from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Patch to install?

body:
Yes, I think we can change that setting so that we keep all revisions.
Disk space will ultimately be an issue, I think.  Also, I suppose
generating the 'Other Revisions' page will become unruly once there
are thousands of revisions, so some staggered display of those (100 at
a time, say) might be called for.

lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> >From my Wikipedia page:
>
> Larry - why is it that in some cases older revisions are not listed in the
> "Other Revisions" view of a page? Are these still available? It would be
> valuable to be able to refer to the complete change history of a page, for
> a variety of reasons. (For example, when creating an entry for a page for
> Wikipedia_NEWS, I like to check the history of the topic, and this is
> tough when it shows only revisions 50-57.) -- BryceHarrington
>
> I don't know, and I wish somebody would tell me. I totally agree. The
> complete change history of a page seems invaluable. Maybe you could raise
> the issue on Wikipedia-L? That seems like a good place to talk about it.
> --LMS
>
> Here's a patch that I think would work...: (applied to version 0.92)
>
>
>  101d100
>  < $ExpireFiles? = 0;       # 1 = expire old rev's,   0 = keep all back
> rev's
>  3280,3282c3279
>  <   if ($ExpireFiles?) {
>  <       &ExpireKeepFile?();
>  <   }
>  ---
>  >   &ExpireKeepFile?();
>
>

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fw: Re:Suggest a Site or Search Engine

body:
A song immediately pops to mind: "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggins, just you
wait...you'll be sorry, 'enry 'iggins, just you wait..."

:-)

Larry

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com. This is the reply I got. Oh, well...
>
> WojPob
>
> engines2 at copernic.com napisa?:
>
> >Hello,
> > Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure that Copernic.com products always meet the highest quality standards.
> >
> > Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment will indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
> >
> > Url:      http://www.wikipedia.com/
> > Category: encyclopedias
> > Remark:   -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality requirements we have set for our products.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Information Source Team
> > engines at copernic.com
> >
>
>
>
>


body:
How strange!  But, as you say "Oh, well..."  :-)

wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com. This is the reply I got. Oh, well...
>
> WojPob
>
> engines2 at copernic.com napisa?:
>
> >Hello,
> > Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure that Copernic.com products always meet the highest quality standards.
> >
> > Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment will indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
> >
> > Url:      http://www.wikipedia.com/
> > Category: encyclopedias
> > Remark:   -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality requirements we have set for our products.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Information Source Team
> > engines at copernic.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zagraj z finalistkami
> Miss Polonia [ http://miss.onet.pl/start.html ]
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************


from_name: wojtek pobratyn

body:
I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com. This is the reply I got. Oh, well...

WojPob

engines2 at copernic.com napisa?:

>Hello,
> Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure that Copernic.com products always meet the highest quality standards.
>
> Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment will indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
>
> Url:      http://www.wikipedia.com/
> Category: encyclopedias
> Remark:   -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality requirements we have set for our products.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Information Source Team
> engines at copernic.com
>

--

Zagraj z finalistkami
Miss Polonia [ http://miss.onet.pl/start.html ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kuro5hin down

body:
Kuro5hin has been down for the last 6-12 hours, I think.  (I forget when
it started.)

I wonder if a certain article might have had something to do with this!
:-)

Larry


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
But would Liza have been able to fool the count if, instead of being
personally tutored by Higgins, she just asked the advice of 100
different people how to do it?  Hmm...

Let's not let our vision of the future blind us to the realities of
the present.  The process of Wikipedia will, in a few years, produce
vast quantities of good information that will be possible to assemble
into a great product or two.  But the present state of Wikipedia
really isn't a useful product, and pretending it is just gets us
slammed--quite fairly--as we got at Kuro5hin.  If we're going to sell
it, let's sell what it actually is--a project, not a product.  It's
WAY too early to be suggesting Wikipedia to anything like Ask Jeeves
or Copernic or other real products.  In 3 or 4 years, maybe.

>A song immediately pops to mind: "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggins, just
you
>wait...you'll be sorry, 'enry 'iggins, just you wait..."
>
>:-)
>
>Larry
>
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:
>
>> I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com. This is the reply I got.
Oh, well...
>>
>> WojPob
>>
>> engines2 at copernic.com napisa?:
>>
>> >Hello,
>> > Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure
that Copernic.com products always meet the highest quality standards.
>> >
>> > Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment
will indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
>> >
>> > Url:      http://www.wikipedia.com/
>> > Category: encyclopedias
>> > Remark:   -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality
requirements we have set for our products.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Information Source Team
>> > engines at copernic.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
Yep, I agree with all that.  It would have been 100% better to present it
as a project and go to great lengths to de-emphasize it as a product.

Larry

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

> But would Liza have been able to fool the count if, instead of being
> personally tutored by Higgins, she just asked the advice of 100
> different people how to do it?  Hmm...
>
> Let's not let our vision of the future blind us to the realities of
> the present.  The process of Wikipedia will, in a few years, produce
> vast quantities of good information that will be possible to assemble
> into a great product or two.  But the present state of Wikipedia
> really isn't a useful product, and pretending it is just gets us
> slammed--quite fairly--as we got at Kuro5hin.  If we're going to sell
> it, let's sell what it actually is--a project, not a product.  It's
> WAY too early to be suggesting Wikipedia to anything like Ask Jeeves
> or Copernic or other real products.  In 3 or 4 years, maybe.
>
> >A song immediately pops to mind: "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggins, just
> you
> >wait...you'll be sorry, 'enry 'iggins, just you wait..."
> >
> >:-)
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:
> >
> >> I suggested wikipedia to copernic.com. This is the reply I got.
> Oh, well...
> >>
> >> WojPob
> >>
> >> engines2 at copernic.com napisa?:
> >>
> >> >Hello,
> >> > Thank you for contributing to our continuous effort to ensure
> that Copernic.com products always meet the highest quality standards.
> >> >
> >> > Here are the sites you have suggested. Note that a brief comment
> will indicate how your suggestions are or was processed.
> >> >
> >> > Url:      http://www.wikipedia.com/
> >> > Category: encyclopedias
> >> > Remark:   -The site you have suggested does not meet the quality
> requirements we have set for our products.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Information Source Team
> >> > engines at copernic.com
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >[Wikipedia-l]
> >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Gareth Owen

in_reply_to: <lsanger@nupedia.com>'s message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:24:33 -0700 (PDT)"

body:
<lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> Yep, I agree with all that.  It would have been 100% better to present it as
> a project and go to great lengths to de-emphasize it as a product.

Definitely the best plan.  I wince every time I see people speak of it as a
"Britannia killer".  Eventually, maybe, but lets not forget that the linux
kernel (the metaphor du jour) took about 7-8 years to make a dent on server
space, and still needs maybe another 3 or 4 for decent desktop share.

--
Gareth Owen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia admin url?

body:
Does anyone here remember the wikipedia admin url?

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Making Wikipedia even more international

body:
Beginning next Tuesday (when Jason Richey returns from a weekend
vacation), we are going to be taking the non-English Wikipedias more
seriously:

1. We'll be setting up non-English Wikipedias for all the other major
languages (including many we've omitted).

2. We'll be actively seeking out translations of the main text (e.g., the
GNU license notice), and uploading the translations. I.e., we will
proactively goes to Wikipedia-L, to the individual non-English Wikipedias,
and perhaps also to specific individuals, requesting the text and
promising to upload it immediately upon receipt.

3. We will soon (probably today) set up a non-English Wikipedia
standards mailing list, which would explain set basic standards that we
would like all Wikipedias to follow (think of it as the UN).  Since the
English language Wikipedia should exemplify the same standards, whatever
they are, we could very plausibly call this the "international Wikipedia
forum" or something like that.

Larry


from_name: mikedill at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] new code is up and running

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20010929/2d8a5d5f/attachment.diff


body:
Well, I didn't mean translating the license, I meant translating our text
that says that stuff is released under that license.

Larry

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> On Saturday 29 September 2001 00:56, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> > Beginning next Tuesday (when Jason Richey returns from a weekend
> > vacation), we are going to be taking the non-English Wikipedias more
> > seriously:
> >
> > 2. We'll be actively seeking out translations of the main text (e.g.,
> > the GNU license notice), and uploading the translations. I.e., we will
> > proactively goes to Wikipedia-L, to the individual non-English
> > Wikipedias, and perhaps also to specific individuals, requesting the
> > text and promising to upload it immediately upon receipt.
>
> Larry,
>
> You might want to talk to the FSF about that. The GNU licenses were't just
> written off the top of Richard Stallman's head - they were checked and
> double checked by some real lawyers - Eben Mugler, (sp?) and such. If one
> of the translations doesn't *quite* carry  the same nuances as the
> original, that could have major legal consequences.
>
>


from_name: Michel Clasquin

body:
On Saturday 29 September 2001 00:56, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> Beginning next Tuesday (when Jason Richey returns from a weekend
> vacation), we are going to be taking the non-English Wikipedias more
> seriously:
>
> 2. We'll be actively seeking out translations of the main text (e.g.,
> the GNU license notice), and uploading the translations. I.e., we will
> proactively goes to Wikipedia-L, to the individual non-English
> Wikipedias, and perhaps also to specific individuals, requesting the
> text and promising to upload it immediately upon receipt.

Larry,

You might want to talk to the FSF about that. The GNU licenses were't just
written off the top of Richard Stallman's head - they were checked and
double checked by some real lawyers - Eben Mugler, (sp?) and such. If one
of the translations doesn't *quite* carry  the same nuances as the
original, that could have major legal consequences.

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

The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone
was the founder of civilisation.


body:
On Saturday 29 September 2001 19:39, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> Well, I didn't mean translating the license, I meant translating our
> text that says that stuff is released under that license.

Sorry, my mistake, then

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

The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone
was the founder of civilisation.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New version of wiki.fcgi

body:
I've created a new version of wiki -- wiki.fcgi, which means
'FastCGI'.  This is now handling all of the requests of the form:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/foo

but requests for the edit pages and so on still go to the original
script.

This minimizes the chances of problesm -- wiki.fcgi is only handling
requests that are 'read-only'.  It can also handle edits, at least in
my testing, but for now I'm not implementing that.

This has resulted in a reducting in the number of wiki.cgi that have
to be run from 20-30 per minute to 4-5.  Those numbers are for right
now, a Saturday evening when traffic is low.

We were getting very overloaded during busy days.  This should solve
that problem for awhile.  :-) Later, if this works fine, I may have
the fastcgi do everything, which would solve the problem for a LONG
while.

I'm excited about moving forward with Magnus's PHP code, of course.
So this is a stopgap measure until we get that running.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Vertebrate Notes

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011001/5ab1201b/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Vertebrate Notes

body:
Wow, this is GREAT!  We should add this to [[Public Domain Resources]].
And tell him *yes* re: his friend's project.  We are decidedly *not*
worried about bandwidth.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Discussion list for Wikipedias in all languages

body:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/intlwiki-l

If you're interested in discussing various topics related to the various
activities of all the different Wikipedias, please subscribe to INTLWIKI-L
at the above address.

In particular, I hope *all* the regular participants on the non-English
Wikipedias will join that list, as well as some people from the English
language Wikipedia, so that we can exchange notes.

Among the topics I would like to see raised:
* So, just how *are* those non-English language Wikipedias going?
* What needs to be done in order to make sure they're fully translated?
* What needs to be done to make sure the wikis in Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew,
Japanese, Korean, etc., are *fully usable*?
* Is there something we can do together effectively to help promote these
projects?
* What sort of inter-Wikipedia policies should we establish--if any?
* Different languages represent, necessarily, different *forks* in the
overall Wikipedia project.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  To what
extent, if any, would it be desirable to *encourage* the wikis to develop
quite separately--or, instead, together?

--Larry


from_name: Peter Lofting

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia server software availability enquiry

body:
Hi

I'm new on this list and interested in finding out if I can use the
wikipedia method of working in a specific collaborative project to
document a computer industry technical standard. Collaborators are
all over the world and in different companies so it looks like an
ideal approach.

Questions:

(1) Is the wikipedia server software available so we could set up a
documentation server of our own for this specialist purpose?

(2) if the software isn't available, could I set up a really
specialized set of pages in the wikipedia itself? For example pages
of the kind the would be added see
http://fonts.apple.com/TTRefMan/RM06/Chap6.html

Thanks in advance for any advice and pointers

Peter Lofting
Fonts Group
Apple Computer


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Vertebrate Notes

in_reply_to: <E15o7j1-000095-00@ubermail.mweb.co.za>; from clasqm@mweb.co.za on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:57:21PM +0200

body:
I hope so.  :-)

Michel Clasquin wrote:

> On Monday 01 October 2001 19:27, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
>
> > And tell him *yes* re: his friend's project.  We are decidedly *not*
> > worried about bandwidth.
>
> Famous last words ...
>
> --
> Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
> clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
> This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
>
> The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone
> was the founder of civilisation.
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Robert Bihlmeyer

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

> You might want to talk to the FSF about that. The GNU licenses were't just
> written off the top of Richard Stallman's head - they were checked and
> double checked by some real lawyers - Eben Mugler, (sp?) and such. If one
> of the translations doesn't *quite* carry  the same nuances as the
> original, that could have major legal consequences.

(Eben Moglen is the name.)

You are right, but providing an unofficial translation couldn't do any
harm, I think. We're not the EU, so we can cop out and give the
English version full governance. See
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html>, note especially
the disclaimer in the first section, and the links to (unofficial)
translations of the GNU FDL.

Providing translated licenses would give people that understand no
word of English more insight into what we stand for.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011001/a6f55365/attachment.pgp


body:
Yes, the software is available from UseMod.com.  This is "UseMod Wiki"
software.

Locally, we are running a slighly hacked version, but the changes are
probably only of local interest.

Soon, we will probably be switching to a home-grown PHP
wiki... Magnus's software.  "Soon" might mean this month, but more
likely means "in the next few months", I think.

If there's something special about our hacked version that you want,
we can give it to you.

Peter Lofting wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm new on this list and interested in finding out if I can use the
> wikipedia method of working in a specific collaborative project to
> document a computer industry technical standard. Collaborators are
> all over the world and in different companies so it looks like an
> ideal approach.
>
> Questions:
>
> (1) Is the wikipedia server software available so we could set up a
> documentation server of our own for this specialist purpose?
>
> (2) if the software isn't available, could I set up a really
> specialized set of pages in the wikipedia itself? For example pages
> of the kind the would be added see
> http://fonts.apple.com/TTRefMan/RM06/Chap6.html
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice and pointers
>
> Peter Lofting
> Fonts Group
> Apple Computer
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Vertebrate Notes

body:
On Monday 01 October 2001 19:27, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> And tell him *yes* re: his friend's project.  We are decidedly *not*
> worried about bandwidth.

Famous last words ...

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

The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone
was the founder of civilisation.


from_name: Tim Chambers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Yet another Recruiting Tool from Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle

body:
I just discovered http://experts.yahoo.com/. (How long has this been
going on?) Looks like fertile ground for recruiting article
writers/editors/reviewers. Those of us non-experts who dabble on pages
out of our league (or am I the only one? :-) can pose thoughtful
questions to experts in the appropriate category. We can get answers
and then maybe entice them into contributing to the 'pedia themselves!

<>< Tim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com


body:
At 6:04 PM +0200 10/2/01, Michel Clasquin wrote:
>Larry is going to blacklist me for even suggesting this, but this might be
>a case where subpages are not such a bad idea ...
>
>But may I suggest that even if you decide to go with your own wiki, you
>upload the evolving standard to wikipedia once a month or so? Perhaps with
>a message noting that editing it on the wikipedia will be a fairly futile
>effort, since you will be overwriting it once a month, and if they want to
>contribute they should contact you. That way your team could develop it
>without interference  from the yahoos, and wikipedia would still have the
>advantage of  making the information available.

Thanks for the suggestion. Its early days yet and by no means a done
deal. I need to set up demos and get consensus in our project team
before we make a decision.

Best wishes

Peter


body:
On Monday 01 October 2001 22:59, Peter Lofting wrote:
>
> (2) if the software isn't available, could I set up a really
> specialized set of pages in the wikipedia itself?

Larry is going to blacklist me for even suggesting this, but this might be
a case where subpages are not such a bad idea ...

But may I suggest that even if you decide to go with your own wiki, you
upload the evolving standard to wikipedia once a month or so? Perhaps with
a message noting that editing it on the wikipedia will be a fairly futile
effort, since you will be overwriting it once a month, and if they want to
contribute they should contact you. That way your team could develop it
without interference  from the yahoos, and wikipedia would still have the
advantage of  making the information available.

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

The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone
was the founder of civilisation.


body:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> On Monday 01 October 2001 22:59, Peter Lofting wrote:
> >
> > (2) if the software isn't available, could I set up a really
> > specialized set of pages in the wikipedia itself?
>
> Larry is going to blacklist me for even suggesting this, but this might be
> a case where subpages are not such a bad idea ...

I just wanted to point out that I do not have a "blacklist" and I haven't
yet found a use for one--in fact, I've never once seriously considered the
idea.

I have also (surprisingly perhaps) made a suggestion, at

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Larry_Sanger/Wikipedia_as_a_first_home_for_other_wiki_projects

that is rather similar to your own suggestion, Michel.  But the general
response to the idea seems to have been, "It's really easy to set up a
wiki--why should we encourage people to start their wiki projects on
Wikipedia?"  Makes sense to me.  Besides, Bomis is (still) threatening to
make its own "wiki farm."

I'm not sure if what Peter's working on is the sort of information that
belongs in an encyclopedia--but if so, I'd second your request.

Larry


body:
At 12:30 PM -0700 10/3/01, lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
>I'm not sure if what Peter's working on is the sort of information that
>belongs in an encyclopedia--but if so, I'd second your request.

The information is a set of data structures each requiring comment
from multiple users in the industry. Not unusual in structure -mostly
textual references.

BTW: All Mac and Windows users, you are viewing your web page text
using these TrueType font structures right now :-)

I like the idea of a beta on the wikipedia site to get consensus up
on the use of the wiki approach.

Could I make up a set of pages with the following master page and
links to each of the pages listed below?

Best wishes

Peter.

---

An Overview of special font tables
        The Font Directory
        The 'acnt' (accent attachment) table
        The 'avar' (axis variation) table
        The 'bdat' (bitmap data) table
        The 'bhed' (bitmap font header) table
        The 'bloc' (bitmap location) table
        The 'bsln' (baseline) table
        The 'cmap' (character code mapping) table
        The 'cvar' (CVT variation) table
        The 'cvt ' (control value) table
        The 'EBSC' (embedded bitmap scaling control) table
        The 'fdsc' (font descriptor) table
        The 'feat' (layout feature) table
        The 'fmtx' (font metrics) table
        The 'fpgm' (font program) table
        The 'fvar' (font variation) table
        The 'gasp' (grid-fitting and scan-conversion procedure) table
        The 'glyf' (glyph outline) table
        The 'gvar' (glyph variation) table
        The 'hdmx' (horizontal device metrics) table
        The 'head' (font header) table
        The 'hhea' (horizontal header) table
        The 'hmtx' (horizontal metrics) table
        The 'hsty' (horizontal style) table
        The 'just' (justification) table
        The 'kern' (kerning) table
        The 'lcar' (ligature caret) table
        The 'loca' (glyph location) table
        The 'maxp' (maximum profile) table
        The 'mort' (metamorphosis) table
        The 'morx' (extended metamorphosis) table
        The 'name' (name) table
        The 'opbd' (optical bounds) table
        The 'OS/2' (compatibility) table
        The 'post' (glyph name and PostScript compatibility) table
        The 'prep' (control value program) table
        The 'prop' (properties) table
        The 'trak' (tracking) table
        The 'vhea' (vertical header) table
        The 'vmtx' (vertical metrics) table
        The 'Zapf' (glyph reference) table

----


subject: [Wikipedia-l] intlwiki-l: making Wikipedia fully international

body:
You might be aware that on Nupedia's interpret-l list there have been
discussions afoot to make Nupedia fully international.  Efforts in this
direction have already begun, I'm happy to say.

We also want to support more fully Wikipedia's efforts to write (and/or
translate) encyclopedias in a huge variety of languages.  Right now, for
example, the "French Wikipedia," http://fr.wikipedia.com/ , still has the
navigational links in English (words like "Home Page" and "Recent Changes"
are in English).  We want to change that sort of thing very soon, with
your help.  We also want to add "Wikipedias" in some other languages that
we're now missing--we'd like your input on which ones we need to add.

I and I'm sure many others would like also to get reports on how the
Wikipedias in non-English languages are proceeding.  We'd also like people
at work on those wikis to have a place where they can feel free to ask
questions and get advice.  So, we've set up intlwiki-l as a place where
all that business can be conducted.  You can subscribe here:

http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/intlwiki-l

Let's get started!

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Reports?

body:
Hi all,

Well, we've got some people on intlwiki-l (subscribe here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/intlwiki-l ) and I'm hoping that
someone can get intlwiki-l moving by giving a report, of any sort, about a
non-English Wikipedia with which he or she is familiar.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] who?

body:
:-)  Well, we perhaps should be worried about bandwidth as long as we're
still running UseModWiki!

Larry

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> WHO isnt worried about bandwith, then? <g>
>
> Good luck getting everything back to normal
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] who?

body:
WHO isnt worried about bandwith, then? <g>

Good luck getting everything back to normal

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

Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..


from_name: Anders Törlind

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
Hi all!

As you might have been noticing, the 'pedia is feeling a bit under the
weather, so i thought i could help out magnus Manske a bit with the new
code. So here comes a couple of questions for Magnus, the reply of which
might prove interesting for more people than me i hope :-)

1. How does one go about with the CVS download from Sourceforge?

2. Is there a design specification, so one might get an overview of how
the code hangs together?

3. How do you get it up and running on your home installation of Apache?

4. Is there any special area that needs attension?

and last but not least

5. Where do I get hold of the best PHP tutorial/documentation on the net :-)

Cheers!

/Anders T?rlind

ps. If this topic has already been discussed today, i apologize: I just
set my subscription off digest... ds


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > 4. Is there any special area that needs attension?
> The parser, most of the parser, and did I mention the parser? ;)
> I have an option for user rights management but didn't implement it yet
> since we didn't really decide on a way to do this. There was some talk on
> the wiki but I remember Larry didn't like some of the details I suggested.

What details?  Don't let me stand in your way.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
Oh!  I don't remember where either.

It sounds like the issue here is how, exactly, a Wikipedia approval
process should be designed.  We've discussed that on

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

but we didn't come to any conclusions.

Isn't it possible to have a finalized, working PHP Wikipedia before we
decide this and code it?  Seems to me that would be a good idea...

Larry

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> I was just talking about the "protected" namespaces and how a first
> group of users would copy a "good" article to an intermediate
> namespace, then a second group could advance the article to s "stable"
> namespace or reject it. I forgot the wiki topic, though, sorry. If you
> remember it, tell me please :)
>
> Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
> So, you mean, get the PHP Wikipedia running *without* user management, and
> add that later on? Fine with me, less hacking! (thinking about that, it
> seems I'm about 80-90% finished, what do you think?)

Yes, unless "user management" includes details about member pages such as
the [[Magnus Manske]] page.  I think *that* should work well.  Definitely,
if the lack of a consensus on a Wikipedia approval mechanism is what's
stopping the PHP wiki from being finished, forget about the Wikipdia
approval mechanism for now.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia getting better

body:
Things are getting better.  I made some changes to optimize things,
one big tip came from the master, Clifford Adams himself.

The problem, speaking globally, is that Clifford's original design
goals were toward a small and easy installation.  He never envisioned
a wiki trying to handle this many pages and updates and pageviews.

Still, his software is well written so that it's mostly a matter of me
identifying bottlenecks and speeding things up.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] who?

in_reply_to: <r5i8zeqcb73.fsf@orr.maths.keele.ac.uk>; from wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk on Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:18:24PM +0100

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:
> So whats going on?  Has the load uncovered actual bugs, or does the
> present-and-basically-correct code just not scale well?
>
> Having said that, I have done a fair bit of actual work today :)

One of the problems is that edit locks are (were) far too general.
That is, if you are editing [[This Page]] and I am editing [[That
Page]] we were needlessly in competition for the same edit lock.

I've made some changes to make the edit locks on a per-page basis, and
I'm debugging it to make sure my changes are all correct.

Also, the recent changes log was really huge and that was slowing
things down.  Upon Clifford's advice, I changed that, to good effect.

One thing that regulars can do to help with the problem -- set your
preferences so that you only see 1 page of recent changes (or 2) by
default.  You can always see more by clicking on 7 or whatever.

This will make your own personal browsing experience more enjoyable,
and it will also take away what is apparently the most intensive task
we have going on.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] who?

in_reply_to: Michel Clasquin's message of "Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:49:45 +0200"

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

> WHO isnt worried about bandwith, then? <g>
>
> Good luck getting everything back to normal

Amen.

So whats going on?  Has the load uncovered actual bugs, or does the
present-and-basically-correct code just not scale well?

Having said that, I have done a fair bit of actual work today :)
--
Gareth Owen


from_name: Steve Callaway

subject: [Wikipedia-l] who?

body:
As far as I can see wikipedia is dead in the water at the moment. I have
been unable to post since about 7 am BST (about 12 hours ago, and Error 500s
seem to be the order of the day. Am I alone in this?

rgds

Steve Callaway (sjc)

----- Original Message -----
From: <lsanger at nupedia.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at nupedia.com>
Cc: <lsanger at nupedia.com>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] who?

> :-)  Well, we perhaps should be worried about bandwidth as long as we're
> still running UseModWiki!
>
> Larry
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
>
> > WHO isnt worried about bandwith, then? <g>
> >
> > Good luck getting everything back to normal
> >
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
Hi Anders,

you are more than welcome to help :) Especially on that dreadful wiki-code
parser!

OK, here they come:
> 1. How does one go about with the CVS download from Sourceforge?
Best thing to do is to go to
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wikipedia/phpwiki/fpw/ and
get the latest files.

> 2. Is there a design specification, so one might get an overview of how
> the code hangs together?
No, but it's not that complicated. wiki.phtml loads all the other .php
scripts, which contain the classes wikiTitle, wikiPage, wikiUser and the
functions for the "special pages" and the database connection.

> 3. How do you get it up and running on your home installation of Apache?
Just make sure PHP4 is installed and MySQL is running. Make a directory
(e.g., fpw for final PHP wikipedia;) in your html directory (e.g.,
/var/www/html) and copy all files there. In fpw, create an "upload"
directory for testing if you like. Set up the MySQL database (I can mail you
a dump of my test version) and adapt the settings in
"databaseFunctions.php". That's it!

> 4. Is there any special area that needs attension?
The parser, most of the parser, and did I mention the parser? ;)
I have an option for user rights management but didn't implement it yet
since we didn't really decide on a way to do this. There was some talk on
the wiki but I remember Larry didn't like some of the details I suggested.

> 5. Where do I get hold of the best PHP tutorial/documentation on
> the net :-)
Well, I am using the extensive helpfile/documentation that came with the
Windows distribution (is also available as HTML, see
http://www.php.net/docs.php), and a cheap paperback book. I take it you're
not looking for an introduction?;)

Again, your help would be very much appreciated!

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
I was just talking about the "protected" namespaces and how a first group of
users would copy a "good" article to an intermediate namespace, then a
second group could advance the article to s "stable" namespace or reject it.
I forgot the wiki topic, though, sorry. If you remember it, tell me please
:)

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:10 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
> > > 4. Is there any special area that needs attension?
> > The parser, most of the parser, and did I mention the parser? ;)
> > I have an option for user rights management but didn't implement it yet
> > since we didn't really decide on a way to do this. There was
> some talk on
> > the wiki but I remember Larry didn't like some of the details I
> suggested.
>
> What details?  Don't let me stand in your way.
>
> Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development

body:
That's the page! Thanks :)

So, you mean, get the PHP Wikipedia running *without* user management, and
add that later on? Fine with me, less hacking! (thinking about that, it
seems I'm about 80-90% finished, what do you think?)

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of lsanger at nupedia.com
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:53 PM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia development
>
>
> Oh!  I don't remember where either.
>
> It sounds like the issue here is how, exactly, a Wikipedia approval
> process should be designed.  We've discussed that on
>
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
>
> but we didn't come to any conclusions.
>
> Isn't it possible to have a finalized, working PHP Wikipedia before we
> decide this and code it?  Seems to me that would be a good idea...
>
> Larry
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > I was just talking about the "protected" namespaces and how a first
> > group of users would copy a "good" article to an intermediate
> > namespace, then a second group could advance the article to s "stable"
> > namespace or reject it. I forgot the wiki topic, though, sorry. If you
> > remember it, tell me please :)
> >
> > Magnus
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] sorry to report, but

body:
Nope, it's still unusable. I've been trying to update my Wolf page for
twenty minutes now and it just won't lock.

Larry, Jimbo this might scare off newbies who stumble onto the site while
this is going one. Maybe disable editing while you are working on it?

--


from_name: Rybo

subject: AW: [Wikipedia-l] who?

body:
Hi Jimmy Wales and others,

> One thing that regulars can do to help with the problem -- set your
> preferences so that you only see 1 page of recent changes (or 2) by
> default.  You can always see more by clicking on 7 or whatever.
>
> This will make your own personal browsing experience more enjoyable,
> and it will also take away what is apparently the most intensive task
> we have going on.
>
I have discovered some weeks ago that I can use two instances of MS
IExplorer (without problems).
I have one instance left and open for the RecentChanges Page. And I take URL
items from it
to put them into the right positioned second instance simply by drag and
drop.
So the Recent Changes is still unchanged and not refreshed ever.
This might be a tip for others to minimize recentchanges refreshing.
Its also a fine thing just to use it this way.

Gruesse
Stefan

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]Im Auftrag von Jimmy Wales
> Gesendet am: Samstag, 6. Oktober 2001 00:12
> An: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Betreff: Re: [Wikipedia-l] who?
>
> Gareth Owen wrote:
> > So whats going on?  Has the load uncovered actual bugs, or does the
> > present-and-basically-correct code just not scale well?
> >
> > Having said that, I have done a fair bit of actual work today :)
>
> One of the problems is that edit locks are (were) far too general.
> That is, if you are editing [[This Page]] and I am editing [[That
> Page]] we were needlessly in competition for the same edit lock.
>
> I've made some changes to make the edit locks on a per-page basis, and
> I'm debugging it to make sure my changes are all correct.
>
> Also, the recent changes log was really huge and that was slowing
> things down.  Upon Clifford's advice, I changed that, to good effect.
>
> One thing that regulars can do to help with the problem -- set your
> preferences so that you only see 1 page of recent changes (or 2) by
> default.  You can always see more by clicking on 7 or whatever.
>
> This will make your own personal browsing experience more enjoyable,
> and it will also take away what is apparently the most intensive task
> we have going on.
>
> --
> *************************************************
> *            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
> *        You can edit this page right now!      *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] sorry to report, but

in_reply_to: <E15ppf8-0001eb-00@supermail.mweb.co.za>; from clasqm@mweb.co.za on Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 01:33:39PM +0200

body:
Unfortunately, no one was working on it when Michel was having his
problems.  We don't have the problems 100% fixed yet, I suppose.

Michel Clasquin wrote:

> Nope, it's still unusable. I've been trying to update my Wolf page for
> twenty minutes now and it just won't lock.
>
> Larry, Jimbo this might scare off newbies who stumble onto the site while
> this is going one. Maybe disable editing while you are working on it?
>
> --
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia back to "normal" :-)

body:
It looks to me like Wikipedia's recent traffic problems have been fixed,
and it's back to its formerly fast self (and links to new articles appear
as regular links!).

It's nice to note that, despite being a Saturday, and despite being
plagued by traffic-related problems, yesterday we *still* had as many
visitors and pageviews as the average pre-Sept. 11 weekday.  :-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Scientist interview

body:
I was interviewed about Nupedia and Wikipedia (about equally) this morning
by New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/

They describe themselves as "The World's No.1 Science & Technology News
Service," and I imagine most of you have heard of them.

The article is going to be about the open source movement's influence on
other kinds of projects.  Actually, it wasn't perfectly clear to me what
the subject was, but the reporter seemed to imply that open content
projects would be highlighted.

--Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Of interest, re control of content

body:
Owning the Future:
Content Discontent

http://www.techreview.com/magazine/oct01/shulman.asp

I'm not sure if anything follows for the prospects of open content
projects, but it's very interesting, I think.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Nupedia-l] Discussion and a proposal (fwd)

body:
This might be of some interest to you.  This is a discussion, posted on
Nupedia-l, of some problems Nupedia is facing, together with a proposed
solution.  One part of the solution is to add a link to Wikipedia article
pages saying (something like) "Submit this article to Nupedia."  This
would take you to a page where further information would be solicited.
Successful submission of an article to Nupedia would be noted on the
Recent Changes page, as would final approval of any Wikipedia-originated
Nupedia article.

This *isn't* approved yet.  It's just FYI.  If you want to discuss it, it
would be better that you do so on Nupedia-l rather than Wikipedia-l.  You
can subscribe to Nupedia-l here:

http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/nupedia-l

--Larry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: lsanger at nupedia.com
Reply-To: nupedia-l at nupedia.com
To: nupedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Nupedia-l] Discussion and a proposal

Please, read through this whole thing before responding to any part of it.
I know it's long, but it sums up my thinking on the issues pretty well.

I. First problem: bottlenecks

I've been looking over all the many comments about the future of Nupedia
with great interest.  One strand of the discussion, started by Andreas
Flack, is that Nupedia's system can be improved in various ways.  One of
these ways was to create reminder e-mails.  As Magnus said, we already
have many such e-mails (it took Toan and I some weeks to design them
properly, last January and February, I suppose it was).  It's worth noting
that most people simply delete these reminder e-mails as soon as they
receive them.

Some of the other proposed changes are fairly cosmetic changes that would
very likely speed things up somewhat, but overall, not very much, I
suspect.  I designed the process with the help of people from advisory-l
and nupedia-l, and Toan and I designed the system to implement the
process.  I've also addressed problems at every step of the way.  As I
said (in great detail, which I am not going to repeat) last spring, there
are bottlenecks at *every* step--dozens of potential bottlenecks, really.
Getting rid of a few of them will speed things up, yes, but not
significantly over the long haul.  This is why I'm opposed to confining
our changes to the system to relatively cosmetic changes.

Another point discussed by Andreas and others and replied to by G. B. Lane
is that we should do what we can in order to find replacements for
delinquent reviewers and writers.  As G. B. well said, this is a heck of a
lot harder than it sounds.  Finding a qualified reviewer for a single
article might be easy for the most distinguished leaders of a field, but
it can be quite difficult for people who are not so high on the
academic/research totem pole, particularly when one must sell the
*project* at the same time.  On this point, I think we should all defer to
the experience of G. B.; if you're not an editor, you don't understand the
problem as well as he does.

In sum, even our most dedicated, motivated members have complained of
endless bottlenecks in the process.  I don't think that removing just one
or two of the bottlenecks is going to speed things up very much.  The
problem is not cosmetic, to be solved by small tweaks to the system.

II. Second problem: lack of adequate credibility

Many people, both potential and former participants, have been turned off
by the fact that participation in the Nupedia project requires that people
do for free what they would do elsewhere for pay.  Brad Eden's comments
are typical in this regard and totally understandable.  The fact that
Nupedia is an open content project--that our articles are freely
distributable to anyone by anyone, and not just by the website
Nupedia.com--does not seem to matter to them.  And why should we expect it
to matter to everyone?  Just because *we're* convinced, that doesn't mean
they will be.

In response, we can sing the praises of open content, that it involves
contributing free information to the world and that this cause is worthy.
But, of course, there are many people who won't be convinced, and we
shouldn't wring our hands if they're not convinced; we should instead
regard their skepticism as a constraint on how we design our projects.

It's difficult enough to organize academics to do difficult academic work,
for which they'd ordinarily be paid, for free.  It's even more difficult
to get them to do that sort of work if they feel, as Brad feels, that
their time is being wasted because the system forces them to work with
people that they feel are underqualified.  I'm *sure* that's one of the
weaknesses of the current system that runs Nupedia--let alone Wikipedia.
(This is not to say, however, that I agree with Brad's dim assessment of
the state of Nupedia's music category at present.)

I don't think we should simply dismiss these concerns.  We can pontificate
all we like about the virtues of open content, but that's not going to
change the *facts* about the people we would like to have involved.

I know that Jimbo and others are very concerned about making Nupedia more
open, like Wikipedia, and I *completely* sympathize; but I think we should
resign ourselves to the fact that the people whom we want to write for
Nupedia don't want to be part of a wide-open project.  Instead, we should
make it as easy as possible for them to get to work in their *own*
element.  I don't think we can *expect* many academics to work closely
with nonexperts--and that's what we ask academics to do if we ask them to
join a fully bazaar-like model, like Wikipedia.  It seems to me it would
be best to have as efficient (but still high-quality) article-creation
model as possible for them to use, and if they become impressed Wikipedia
along the way, grand--we can welcome to Wikipedia with open arms.  If we
make it easier for Wikipedians to submit good Wikipedia articles to
Nupedia, we will thereby expose Nupedian academics to the virtues of
Wikipedia.

III. The range of options open to us

Therefore, the way I see it, if we want to redesign Nupedia's editorial
process, we can choose revisions from a continuum with (at least) two
extremes.  At one extreme, Bomis would try to make Nupedia an
ueber-elitist project, not unlike the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
accepting submissions from and making reviewers of only the leading
researchers in any field.  Another option in this direction, but less
extreme, would be for us to revert to a traditional peer review system,
completely redesigning (but radically simplifying) the system.  At the
other end of the continuum--and this is actually *not* seriously proposed
by anyone--Nupedia would become another version of Wikipedia.  Since
Wikipedia already exists, this is silly; but in this direction, Nupedia
could become *no more than* an approval process for Wikipedia.  The latter
would cause a mass exodus of people like Brad--most of our most qualified,
distinguished participants on Nupedia.

I know some of you on Nupedia-l just don't care about having the
participation of academics and bona fide experts, but I think this is a
huge mistake.  If our open content encyclopedia projects are going to
achieve their full potential, we *must* have the participation of these
people.  It would be a mistake not to let our *most qualified* potential
participants stay in the project--on their own terms.

So, I think Brad has an excellent point.  It's one that Michael Witbrock
emphasized to me very forcefully and persuasively when I visited him in
Boston: to succeed, the project has to have even *more* credibility among
its most qualified potential participants.

I think Andreas' suggestion, that we feel free to replace reviewers and
authors as necessary, is fine, but it's implausible that it would help
much to adopt this policy explicitly, for the reason G. B. Lane gave.  As
I'd put it, for any given topic, on Nupedia, there is bound to be only a
very few people who are *both* interested in writing on that topic *and*
willing to revise someone else's work.  Similarly with reviewers--it's
hard enough finding just *one* qualified reviewer for an article.  In
other words, Nupedia's problem isn't that the project is closed to our
finding replacement authors and reviewers when necessary--it's that we
couldn't find enough *qualified* people even if it *were* generally open.
I think you'd find most Nupedia editors would agree with this.

IV. The proposal

It's with these sorts of thoughts in mind that I have come around to the
following proposal.  This is something Jimbo suggested many months ago and
that Claus Wilke has articulated recently.  In fact, it was probably
suggested by some wise person when we were designing a review system in
the first place.

I. Replace the current Nupedia system with a simple, traditional review
process, to be designed by the members of advisory-l.  This would at a
minimum involve (1) writers either being assigned an article or simply
submitting articles to the editor, (2) the editor deciding whether to
assign the article to a reviewer or reviewers or reject it outright, (3) a
reviewer or reviewers either saying yea, nay, or conditional pass (maybe)
on articles (in one simple step), and (4) the article being passed by the
editor.  After that, I would strongly recommend having a public feedback
system that would be something like the open review step we now have in
place.  In other words, I think we should basically eliminate steps four
through six, open review and copyediting, and leave quality in the hands
of editors and expert reviewers--then *supplemented* by public feedback.

Copyediting would be the responsibility of authors, who would have to
solicit help, if needed, on pain of having articles simply rejected.
Copyediting comments would be solicited in the public feedback process.

(By the way, I would like to say at this juncture that Ruth Ifcher has
been probably the hardest-working member of Nupedia, and one of the most
widely appreciated, and this latter proposal should by no means be
construed as (absurdly) implying that her contributions as Nupedia's chief
copyeditor have been without value.)

If an editor were to approve very much substandard work, I would be
willing to field complaints and, if necessary, take whatever action was
appropriate.

II. Create a link on Wikipedia article pages labelled: "Submit this
article to Nupedia." This would link to a page that would solicit further
information from the submitter and then place the Wikipedia article in the
queue.  Submission information would be reported on the Wikipedia [[Recent
Changes]] page, as would final approvals of articles in the Nupedia
system.

III. Delete the Chalkboard (move its contents to Wikipedia, with the
permission of authors--Magnus, mainly :-) ).

IV. Put off a decision whether to make a separate article approval process
for Wikipedia, on the hope that Nupedia might turn into a reasonably
efficient approval process for Wikipedia articles.

(This latter, after all, is how many of us have envisioned Wikipedia and
Nupedia working together.)

So, that's it.

I'd like to solicit comments here and then, sometime soon, unless fatal
flaws are discovered, take this proposal to advisory-l.

Larry

[Nupedia-l] -- a Nupedia.com mailing list
Help build the largest and finest encyclopedia in the world!
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/nupedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search engine

body:
hi all.

wikipedia seems to be running ok, but the search engine hasn't been updated in a while.

regards,

wojpob

--

Tego nie znajdziesz w zadnym sklepie!
[ http://oferty.onet.pl ]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: PHP wikipedia

body:
Aha, it seems I did misunderstand.  I thought you were proposing to start
running the German wiki using the new PHP software, not that you were just
going to import the data.  I see now that I simply should have kept my
mouth shut.  :-)

Larry

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Yes, I agree!  It will be fine to use the German wiki.  It is large
> enough to have lots of links to test, but small enough to be quick and
> easy.
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> > Larry, that's a misunderstanding: We only want to copy the German data to my
> > test wiki!
> >
> > Don't panic,
> > Magnus
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lsanger at nupedia.com [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:13 PM
> > > To: Michael Dill
> > > Cc: Magnus Manske; jwales at bomis.com; lsanger at nupedia.com
> > > Subject: RE: PHP wikipedia
> > >
> > >
> > > What we need is a test wiki.  I don't much like the idea of using the
> > > German wiki as a test wiki--they've done a huge amount of work already,
> > > and we don't want to mess it up.  Maybe we can make a copy of it and put
> > > it at http://test.wikipedia.com/ .
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Michael Dill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus,
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead and try the German version for the first
> > > > tests. We can probably get Clifford Adams or someone
> > > > to help sort out the current perl/CGI data formats. I
> > > > beleve that Jimbo might have some information there...
> > > >
> > > > I don't know enough to help with the data conversion,
> > > > but if we cant get any support from Clifford or
> > > > someone at BOMIS, I will see if I can find a
> > > > programmer or two to look at the tarball and help you
> > > > with the structure.
> > > >
> > > > Jimbo,
> > > >
> > > > Would you help point us in the right direction here.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to you all for great work!
> > > >
> > > > Mike Dill
> > > > Phone 408-545-3675
> > > >
> > > > --- Magnus Manske <Magnus.Manske at epost.de> wrote:
> > > > > --- Mike Dill <michael_dill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, call the current PHP script at
> > > > > > wikipedia.sourceforge.net a Beta.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK!
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we need to clear out everything in the
> > > > > test
> > > > > > database and see how to install a copy of the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > data. This will allow us to test/debug the script
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the data conversion. It will probably take a dozen
> > > > > > trys at porting it before we get the conversion
> > > > > script
> > > > > > into a reasonable shape. Then we can ask all the
> > > > > > wikipedians to look at all the pages to check for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > remaining script inconsistancies.
> > > > >
> > > > > We not necessarily need to clean the DB. And, should
> > > > > we try another
> > > > > wikipedia (e.g., the German one) first? It's much
> > > > > smaller, so conversion
> > > > > won't take that long for the first tries. If that
> > > > > works, we can purge the DB
> > > > > and install the "real thing". What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we can get those bugs out, then asking Jimbo to
> > > > > > make the transition would be a reasonable
> > > > > proposition.
> > > > > > Until we can port the current data with some
> > > > > accuracy,
> > > > > > I feel that we should not push it on the world.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lets try a data convertion from the tarball and
> > > > > see
> > > > > > what comes out. When it seems reasonable to us
> > > > > then
> > > > > > Larry and Jimbo can decide when it should be
> > > > > > implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at the German tarball, which seems to be
> > > > > quite old, and I suppose
> > > > > the "real" data is in the "page" sub-sub-...-subdir.
> > > > > Do you know if that's
> > > > > it? Are just the old versions stored as diffs, or
> > > > > the current version as
> > > > > well? I'm not that good at perl/CGI, so...
> > > > >
> > > > > Magnus
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > > > http://personals.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: PHP wikipedia

in_reply_to: <ILENJBCFHGHELEBFPPBGMEMCCDAA.Magnus.Manske@epost.de>; from Magnus.Manske@epost.de on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:07:03PM +0200

body:
Yes, I agree!  It will be fine to use the German wiki.  It is large
enough to have lots of links to test, but small enough to be quick and
easy.

Magnus Manske wrote:

> Larry, that's a misunderstanding: We only want to copy the German data to my
> test wiki!
>
> Don't panic,
> Magnus
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lsanger at nupedia.com [mailto:lsanger at nupedia.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:13 PM
> > To: Michael Dill
> > Cc: Magnus Manske; jwales at bomis.com; lsanger at nupedia.com
> > Subject: RE: PHP wikipedia
> >
> >
> > What we need is a test wiki.  I don't much like the idea of using the
> > German wiki as a test wiki--they've done a huge amount of work already,
> > and we don't want to mess it up.  Maybe we can make a copy of it and put
> > it at http://test.wikipedia.com/ .
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Michael Dill wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus,
> > >
> > > Go ahead and try the German version for the first
> > > tests. We can probably get Clifford Adams or someone
> > > to help sort out the current perl/CGI data formats. I
> > > beleve that Jimbo might have some information there...
> > >
> > > I don't know enough to help with the data conversion,
> > > but if we cant get any support from Clifford or
> > > someone at BOMIS, I will see if I can find a
> > > programmer or two to look at the tarball and help you
> > > with the structure.
> > >
> > > Jimbo,
> > >
> > > Would you help point us in the right direction here.
> > >
> > > Thanks to you all for great work!
> > >
> > > Mike Dill
> > > Phone 408-545-3675
> > >
> > > --- Magnus Manske <Magnus.Manske at epost.de> wrote:
> > > > --- Mike Dill <michael_dill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yes, call the current PHP script at
> > > > > wikipedia.sourceforge.net a Beta.
> > > >
> > > > OK!
> > > >
> > > > > I think we need to clear out everything in the
> > > > test
> > > > > database and see how to install a copy of the
> > > > current
> > > > > data. This will allow us to test/debug the script
> > > > for
> > > > > the data conversion. It will probably take a dozen
> > > > > trys at porting it before we get the conversion
> > > > script
> > > > > into a reasonable shape. Then we can ask all the
> > > > > wikipedians to look at all the pages to check for
> > > > the
> > > > > remaining script inconsistancies.
> > > >
> > > > We not necessarily need to clean the DB. And, should
> > > > we try another
> > > > wikipedia (e.g., the German one) first? It's much
> > > > smaller, so conversion
> > > > won't take that long for the first tries. If that
> > > > works, we can purge the DB
> > > > and install the "real thing". What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > > If we can get those bugs out, then asking Jimbo to
> > > > > make the transition would be a reasonable
> > > > proposition.
> > > > > Until we can port the current data with some
> > > > accuracy,
> > > > > I feel that we should not push it on the world.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > > Lets try a data convertion from the tarball and
> > > > see
> > > > > what comes out. When it seems reasonable to us
> > > > then
> > > > > Larry and Jimbo can decide when it should be
> > > > > implemented.
> > > >
> > > > I looked at the German tarball, which seems to be
> > > > quite old, and I suppose
> > > > the "real" data is in the "page" sub-sub-...-subdir.
> > > > Do you know if that's
> > > > it? Are just the old versions stored as diffs, or
> > > > the current version as
> > > > well? I'm not that good at perl/CGI, so...
> > > >
> > > > Magnus
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > > http://personals.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
>

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Search database not updated? (fwd)

body:
I temporarily disabled the cron during our traffic crisis.  I will
re-instate it now.  Also, I'll run the job by hand now, which will
take a couple of hours to update the engine.

lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:
> How frequently is the Wikipedia search engine updated now?  Someone else
> expressed some concern about this recently, I think...they seemed to think
> it was updated less often than once per day.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:54:50 -0500
> From: Axel Boldt <Axel.Boldt at metrostate.edu>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Search database not updated?
>
> >From discussion at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_commentary/Search_Engine
> it appears that the search database has not been updated in a while. Could someone
> with access to the server please check if there's a working cron script in place to index
> the site daily?
>
> Axel
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Slashdot on MIT free courseware

body:
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/10/10/1454231.shtml

Doesn't look like anyone has yet mentioned Wikipedia...Jimbo?  Somebody?

Larry


body:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/10/10/1454231.shtml

I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT
releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some
open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full
copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.


body:
This is old news.  See
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/04/1141228 (April 4th).

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Larry could write an article critical of MIT's project...

I don't see that to be necessary.

http://web.mit.edu/ocw/ocw-facts.html says,

    The policies toward the intellectual property created for MIT
    OCW will be clear and consistent with other policies for
    scholarly material used in education. Faculty will retain
    ownership of most materials prepared for MIT OCW, following
    the MIT policy on textbook authorship. MIT will retain
    ownership only when significant use has been made of the
    Institute's resources.

But that page also says:

    The materials on the OCW site will be open and freely
    available worldwide for non-commercial purposes such as
    research and education, providing an extraordinary resource,
    free of charge, which others can adapt to their own needs.

Right away, this sounds better to me than today's situation,
which requires the purchase of expensive textbooks to acquire
substantial knowledge.  Let's wait to see what the CONTENT looks
like. When I was as the 'Tute, many of my courses were taught
from course notes -- the textbooks were published years later. If
OCW includes detailed course notes, it could be a tremendous
benefit.

> lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> >
> > I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT
> > releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some
> > open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full
> > copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.

Nonsense! It's far from useless to Wikipedians. The whole intent
of the project is to make educational materials available for
free! So Wikipedians should use the materials to educate
themselves, then write encyclopedia articles based on what they
have LEARNED.

Criticism of a project as bold as this could cause backlash --
especially given Wikipedia's already-cool reception by so many
academics. I think Wikipedia should praise MIT for its
innovativeness. Let's wait to see what the content looks like and
how it feels to play by their IP rules before throwing stones.

<>< Tim, MIT '84
http://www.wikipedia.com/Tim_Chambers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recent Changes, multiple linked languages and other dreams

body:
Hi all,

before you waste lots of energy on discussion, be aware that the upcoming
wikipedia software, which is currently in beta phase, supports variables in
the text. For example, the date on the homepage is automatically adjusted
when you view it, with things like "{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}" being replaced with
2001 (this year).

That system could be expanded with things like
- {{{CATEGORY:Biology}}} in an article that could be seen as belonging to
biology
- {{{GERMAN:Haus}}} in the "house" article

These "variables" could be replaced for display with, say, a little German
flag linked to the German version of the "house" article, named "Haus".
These things don't have to be displayed inside the article, either; they can
go to the header, for example, so you'd have some little flags next to the
page title, or a category listing at the bottom.

That can be used for the category listing on recent changes (say, all
non-categorized articles, and biology only). Furthermore, all international
wikipedias could be checked once a day (or once a week), crosslinking
languages. If the English article links to the German one, the German one
will automatically link back to the English version. Also, if the German
article links to the Swedish, but the English does not, both English and
Swedish will be automatically updated.

This can be done without much trouble. We should wait for the software to be
tested and implemented with the "current" features only, though. Once the
new software is running wikipedia stable, all the other features can be
added.

Magnus


body:
This (what Jimbo suggested) is essentially what I was hoping someone would
write in response to that Slashdot article...

Larry


in_reply_to: <200110111648.f9BGmhM23206@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 09:48:43AM -0700

body:
Perhaps Larry could write an article critical of MIT's project and
name from the perspective of GNU-style "freedom", free speech versus
free beer and all that good stuff.

I think Kuro5hin has seen enough of our shameless self-promotion :-)
for awhile, where else might he post this?  Then the goal would be to
get the article, and wikipedia, slashdotted again.

lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:

>
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/10/10/1454231.shtml
>
> I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT
> releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some
> open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full
> copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
"Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske at epost.de> writes:

> before you waste lots of energy on discussion, be aware that the upcoming
> wikipedia software, which is currently in beta phase, supports variables in
> the text. For example, the date on the homepage is automatically adjusted
> when you view it, with things like "{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}" being replaced with
> 2001 (this year).

We must be vigilant, though, that people won't misuse them. I.e.

  Currently (in {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}) ...

and

  Currently (in 2001) ...

can't be distinguished by looking at the HTML output, only at the
source; and the first usage is probably always in error -- we /don't/
want articles to change behind our backs.

Which reminds me, which articles (except the homepage) do we actually
want to contain a moving date?

> That system could be expanded with things like
> - {{{CATEGORY:Biology}}} in an article that could be seen as belonging to
> biology

Am I right with my guess that this is for easy back-linking from a
"Biology" page? If not, what is it for, as opposed to a simple
[[Biology]] link.

> - {{{GERMAN:Haus}}} in the "house" article
>
> These "variables" could be replaced for display with, say, a little German
> flag linked to the German version of the "house" article, named
> "Haus".

I like the idea to tie different languages together. But (you know
this was coming, eh?) I have two beefs:

Putting links to all other versions into the English (main?)
Wikipedia, or even into every instance, does not scale well. Why not
let the international Wikipedians do this work in *one* place, and let
programs do the rest? And this one place should be where these
Wikipedians are anyway, that is their "home" Wikipedia. So, the author
of the "Haus" article can put {{{ENGLISH:house}}} in there; some other
contributor inserts the same tag into the "maison" page, etc. This is
enough to convey the relation to a program, so that links from any
version to any other version are possible.

Flags are *evil*. They are symbols representing nations, not
languages. I for one, would not feel compelled to click on a German
flag, and I imagine a USian <g> would be even less comfortable with a
Union Jack, either. Flags are sometimes misused in this way by web
sites who are concerned that their visitors would not take the time to
read the corresponding "[German]", but I think we can assume that our
average visitor has no problem with reading an additional word.

So my proposal is:

  The same topic in the [Spanish] [German] [French] Wikipedia.

The order of languages should be constant, but of course only those
languages where an article exist should show up.

> These things don't have to be displayed inside the article, either;

In the footer would be fine, I think.

> Furthermore, all international
> wikipedias could be checked once a day (or once a week), crosslinking
> languages. If the English article links to the German one, the German one
> will automatically link back to the English version. Also, if the German
> article links to the Swedish, but the English does not, both English and
> Swedish will be automatically updated.

Yeah exactly, only that I'd say that this process would not change the
article itself, but some metadata. I don't think it is much use to
French speakers to see all translations of "maison" on that page.
They'd not be able to check or make use of most of them. The one that
they'd most likely be able to evaluate would be the English one.

--
Robbe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.ng
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011011/b371f0ab/attachment.pgp


body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> I don't see that to be necessary.

Not necessary, sure!  But a great opportunity for enhanced visibility.

I think you've really pointed us in a better direction than my
original concept, though.  We should praise them for their
innovativeness, while simultaneously challenging them to be even more
innovative by using an open license.

Neverminding Nupedia/Wikipedia, an open license on this content could
be extremely useful across the board for other academics who can then
modify and adapt the material, updating it over time, and
redistributing it at will.  This MIT project can form the beginnings
of a revolution in how teaching materials are distributed and updated.

This is the key lesson of the advantage of "free speech" over "free beer".

>     The materials on the OCW site will be open and freely
>     available worldwide for non-commercial purposes such as
>     research and education, providing an extraordinary resource,
>     free of charge, which others can adapt to their own needs.
>
> Right away, this sounds better to me than today's situation,
> which requires the purchase of expensive textbooks to acquire
> substantial knowledge.  Let's wait to see what the CONTENT looks
> like. When I was as the 'Tute, many of my courses were taught
> from course notes -- the textbooks were published years later. If
> OCW includes detailed course notes, it could be a tremendous
> benefit.

There's no doubt about that!  It's a huge step forward.  but imagine
that others could not only adapt the materials to their *own* needs,
but also *redistribute* those adaptations, to allow other people to
benefit as well.

> Criticism of a project as bold as this could cause backlash --
> especially given Wikipedia's already-cool reception by so many
> academics.

I'm completely unaware of any "cool reception" by "so many"
academics.  Has there been a critical article published that I'm
unaware of?  A critical discussion on any academic mailing lists?

I've seen a very small handful of people who were skeptical of
Wikipedia *at the beginning*, and of course *anyone* with any sense
who looks at it today will recognize that it is very much a work in
progress.  But I'm unaware of any particularly cool reception by
academics in general.

I'm sure that over the next few years, many of them will find it by
accident, using a search engine, and find themselves pleasantly
surprised when they discover that the superb article they just read
was written by a group of volunteers hard at work in a totally
unstructured process.  :-)

> I think Wikipedia should praise MIT for its
> innovativeness. Let's wait to see what the content looks like and
> how it feels to play by their IP rules before throwing stones.

I certainly do agree with this idea!  We should of course seek
publicity in a positive manner whenever possible.  Good advocacy will
involve praising people for their limited steps towards openness and
freedom, while at the same time pointing out how much more could be done.

---
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
> Tim Chambers wrote:
> > I don't see that to be necessary.
>
> Not necessary, sure!  But a great opportunity for enhanced
> visibility.

I was trying to say (diplomatically) that I thought it was a bad
idea to criticize MIT's OCW at this juncture. I have two reasons
for my position: (1) it's old news (Slashdot's brain fade
notwithstanding), (2) it's too early to developed an informed
critique of the revolutionary step that MIT is taking with OCW,
however distant it may be from the GFDL ideal.

I went back and perused the GFDL. I do think it would be an
interesting exercise -- especially since MIT's own ''Tech
Review'' has covered Wikipedia -- for you (Jimmy) or Larry to
contact MIT and simply ask them if they have considered putting
OCW under the GFDL. I'm curious to know if the OCW honchos have a
clue about the GFDL. That's not a bet I would make either way,
but I ''will'' bet that they will reply that the GFDL is not
something they want to deal with right now. Look. They're already
taking a bold, high-profile step by packaging up their courseware
this way. I don't think they'll want to go with the GFDL at the
same time. Too much risk. Too different. OCW is enough of a
risk. I think that's why they are making it clear that the same
old IP rules will apply. It's a compromise to broaden their
support among their own professors.

Detractors are free to complain about MIT not going far enough
with OCW, but they should not be surprised when they get the same
brushoff as those who whine about the high price of copyrighted
textbooks. Packaging knowledge is hard work -- as any Wikipedian
will admit.

> I'm completely unaware of any "cool reception" by "so many"
> academics.  Has there been a critical article published that
> I'm unaware of?  A critical discussion on any academic mailing
> lists?

I apologize for choosing sloppy words. What I mean by "cool" is
not that there's a bevy of criticism. I mean that positive,
enthusiastic acceptance has been slow in coming. There are some
academics rallying behind both Nupedia and Wikipedia, but the
mainstream press (e.g. TR and NYT) has been cautious. It seems to
me that most academics who are aware of the 'pedias are going to
wait to see what Wikipedia will look like when it grows up.
Furthermore, I don't think that today ''most'' academics ''are''
aware of the 'pedias.

Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and
over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?

    Tim
    "still looking forward to the Wikipedia 1.0 CD-ROM"
    Chambers
    ><>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Tim Chambers wrote:
> > I don't see that to be necessary.
>
> Not necessary, sure!  But a great opportunity for enhanced
> visibility.

I was trying to say (diplomatically) that I thought it was a bad
idea to criticize MIT's OCW at this juncture. I have two reasons
for my position: (1) it's old news (Slashdot's brain fade
notwithstanding), (2) it's too early to developed an informed
critique of the revolutionary step that MIT is taking with OCW,
however distant it may be from the GFDL ideal.

I went back and perused the GFDL. I do think it would be an
interesting exercise -- especially since MIT's own ''Tech
Review'' has covered Wikipedia -- for you (Jimmy) or Larry to
contact MIT and simply ask them if they have considered putting
OCW under the GFDL. I'm curious to know if the OCW honchos have a
clue about the GFDL. That's not a bet I would make either way,
but I ''will'' bet that they will reply that the GFDL is not
something they want to deal with right now. Look. They're already
taking a bold, high-profile step by packaging up their courseware
this way. I don't think they'll want to go with the GFDL at the
same time. Too much risk. Too different. OCW is enough of a
risk. I think that's why they are making it clear that the same
old IP rules will apply. It's a compromise to broaden their
support among their own professors.

Detractors are free to complain about MIT not going far enough
with OCW, but they should not be surprised when they get the same
brushoff as those who whine about the high price of copyrighted
textbooks. Packaging knowledge is hard work -- as any Wikipedian
will admit.

> I'm completely unaware of any "cool reception" by "so many"
> academics.  Has there been a critical article published that
> I'm unaware of?  A critical discussion on any academic mailing
> lists?

I apologize for choosing sloppy words. What I mean by "cool" is
not that there's a bevy of criticism. I mean that positive,
enthusiastic acceptance has been slow in coming. There are some
academics rallying behind both Nupedia and Wikipedia, but the
mainstream press (e.g. TR and NYT) has been cautious. It seems to
me that most academics who are aware of the 'pedias are going to
wait to see what Wikipedia will look like when it grows up.
Furthermore, I don't think that today ''most'' academics ''are''
aware of the 'pedias.

Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and
over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?

    Tim
    "still looking forward to the Wikipedia 1.0 CD-ROM"
    Chambers
    ><>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and
> over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?

:-)  Yes.  I think your advice is good all around!

Richard Stallman is at (or near) MIT, and he mentioned to me once that
he's doing what he can to get the message across to them about free
licensing.  We can of course add our voice to that, although I'm
pretty sure they don't really care what we think.  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
> We must be vigilant, though, that people won't misuse them. I.e.
>
>   Currently (in {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}) ...
>
> and
>
>   Currently (in 2001) ...
>
> can't be distinguished by looking at the HTML output, only at the
> source; and the first usage is probably always in error -- we /don't/
> want articles to change behind our backs.
>
> Which reminds me, which articles (except the homepage) do we actually
> want to contain a moving date?

Probably none. These variables could, of course, be restricted to the
HomePage. But, Wikipedia is based on trust, and so I guess we should trust
people not to abuse variables, as we trust them not to abuse the rest of the
system.

> > That system could be expanded with things like
> > - {{{CATEGORY:Biology}}} in an article that could be seen as
> belonging to
> > biology
>
> Am I right with my guess that this is for easy back-linking from a
> "Biology" page? If not, what is it for, as opposed to a simple
> [[Biology]] link.

A link is but a link. A category variable could be used for building trees,
subwebs, all kinds of stuff, including of course links:)
But not all pages that link to "biology" are actually part of that
*category*, for example, the HomePage isn't!

>
> > - {{{GERMAN:Haus}}} in the "house" article
> >
> > These "variables" could be replaced for display with, say, a
> little German
> > flag linked to the German version of the "house" article, named
> > "Haus".
>
> I like the idea to tie different languages together. But (you know
> this was coming, eh?) I have two beefs:
>
> Putting links to all other versions into the English (main?)
> Wikipedia, or even into every instance, does not scale well. Why not
> let the international Wikipedians do this work in *one* place, and let
> programs do the rest? And this one place should be where these
> Wikipedians are anyway, that is their "home" Wikipedia. So, the author
> of the "Haus" article can put {{{ENGLISH:house}}} in there; some other
> contributor inserts the same tag into the "maison" page, etc. This is
> enough to convey the relation to a program, so that links from any
> version to any other version are possible.

Well, I thought it might be easier is everyone can do his little piece, and
the programs stitch it together to a big interlinked system. Isn't that what
the wiki idea is for? ;)

>
> Flags are *evil*. They are symbols representing nations, not
> languages. I for one, would not feel compelled to click on a German
> flag, and I imagine a USian <g> would be even less comfortable with a
> Union Jack, either. Flags are sometimes misused in this way by web
> sites who are concerned that their visitors would not take the time to
> read the corresponding "[German]", but I think we can assume that our
> average visitor has no problem with reading an additional word.

Flags were just an example for the flexibility of the system.

> > Furthermore, all international
> > wikipedias could be checked once a day (or once a week), crosslinking
> > languages. If the English article links to the German one, the
> German one
> > will automatically link back to the English version. Also, if the German
> > article links to the Swedish, but the English does not, both English and
> > Swedish will be automatically updated.
>
> Yeah exactly, only that I'd say that this process would not change the
> article itself, but some metadata. I don't think it is much use to
> French speakers to see all translations of "maison" on that page.
> They'd not be able to check or make use of most of them. The one that
> they'd most likely be able to evaluate would be the English one.

The idea was to, say, append new "variables" to the article text. As I said,
these won't have to actually show in the HTML output within the text, but
could be cut out for display and instead shown in the header (with or
without flags:)
No real need for metadata here. That would only complicate the access, I
think.

Magnus


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Larry's Nupedia-l proposal

body:
I like the idea of using the Nupedia approval process to bless Wikipedia articles.

Only one little concern: a link on every page "Submit to Nupedia" seems overkill. Nupedia
editors will  get annoyed by too many, and repeated, submissions, and users will be
confused what this is all about. Why not restrict the submitting action only to logged in users,
and then only from the edit-page? That way, the unwashed masses never have to deal with it.

Axel


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Yet another Recruiting Tool from Yet Another
 Hierarchical Officious Oracle

body:
This is a good idea...you could perhaps explain the idea on

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

Larry

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Tim Chambers wrote:

> I just discovered http://experts.yahoo.com/. (How long has this been
> going on?) Looks like fertile ground for recruiting article
> writers/editors/reviewers. Those of us non-experts who dabble on pages
> out of our league (or am I the only one? :-) can pose thoughtful
> questions to experts in the appropriate category. We can get answers
> and then maybe entice them into contributing to the 'pedia themselves!
>
> <>< Tim
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
> http://phone.yahoo.com
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search engine

body:
This is fixed now, right?  It should be.

Larry

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:

> hi all.
>
> wikipedia seems to be running ok, but the search engine hasn't been
> updated in a while.
>
> regards,
>
> wojpob
>
>
>


from_name: Stephen Gilbert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Slashdot on MIT free courseware

body:
>Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and
>over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?
>
>
>    Tim
>    "still looking forward to the Wikipedia 1.0 CD-ROM"
>    Chambers
>    ><>

Exactly. Wikipedia has had a lot of coverage; if we push for too much more,
people will start labeling it "hype". That doesn't mean that we shouldn't
look for help from appropriate sources (USENET, mailing lists, etc), but
let's quietly work away, and wait until we have some big news before we
seek more press coverage.
- STG


subject: [Wikipedia-l] search engine

body:
It isn't yet on a cron job, because I noticed some little problems
when I ran it by hand on Friday.  I'll be running it by hand fairly
often until I get the bugs worked out.

lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

> This is fixed now, right?  It should be.
>
> Larry
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, wojtek pobratyn wrote:
>
> > hi all.
> >
> > wikipedia seems to be running ok, but the search engine hasn't been
> > updated in a while.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > wojpob
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************