I suggested a very specific course
of action, not an open-ended discussion on this mailing list. Is there
any plan to come up with an interpretation of the GFDL that the
Wikimedia Foundation will stand behind, and which will become
project-level policy? If so, will the community be involved in the
process of developing that interpretation, for instance, by collecting
questions about how to interpret specific sections?

Thanks,
Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit