from_name: Ulf Lunde

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokmål?

body:
I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have
any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)

But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
Alvik) apparently
still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
easier (for anyone
not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the
problem.  I will also try
again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very
little "extra work"
associated with my proposed solution.

Lars Alvik wrote:

> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would create a
> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.

Lars Aronsson wrote:

 > To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the concept of
 > the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
 > and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian = Bokm?l]

My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac or Linux
users on this list, or my point may be moot):

To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the concept of
"computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to "Windows".

The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian languages)
pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read: "Norwegian").

When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
just as upset
as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend to have
monopoly on American heritage.

Lars Alvik also wrote:

 > Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
 > nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
 > users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500 articles).

I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
dictate the name of the Bokm?l Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
set of ISO language codes which
is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)

The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
"Norwegian" equals
"Bokm?l", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
project like Wikipedia
to break with established naming conventions.

Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical problems*
in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn: one) alive
at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:

Articles which exist only in Bokm?l or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
the common no:
Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is required.

New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of language form.
Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
forms; they will
find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokm?l,
some in Nynorsk).

When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
article should be
moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokm?l) or to nn: (if it is in
Nynorsk).  The no: article
should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
about the length
(or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
more work than just writing
an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
work".  Given the amount
of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
for "moving the
article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
appear as a simple
click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
set to just move all
pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
respective databases.)

Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
(Norwegian), regardless
of whether the article is in Bokm?l or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
two forms exists,
there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in no: to the
existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
extra clicking when
there is no ambiguity.

Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
Wikipedias also.  When
this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
within a reasonable
amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
account, because of alert
Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
redirections.  But it would be
simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.

An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
article to another (which is the default today)?
Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
it is an existing
problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
as we allow
for Nynorsk (or Bokm?l) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
(for both languages) today.

Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
Wikipedia sysops may
see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
the direction of
a multilingual Wikipedia!

Ulf Lunde


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve

subject: [WikiEN-l] difficulties

body:
I have had difficulties finding a "list" of California legislatures
from your http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/california.html page.  As
well, on the sports list of professional sports in California - there
is no mention of minor league soccer - there are various numbers of
teams - here's two websites:
http://prosoccer.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/66078.html ;
http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/65510.html ; &
http://www.mpsl.info/teams.aspx

Thank you.

Steve Tanton
Cupertino


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Lars Alvik

subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokmål?

body:
P? 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:

> I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
> nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have
> any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)
>
> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
> Alvik) apparently
> still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
> easier (for anyone
> not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the
> problem.  I will also try
> again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very
> little "extra work"
> associated with my proposed solution.
>
>
> Lars Alvik wrote:
>
>> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
>> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would create
>> a
>> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
>> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
>
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the
>> concept of
>> the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
>> and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian =
>> Bokm?l]
>
> My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac
> or Linux
> users on this list, or my point may be moot):
>
> To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the
> concept of
> "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to
> "Windows".
>
> The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian
> languages)
> pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read:
> "Norwegian").
>
> When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
> just as upset
> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend to
> have
> monopoly on American heritage.
>
>
> Lars Alvik also wrote:
>
>> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
>> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
>> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500 articles).
>
> I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
> dictate the name of the Bokm?l Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
> set of ISO language codes which
> is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)
>
> The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
> "Norwegian" equals
> "Bokm?l", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
> project like Wikipedia
> to break with established naming conventions.
>
>
> Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical
> problems*
> in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn: one)
> alive
> at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:
>
> Articles which exist only in Bokm?l or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
> the common no:
> Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is
> required.
>
> New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of
> language form.
> Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
> forms; they will
> find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokm?l,
> some in Nynorsk).
>
> When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
> article should be
> moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokm?l) or to nn: (if it is in
> Nynorsk).  The no: article
> should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
> about the length
> (or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
> more work than just writing
> an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
> work".  Given the amount
> of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
> for "moving the
> article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
> appear as a simple
> click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
> set to just move all
> pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
> respective databases.)
>
> Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
> (Norwegian), regardless
> of whether the article is in Bokm?l or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
> two forms exists,
> there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in no:
> to the
> existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
> extra clicking when
> there is no ambiguity.
>
> Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
> Wikipedias also.  When
> this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
> within a reasonable
> amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
> account, because of alert
> Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
> redirections.  But it would be
> simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
>
> An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
> links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
> article to another (which is the default today)?
> Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
> it is an existing
> problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
> as we allow
> for Nynorsk (or Bokm?l) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
> (for both languages) today.
>
> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
> Wikipedia sysops may
> see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
> the direction of
> a multilingual Wikipedia!
>
> Ulf Lunde
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th
generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see
your point of view.

Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the
last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that a
new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us. And
i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is accualy
articles in bokm?l is a important one.

A bokm?l wiki at no:

1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokm?l)" (and nynorsk to
"norsk (nynorsk)")
3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokm?l is no:
4. Bokm?l and Riksm?l (conservative bokm?l) is allowed on the bokm?l
wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be
"protected" from translation.

PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the
english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is
crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).

mvh. Lars Alvik


from_name: byron gamildien

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposal: make user pages uneditable

body:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:28:45 +0100
 Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rick a ?crit:
> > Do you people not understand how much disgusting
> (pornographic, name-calling)
>
> vandalism goes on on User pages?  It's one of the main
> reasons for blocking anons.
>
> The Talk page is for editing.
>
> The User page is for a person's philosophy, who they are,
> what they are.
>
> Why do you feel the need to do that?
>
> What's wrong with just editing the Talk page and leaving
> the User page alone?
>
> ------
>
> I have a slightly different perspective of what a user
> page is (but I agree your perpective is the most common
> one).
>
> "The User page is for a person's philosophy, who they
> are, what they are. "
>
> This is true.
> But to be most relevant, "who I am" or "what I am" is
> something best described by several points of view. Not
> only mine.
>
> I can describe what I think I am. You can describe what
> you think I am, or what you think I think I am. I do not
> exist only through my perception, but through what all
> you perceive of me.
>
> So, this is fine that you write on my user page, as long
> as it is only about me. The user page is not MY page, it
> is a page about ME :-)
> sorry about taking so long to answer your mail but work
committments have kept me away from my pc.i partially agree
with what you have to say.what i cannot understand is all
the aggravation and personal attacks over this issue.can`t
we all just settle this matter amicably.i do not think a
user page should be used to attack him or her but rather
for constructive criticism.what wikipedians are saying to
each other is not constructive but rather destructive.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_____________________________________________________________________
For super low premiums ,click here http://www.dialdirect.co.za/quote


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for
	Bokm? l?

body:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:27:59 +0100, Lars Alvik <larsal at stud.ntnu.no> wrote:

> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would create a
> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.

In other words, you propose to disregard the objection of the Nynorsk
community, and want to collect arguments to do so.

> I recon there are probably no more than 300 nynorsk arcticles on no:.
> These and new nynorsk articles on no: will not get deleted but will not
> get "protected" against translation either.
> We don't want no trouble with the nynorskpeople (eventhough we are
> indeed very tired of the debate in general).
> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500 articles).

I don't see any problems that would be caused by my proposal, and I
think the same holds for some other proposals. Moving the 11.5000
articles would happen "behind the screens" and not be noticeable
except that you and up at nb.wikipedia.org next time you go to no:.
Only those 300 Nynorsk articles would need to be 'moved around' - in
this case meaning they have to be moved to nn.wikipedia.org.

Still, I feel that the discussion is starting to lose its value. It is
time to get to a solution, or at least to appoint people to decide on
the solution. Could someone step in in name of the foundation, and
decide on a decision process? If we don't have that, there's three
outcomes I find (in order of likelihood):

* This discussion ends, not because a solution has been found that
satisfies all or most of those involved, but because people grow tired
of it.
* The discussion goes on and on for months without any hope of resolution.
* Someone starts implementing their own solution singlehandedly,
starting an edit war of unprecedented proportions.

Andre Engels

Andre Engels


from_name: Robin Shannon

subject: [WikiEN-l] a smart wikipedian is needed.

body:
Howdy, anybody got any idea why in [[amazon]] all the edit buttons for
the sub-sections get squashed into just above ===enviromentalism=== ?
i dont get it, and cant see how it could be fixed.

paz y amor,
rjs [[User:The bellman]]

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Future of mediawiki is tied to wikipedia ?

body:
vic wrote:
> Hi ...
> I would like to know if the development lines of mediawiki will be
> extensively
> tied (or slown down) because of wikipedia ...
> The reason of my question, is that i am recently reading the mailing
> list , and show
> that developers and contributions are allways extensily closed to
> wikipedia requirements,
> not open to new ideas beyond enciclopedias.
> A general use wiki with mediawiki engine would be great, ( i am using it
> to developments
> documentation) ... but it lacks features like authentication and email
> notifications
> (i know the 1.4 plans on this features), that i think are being slown
> down by the
> WIKIPEDIA ...
>
> What is your oppinion ???
>
> Another branch of mediawiki with general features would be great.

Development for Wikimedia projects is excessively slowed down by the
constant need to cater for non-Wikimedia users. A slow release cycle
suits non-Wikimedia users, because they want the software to work out of
the box. Security flaws exposed in a release can't be rapidly corrected,
because it requires hundreds of users to upgrade their copy.

Wikimedia projects on the other hand would benefit from continuous
introduction of features ported from the unstable branch, once a
suitable testing sequence has been completed. Bugs, security flaws and
other non-ideal behaviour can be easily corrected, since there is only
one live copy to update. Currently, desparately needed features are
delayed for many months because despite being tested, they are
considered too unstable for release in a minor version increment.
Readying the unstable branch itself for release requires many hours of
work fixing half-completed features written by other people, committed
and then abandoned by developers who have more interesting things to do.
A methodology of continuous release to Wikimedia would at least provide
an incentive for these developers to finish what they started.

In my opinion, non-Wikimedia users have no right to expect MediaWiki
development to cater for them. Their needs are incidental. So I agree
with the OP, on a practical level if not philosophically. Another branch
would suit me just fine.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Video uploaded...

body:
I still protest the policies on this point. In the name of freedom, we
are enforcing a non-standard format, giving people extra problems to
just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia
should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy
open-source-loving nerds.

My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a
sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others
who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too
strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are
any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to
play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at
the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their
format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and
writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.

Andre Engels

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:44 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel
<robert.merkel at benambra.org> wrote:
> In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia,
> Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video
> to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph
> demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the
> mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating
> heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
>
> You can see the article with the uploaded video at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
>
> Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded
> to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora
> is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the
> discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy
> becomes a little more directly relevant...
>
> >From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
> what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to
> mind is that we should always take a still from the video as
> illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
>
> Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval
> process?
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                            Robert Merkel
>                                      robert.merkel at benambra.org
>                                         http://benambra.org
>
> "And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi
> attacking Bambi"
>  -- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] the AC needs people with free time and interest

body:
After a year (?) or so on the arbitration committee, and not being
particularly interested in staying on it, there's one main obstacle I've
seen: A lack of people with sufficient free time and interest to wade
through the often complicated disputes.  It's not, in my opinion,
problems in getting together a quorum, or even problems in discussing
contentious disputes that are the primary stumbling block.  It's just
the lack of getting *anything* rolling at all.

Often parties to disputes will dump literally hundreds of links to edit
histories, and engage in lengthy multi-page accusations and
counter-accusations.  Someone has to sort through that and try to make
sense of it.  It's not a particularly interesting job, of course.

Once someone does sort through it, and proposes something, the actual
voting is comparatively unproblematic.  There have been occasions when
voting has been too slow, but that can be dealt with by e.g. leaving
nagging messages on peoples' talk pages.  The biggest and hardest to
overcome delays are those where voting has simply never started, because
nobody had the time or inclination to wade through the pile of evidence
and accusations to distill a set of options to vote on in the first
place.  How to solve that I don't really know.

-Mark


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Troll?

body:
Mark Richards wrote
> For our purposes, except when used as someone intending to destroy the
community or who intends to be entertained at the expense of others, these
are the operative definitions:
>
> 1. Troll is a word used inappropriately as an insult;
> 2. Calling someone a troll is a way of harrassing folks who disagree with
you.
>
> ;)

I may be getting middle-aged and pompous, but I see nothing amusing here.
Gresham's Law applies to Internet dialogue; trolls (not those who simply
hold strong views) are the counterfeiters.  Of course edit warriors reach
for the T- and V- words.

Charles


references:
<20041111041021.FVJL2430.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net>
	<985F17C6-33BB-11D9-B9DC-000A95BB9CEC@stud.ntnu.no>
	<b05ef67804111101562779afc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B5A648A-33CF-11D9-B9DC-000A95BB9CEC@slappfisk.net>

body:
>
>
> P? 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:
>
>> I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
>> nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have
>> any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)
>>
>> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
>> Alvik) apparently
>> still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
>> easier (for anyone
>> not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the
>> problem.  I will also try
>> again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very
>> little "extra work"
>> associated with my proposed solution.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik wrote:
>>
>>> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
>>> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would
>>> create a
>>> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
>>> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
>>
>> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the
>>> concept of
>>> the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
>>> and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian =
>>> Bokm?l]
>>
>> My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac
>> or Linux
>> users on this list, or my point may be moot):
>>
>> To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the
>> concept of
>> "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to
>> "Windows".
>>
>> The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian
>> languages)
>> pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read:
>> "Norwegian").
>>
>> When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
>> just as upset
>> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend
>> to have
>> monopoly on American heritage.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik also wrote:
>>
>>> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
>>> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
>>> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500
>>> articles).
>>
>> I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
>> dictate the name of the Bokm?l Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
>> set of ISO language codes which
>> is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)
>>
>> The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
>> "Norwegian" equals
>> "Bokm?l", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
>> project like Wikipedia
>> to break with established naming conventions.
>>
>>
>> Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical
>> problems*
>> in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn:
>> one) alive
>> at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:
>>
>> Articles which exist only in Bokm?l or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
>> the common no:
>> Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is
>> required.
>>
>> New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of
>> language form.
>> Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
>> forms; they will
>> find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokm?l,
>> some in Nynorsk).
>>
>> When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
>> article should be
>> moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokm?l) or to nn: (if it is in
>> Nynorsk).  The no: article
>> should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
>> about the length
>> (or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
>> more work than just writing
>> an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
>> work".  Given the amount
>> of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
>> for "moving the
>> article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
>> appear as a simple
>> click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
>> set to just move all
>> pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
>> respective databases.)
>>
>> Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
>> (Norwegian), regardless
>> of whether the article is in Bokm?l or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
>> two forms exists,
>> there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in
>> no: to the
>> existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
>> extra clicking when
>> there is no ambiguity.
>>
>> Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
>> Wikipedias also.  When
>> this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
>> within a reasonable
>> amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
>> account, because of alert
>> Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
>> redirections.  But it would be
>> simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
>>
>> An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
>> links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
>> article to another (which is the default today)?
>> Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
>> it is an existing
>> problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
>> as we allow
>> for Nynorsk (or Bokm?l) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
>> (for both languages) today.
>>
>> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
>> Wikipedia sysops may
>> see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
>> the direction of
>> a multilingual Wikipedia!
>>
>> Ulf Lunde
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>

I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th
generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see
your point of view.

Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the
last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that a
new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us. And
i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is accualy
articles in bokm?l is a important one.

A bokm?l wiki at no:

1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokm?l)" (and nynorsk to
"norsk (nynorsk)")
3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokm?l is no:
4. Bokm?l and Riksm?l (conservative bokm?l) is allowed on the bokm?l
wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be
"protected" from translation.

PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the
english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is
crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).

mvh. Lars Alvik


subject: [WikiEN-l] A list at VfD

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>I have posted a couple of times here already about the harmful (as I see it)
>effect of talk assuming that categories are in some way now the de facto
>standard.  That's quite wrong.  I won't rehearse all the reasons again.
>
>
I've seen your arguments, but I don't see how they apply to this list.
It's not organized in any particular way except a flat list of
articles.  That's exactly equivalent to a category, the only difference
being a technical one of which end it's maintained on ("edit this page"
on the list, or add/remove articles to the list from the article's side).

Other lists that have some organization I can see an argument for, but
if it's just a list whose only distinctions are "it's on the list" or
"it's not on the list", then category membership is equivalent.

-Mark


body:
> PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the
> english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is
> crappy

I have explained my views in Norwegian in the discussions on no: and on nn:,
which I think are both a more suitable language and more suitable places to
*debate* these issues than this mailing list (where many of the recipients
probably couldn't care less about Norwegian language issues) is.  I have not
intentionally ignored any approaches from English speakers.  In fact, I think
that I already have written more than my share of replies in this thread, and
I feel that the debate has now become very much out of place in this forum.

This mailing list uses only English (as far as I can tell), so I had to
write *the request* in English.  Ideally, the entire debate should be
held elsewehere, and only the *conclusions* of the Norwegian debate
should reach this level.

Those who feel that more debate is needed, are still welcome to join
the discussions on the Wikipedia discussion pages, even if they are
not able to write in Norwegian!  Or they can start a discussion about
new solution proposals (and their merits) somewhere else, e.g. in the
Metawiki, and just send this list a link.

One current discussion:
 http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vannposten#Bokm.C3.A5l_og_nynorsk_wikipedia
Some earlier discussions:
 http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia-diskusjon:Wikipedia_p%C3%A5_bokm%C3%A5l
 http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_p%C3%A5_nynorsk

Ulf Lunde


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokmål?

body:
Could you give some examples of the differences between the three forms of
Norwegian?

James

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lars Alvik
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:04 PM
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for
Bokm?l?

>
>
> P? 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:
>
>> I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
>> nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood
>> the political issue perfectly.)
>>
>> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
>> Alvik) apparently
>> still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
>> easier (for anyone not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the
>> provocativeness of the problem.  I will also try again to explain why
>> there will be no "dead links" and only very little "extra work"
>> associated with my proposed solution.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik wrote:
>>
>>> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
>>> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would
>>> create a
>>> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
>>> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
>>
>> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the
>>> concept of
>>> the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
>>> and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian =
>>> Bokm?l]
>>
>> My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac
>> or Linux
>> users on this list, or my point may be moot):
>>
>> To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the
>> concept of
>> "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to
>> "Windows".
>>
>> The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian
>> languages)
>> pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read:
>> "Norwegian").
>>
>> When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
>> just as upset
>> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend
>> to have
>> monopoly on American heritage.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik also wrote:
>>
>>> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
>>> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
>>> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500
>>> articles).
>>
>> I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
>> dictate the name of the Bokm?l Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
>> set of ISO language codes which
>> is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)
>>
>> The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
>> "Norwegian" equals
>> "Bokm?l", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
>> project like Wikipedia
>> to break with established naming conventions.
>>
>>
>> Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical
>> problems*
>> in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn:
>> one) alive
>> at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:
>>
>> Articles which exist only in Bokm?l or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
>> the common no:
>> Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is
>> required.
>>
>> New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of
>> language form.
>> Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
>> forms; they will
>> find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokm?l,
>> some in Nynorsk).
>>
>> When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
>> article should be
>> moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokm?l) or to nn: (if it is in
>> Nynorsk).  The no: article
>> should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
>> about the length
>> (or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
>> more work than just writing
>> an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
>> work".  Given the amount
>> of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
>> for "moving the
>> article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
>> appear as a simple
>> click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
>> set to just move all
>> pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
>> respective databases.)
>>
>> Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
>> (Norwegian), regardless
>> of whether the article is in Bokm?l or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
>> two forms exists,
>> there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in
>> no: to the
>> existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
>> extra clicking when
>> there is no ambiguity.
>>
>> Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
>> Wikipedias also.  When
>> this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
>> within a reasonable
>> amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
>> account, because of alert
>> Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
>> redirections.  But it would be
>> simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
>>
>> An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
>> links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
>> article to another (which is the default today)?
>> Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
>> it is an existing
>> problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
>> as we allow
>> for Nynorsk (or Bokm?l) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
>> (for both languages) today.
>>
>> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
>> Wikipedia sysops may
>> see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
>> the direction of
>> a multilingual Wikipedia!
>>
>> Ulf Lunde
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>

I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th
generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see
your point of view.

Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the
last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that a
new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us. And
i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is accualy
articles in bokm?l is a important one.

A bokm?l wiki at no:

1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokm?l)" (and nynorsk to
"norsk (nynorsk)")
3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokm?l is no:
4. Bokm?l and Riksm?l (conservative bokm?l) is allowed on the bokm?l
wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be
"protected" from translation.

PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the
english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is
crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).

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


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Ulf Lunde wrote:
> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
> Alvik) apparently still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies

Sorry, your Microsoft analogy doesn't help.  You're full of
feminist-style rhetoric, where all opposition is disqualified as a
matter of "not getting it".  There's nothing I can do here.  I'm glad
I'm not part of this conflict.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Video uploaded...

body:
Suggestion:
* upload an ogg and a divx/xvid/mpeg/whatever version
* link to a page that contains links to the ogg and the alternate
version, as well as links for downloading the respective codecs

I still haven't gotten the "heat to beat" :-(

Magnus

Andre Engels wrote:

>I still protest the policies on this point. In the name of freedom, we
>are enforcing a non-standard format, giving people extra problems to
>just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia
>should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy
>open-source-loving nerds.
>
>My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a
>sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others
>who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too
>strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are
>any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to
>play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at
>the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their
>format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and
>writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
>
>Andre Engels
>
>
>
>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:44 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel
><robert.merkel at benambra.org> wrote:
>
>
>>In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia,
>>Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video
>>to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph
>>demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the
>>mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating
>>heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
>>
>>You can see the article with the uploaded video at
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
>>
>>Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded
>>to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora
>>is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the
>>discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy
>>becomes a little more directly relevant...
>>
>>>From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
>>what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to
>>mind is that we should always take a still from the video as
>>illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
>>
>>Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval
>>process?
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                                           Robert Merkel
>>                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
>>                                        http://benambra.org
>>
>>"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi
>>attacking Bambi"
>> -- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


body:
<OFF TOPIC>

 > while the di[s]cussion has been pointed, the participants
 > should be praised for patiently explaining these issues. I
 > don't know about other people, but I've found the exchange enlightening
 > and interesting, and would like to thank Mssrs Lunde and Alvik for
 > taking their valuable time to present differing viewpoints.

Darn!  :-)  What fun would flame wars be if there were many people around
with such calm and reflected attitudes!  Come to think of it, there probably
wouldn't ever *be* any flame wars if most people shared Stirling's
attitude!  :-)

No need to thank us for taking part in an argument!  That's what we like most!
I apologize to the Larses if in the heat of the battle some words were chosen
unwisely.  My primary goal was to explain my thoughts. (Provocation was only
a secondary goal. ;-)  By the looks of it, I think I may have
succeeded a little.

Actually, I, too, have found the exchange rewarding!  My thanks to all
who have shared their views on my idea!

Ulf Lunde

</OFF TOPIC>


from_name: Robert Graham Merkel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Video uploaded...

body:
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia,
Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video
to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph
demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the
mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating
heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"

You can see the article with the uploaded video at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy

Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded
to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora
is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the
discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy
becomes a little more directly relevant...

>From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to
mind is that we should always take a still from the video as
illustration, but more thoughts are good)...

Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval
process?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Robert Merkel
                                     robert.merkel at benambra.org
                                        http://benambra.org

"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi
attacking Bambi"
 -- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: Olve Utne

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for

body:
Hello Lars,
Your English is quite OK, Lars -- no need to worry about that. :-)  As for
this discussion taking place on wikipedia-l (and therefore in English) in
addition to locally on no: and nn: (in the respective written language
forms of Norwegian), I think that there are good reasons for that:

* The Norwegian language situation has some characteristics similar to the
Czech/Slovak, the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, the Bulgarian/Macedonian, and
the Langue d'Oc/Catalonian/Castilian/Extremaduran/Gallego/Portuguese
language clusters, and therefore of some interest to the general Wikipedia
community.
* A bit of international perspective and input can be useful for the
debates locally on no: and nn:.
* Potentially moving a Wikipedia of over 11,000 content pages is a
significant change and has interest beyond the local user community.
* Use of an incorrect language code, whether this be changed (for
correctness) or kept as is (for reasons of continuity of usage).

At Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:04:21 +0100, Lars Alvik wrote:
> >> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
> Wikipedia sysops may see the case of the Norwegian language as an
> exercise and a step in the direction of a multilingual Wikipedia!
>
>I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a
>12th  generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't
>see  your point of view.

Nobody is trying to say that your language is foreign, as far as I can see
anywhere. What some people are trying to say is: Neither is the other main
written form of Norwegian. Bokm?l as it currently exists is not inherently
more or less foreign than Nynorsk.

My personal view, as I have pointed out on this list as well as in the
discussions on both the no: and nn: Wikipedia, is that it would be the most
*correct* solution to move no: to nb:. This would be, as someone recently
pointed out on wikipedia-l, a pretty simple dump that would be of no
practical consequence to the no:/nb: users. I have also pointed out that
the solution of *not* moving no: is acceptable to me personally, even
though I see it as less correct in the strict sense of the term -- mostly
since a large number of nb contributors presumably would feel hurt by the
political implications a move to nb: would carry -- namely, of nb: being a
subset rather than the only standard Norwegian. While, as mentioned before,
Bokm?l and Nynorsk are indeed subsets of Norwegian (each with its solid
literature, and each with equal status as official language), the political
consequences of stirring up this rather delicate "balance" by explicitly
moving Bokm?l to its language code (nb, nob or nb-no) instead of the
national domain (.no) would be likely to result in much resentment amongst
high-profile Bokm?l users. This resentment, regardless of its logical
accurateness, might be counterproductive for the local wikipedia society as
a whole.

I do not believe that a split of no: into no: and nb: is constructive. I do
personally believe that a move of the current no: (which is, de facto, in
Bokm?l) to nb: would be best.  However, if this move is going to create an
impossible ebvironment for cooperation between Bokm?l and Nynorsk, then it
is NOT worth it, and no: would (will?) be better of where it currently is.

All the best,
Olve

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
It seems to me that one of the big obstacles to
participating in the AC would be the three-year
commitment. Assuming I were qualified and interested
in being on the AC, I would still hesitate because of
the length of the term. It's hard enough for me to
know what my life will be like next month, let alone
three years from now. And I avoid making a commitment
if I can't reasonably foresee fulfilling it.

If nothing else, perhaps magistrates could have a
shorter term of office?

It also seems like there may be room for other types
of official assistants for AC members. Someone to
prepare briefs, for example.

Just kind of brainstorming here...

-Rich Holton

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: AC with a small quorum and IRC meetings

body:
--- Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> How would it be determined which three? Based on the IRC suggestion, it
> seems likely that it would be the first three to come along.

Yep. And to prevent bottlenecks it would be on a item by item basis - as it is
now. The big difference being where deliberations (if any) take place and the
minimum number of votes needed to reach any given decision (minimum 2 out of a
quorum of 3 instead of a majority of all active members). If more than three
arbitrators vote for any particular item, then simple majority still rules -
the numbers would be set at whatever they are at the time the case is closed.
Example:

----
Start example
----

==Findings of fact==
#User X has engaged in abusive behavior in this set of talk pages:
#*[[talk;foo]] Example diffs: [diff1], [diff2], [diff3]
#*[[talk:bar]] Example diffs: [diff4], [diff5], [diff6]

;Arbitrator votes for
:# [[Sig of AC member 1]] (comment)
:# [[Sig of AC member 2]] (comment)

;Arbitrator votes against
:# [[Sig of AC member 3]] (comment)

;Arbitrator abstentions

==Remedies==
#User X is banned from editing the below set of articles and their talk pages
for 3 months:
:#[[foo]]
:#[[bar]]

;Arbitrator votes for
:# [[Sig of AC member 1]] (comment)
:# [[Sig of AC member 2]] (comment)
:# [[Sig of AC member 3]] (comment)

;Arbitrator votes against
:# [[Sig of AC member 4]] (comment)
:# [[Sig of AC member 5]] (comment)

;Arbitrator abstentions
:# [[Sig of AC member 6]] (comment)

-----
End example
-----

The above votes and their counts would be set as official at the time the case
is closed. Thus the finding of fact above would pass due to the fact that 2 of
the 3 arbitrators voting voted for it and the remedy would pass since 3 of the
5 voting for or against the remedy voted for it. Note that to be valid either
way a quorum of at least three ArbCom members must vote for or against (any
combo) an item (meaning that abstentions do not affect the minimum quorum count
of 3).

> Letting the arbitrators divide into three-member panels has been
> suggested before, and has some merit to it. In my proposal to reorganize
> the Arbitration Committee, I didn't address restructuring the
> arbitration process itself because this kind of proposal doesn't need
> the election context to happen. This could be implemented now if we want
> it, or it could be implemented sometime after the election. Shrinking
> the size of the committee, on the other hand, is best accomplished as
> part of the election cycle.

My plan allows for a small number of arbitrators to decide items in a case,
Thus the only relevance to the total size of the arbitration committee would be
case load (more members would mean more cases could be heard and decided
faster) and the size of the review board (the whole committee).

Such a review board would be held whenever any ArbCom member called for a
review during a specified period after the case was closed and was seconded by
at least one other member. A review would simply explore the question if the
case needed to be reopened in some way. It *would not* decide any remedy,
finding or fact, or principle but may decide to only reopen part of the case (a
particular remedy, for example). Simple majority of those arbitrators who voted
during a specified period would decide that issue. That should be a sufficient
check.

Note that I specifically did not mention appeals - the ArbCom is already the
end of the road in the dispute resolution process so there are no appeals
(except in principle to Jimbo - in practice I'm sure that will exceedingly
rare). I'm ambivalent as to whether or not it would be best to delay
enforcement of a decision while a review is taking place.

> How much deliberation actually occurs via email to begin with?

At first a lot. But bouncing ideas off of each other that way was a very
frustrating process, IMO. So very little of that goes on now. What now seems to
happen most often is that different ArbCom members propose decisions out of the
blue and the others vote on them.

This is hardly an optimal situation since it puts the onus of thinking through
things almost entirely on the person writing the proposed decision (finding of
fact, principle, or remedy).

Thus I would like to encourage members to work out proposed items on IRC.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] wikipedia conference announcement?

body:
I was somewhat surprised to see that the conference city and date was
chosen 1-2 weeks ago, a name vote held ("Wikimania"), and numerous other
things gone on without any announcement on the foundation mailing list.
In case anybody else missed it, the information is here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Main_Page

-Mark


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] A list at VfD

body:
User:Smack has listed [[list of exponential topics]], a list I originated
and maintain still, at VfD, on the sole ground that he has added an
equivalent category. In his words, it has been 'superseded'.  I contest
this.  It is silly technologists' thinking, without any basis in common
sense.

I have posted a couple of times here already about the harmful (as I see it)
effect of talk assuming that categories are in some way now the de facto
standard.  That's quite wrong.  I won't rehearse all the reasons again.

I intend to make this a test case at VfD, so that the ludicrous idea of
removing a list that serves a proper purpose on WP can be knocked on the
head, once and for all.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] A list at VfD

body:
Delirium wrote

> I've seen your arguments, but I don't see how they apply to this list.

How about the two red links that will go?

> It's not organized in any particular way except a flat list of
> articles.  That's exactly equivalent to a category, the only difference
> being a technical one of which end it's maintained on ("edit this page"
> on the list, or add/remove articles to the list from the article's side).
>
> Other lists that have some organization I can see an argument for, but
> if it's just a list whose only distinctions are "it's on the list" or
> "it's not on the list", then category membership is equivalent.

How about the fact that RelatedChanges on a category gets you changes
related to the header text only (as far as I can see)?

And please explain which recognised category of articles for deletion this
falls under?

Charles


from_name: Joel Wiesmann

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Uebersetzungsproblem in Deutsch bzw.
	kleingeschriebene Woerter

body:
Hi Raul

- (Deutsch unten) -
To all non-german speakers. He asked about the monobook-stylesheet why the
"text-transform: lowercase;" is used for the tabs with "settings", "edit"
and so on because you write some of those words with a capital letter in
german.

ANTWORT:
Ja, dem ist so. Am besten du kommentierst alle "text-transform: lowercase;"
aus in stylesheets/monobook/main.css.
Textstellen mit:
text-transform: lowercase;
einfach mit:
#text-transform: lowercase;
ersetzen.

Gruss
Joel

Raul Mircea Gigea wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> Ich habe die 1.3.7 version von MediaWiki von Sourceforge installiert,
> und es auf Deutsch configuriert.
>
> Beim ersten Lauf vom Browser treten folgende Probleme auf:
> 1. Alle tabs(Navigationselemente) sind kleingeschrieben (d.h.
> "einstellungen" statt "Einstellungen" usw).
> 2. Die Tooltips dafuer (z.b. Der Tooltip bei "einstellungen" lautet "My
> preferences")
> 3. Das WikiPedia-Portal Link wurde nicht in <site name>-Portal Link
> ersetzt,
> wobei 3 eigentlich nicht so wichtig ist.
>
> Ist das so gewollt , oder wurde es bloS nicht behandelt.
> Ich frage, weil die deutsche Version von Wikipedia die obig genannten
> Fehler _nicht_ hat.
> Gibt es vielleicht einen "Patch" fur die Deutsche Version, weil ich mein
> Wiki immer up-to-date erhalten will, also wenn es eine neue Version
> gibt, und vielleicht neue tabs hinzugefuegt werden, oder die Struktur
> der Languages.php files veraendert wird, so kann ich nicht immer es
> "manuell" patch-en.
>
> Vielen Dank,
> Raul.


from_name: manfred

subject: [Wikitech-l] Ubersetzungsproblem in Deutsch

body:
> Entschuldigung. Ich habe es eigentlich _nicht_ korigiert, weil in
> LanguagesDe.php das schon groSgeschrieben waren, und trotzdem werden sie
> kleingeschrieben.
> Ist das vielleicht ein StyleSheet problem ?

Nein, das ist ein Datenbank Problem :-)
Rufe in deinem Wiki die Seite
http://dein.wiki/index.php/Special:Allmessages auf. Dort findest Du alle
?bersetzungen. Als sysop kannst du sie editieren.

--tictric

>
> Raul Mircea Gigea wrote:
>
>> Hallo,
>>
>> Ich habe die 1.3.7 version von MediaWiki von Sourceforge installiert,
>> und es auf Deutsch configuriert.
>>
>> Beim ersten Lauf vom Browser treten folgende Probleme auf:
>> 1. Alle tabs(Navigationselemente) sind kleingeschrieben (d.h.
>> "einstellungen" statt "Einstellungen" usw).
>> 2. Die Tooltips dafuer (z.b. Der Tooltip bei "einstellungen" lautet "My
>> preferences")
>> 3. Das WikiPedia-Portal Link wurde nicht in <site name>-Portal Link
>> ersetzt,
>> wobei 3 eigentlich nicht so wichtig ist.
>>
>> Ich kann, und habe sogar das schon veraendert (in LanguagesDe.php),
>> will aber verstehen ob das so gewollt ist, oder ob es bloS nicht
>> behandelt wurde.
>> Ich frage, weil die deutsche Version von Wikipedia die obig genannten
>> Fehler _nicht_ hat.
>> Gibt es vielleicht einen "Patch" fur die Deutsche Version, weil ich
>> mein Wiki immer up-to-date erhalten will, also wenn es eine neue
>> Version gibt, und vielleicht neue tabs hinzugefuegt werden, oder die
>> Struktur der Languages.php files veraendert wird, so kann ich nicht
>> immer es "manuell" patch-en.
>>
>> Vielen Dank,
>> Raul.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
http://glassdoc.org
http://glassdoc.de


body:
P? 11. nov. 2004 kl. 11.48 skrev Lars Alvik:

>
>
> P? 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:
>
>> I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate
>> nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have
>> any new ones.  (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)
>>
>> But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars
>> Alvik) apparently
>> still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it
>> easier (for anyone
>> not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the
>> problem.  I will also try
>> again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very
>> little "extra work"
>> associated with my proposed solution.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik wrote:
>>
>>> The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list
>>> of reasons why bokm?l is no: (like Utne suggested). This would
>>> create a
>>> bokm?l/riksm?l wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And
>>> yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
>>
>> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the
>>> concept of
>>> the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
>>> and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian =
>>> Bokm?l]
>>
>> My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac
>> or Linux
>> users on this list, or my point may be moot):
>>
>> To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the
>> concept of
>> "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to
>> "Windows".
>>
>> The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian
>> languages)
>> pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read:
>> "Norwegian").
>>
>> When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
>> just as upset
>> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend
>> to have
>> monopoly on American heritage.
>>
>>
>> Lars Alvik also wrote:
>>
>>> Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own
>>> nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new
>>> users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500
>>> articles).
>>
>> I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should
>> dictate the name of the Bokm?l Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous
>> set of ISO language codes which
>> is used for all other Wikipedias.  :-)
>>
>> The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that
>> "Norwegian" equals
>> "Bokm?l", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious
>> project like Wikipedia
>> to break with established naming conventions.
>>
>>
>> Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical
>> problems*
>> in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn:
>> one) alive
>> at the same time.  There need be no *confusion*, either:
>>
>> Articles which exist only in Bokm?l or only in Nynorsk, can be left at
>> the common no:
>> Wikipedia indefinitely.  No "moving around 11.500 articles" is
>> required.
>>
>> New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of
>> language form.
>> Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written
>> forms; they will
>> find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokm?l,
>> some in Nynorsk).
>>
>> When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first
>> article should be
>> moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokm?l) or to nn: (if it is in
>> Nynorsk).  The no: article
>> should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication
>> about the length
>> (or other attributes) of each article.  Admittedly, this is slightly
>> more work than just writing
>> an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra
>> work".  Given the amount
>> of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool
>> for "moving the
>> article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon
>> appear as a simple
>> click-button on every page of no:.  (Or a bot could periodically be
>> set to just move all
>> pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their
>> respective databases.)
>>
>> Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no:
>> (Norwegian), regardless
>> of whether the article is in Bokm?l or in Nynorsk.  If only one of the
>> two forms exists,
>> there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in
>> no: to the
>> existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any
>> extra clicking when
>> there is no ambiguity.
>>
>> Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn:
>> Wikipedias also.  When
>> this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no:
>> within a reasonable
>> amount of time.  Personally I think this will happen on its own
>> account, because of alert
>> Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing
>> redirections.  But it would be
>> simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
>>
>> An open question is how to write intrawiki links.  Should nn: contain
>> links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn:
>> article to another (which is the default today)?
>> Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change,
>> it is an existing
>> problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long
>> as we allow
>> for Nynorsk (or Bokm?l) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do
>> (for both languages) today.
>>
>> Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment.
>> Wikipedia sysops may
>> see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in
>> the direction of
>> a multilingual Wikipedia!
>>
>> Ulf Lunde
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th
> generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see
> your point of view.
>
> Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the
> last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that
> a new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us.
> And i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is
> accualy articles in bokm?l is a important one.
>
> A bokm?l wiki at no:
>
> 1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
> 2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokm?l)" (and nynorsk to
> "norsk (nynorsk)")
> 3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokm?l is no:
> 4. Bokm?l and Riksm?l (conservative bokm?l) is allowed on the bokm?l
> wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be
> "protected" from translation.
>
> PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the
> english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is
> crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).
>
> mvh. Lars Alvik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Ignore this mail, it was sent with the wrong mailaddress.


from_name: Matthias Pospiech

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Ubersetzungsproblem in Deutsch

body:
Raul Mircea Gigea wrote:

> Entschuldigung. Ich habe es eigentlich _nicht_ korigiert, weil in
> LanguagesDe.php das schon groSgeschrieben waren, und trotzdem werden sie
> kleingeschrieben.
> Ist das vielleicht ein StyleSheet problem ?

I would suggest to write in english if possible.
I have no clue what the reason is, however CSS should not be the reason for
any Up or lowercase letters.

Matthias

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


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
Hallo,

Grunds?tzlich: Supportfragen zu Mediawiki bitte auf die Liste
mediawiki-l posten, hier ist die Entwicklerdiskussion.

Raul Mircea Gigea wrote:

> Ich habe die 1.3.7 version von MediaWiki von Sourceforge installiert,
> und es auf Deutsch configuriert.
>
> Beim ersten Lauf vom Browser treten folgende Probleme auf:
> 1. Alle tabs(Navigationselemente) sind kleingeschrieben (d.h.
> "einstellungen" statt "Einstellungen" usw).

s.u.

> 2. Die Tooltips dafuer (z.b. Der Tooltip bei "einstellungen" lautet "My
> preferences")

Anscheinend noch nicht ?bersetzt.

> 3. Das WikiPedia-Portal Link wurde nicht in <site name>-Portal Link
> ersetzt,
> wobei 3 eigentlich nicht so wichtig ist.

Das scheint ein kleiner Bug zu sein.

> Ich kann, und habe sogar das schon veraendert (in LanguagesDe.php), will
> aber verstehen ob das so gewollt ist, oder ob es bloS nicht behandelt
> wurde.
> Ich frage, weil die deutsche Version von Wikipedia die obig genannten
> Fehler _nicht_ hat.
> Gibt es vielleicht einen "Patch" fur die Deutsche Version, weil ich mein
> Wiki immer up-to-date erhalten will, also wenn es eine neue Version
> gibt, und vielleicht neue tabs hinzugefuegt werden, oder die Struktur
> der Languages.php files veraendert wird, so kann ich nicht immer es
> "manuell" patch-en.

In der deutschen Wikipedia wurde nachtr?glich wieder auf Gro?buchstaben
umgestellt, siehe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.css
/*Gro?buchstaben in den Navigationsbereichen*/
.portlet h5,.portlet h6,#p-personal ul,#p-cactions li
a{text-transform:none;}

Bevor du weiter LanguageDe.php patcht, mach dich besser mit dem
Mediawiki-Namensraum vertraut, siehe
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_namespace

viele Gr??e,
elian


from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

body:
Not that I'm a Board member, but, just to give my input, Option 3
sounds like the easiest and fairest to me. It would be easy to link
accounts under this proposed system, even those with different names.
I envision some sort of "global user page" that can be accessed
through any local Wiki user page with the user's accounts on all
projects listed, along with any pertinent statistics. I think the
trolling issue can be addressed by allowing some sort of "eminent
domain"; that is, users with significant contributions on a project or
projects can take over an account on a project if it is inactive/has
few contributions; the original account would be moved to an alternate
user name. Those are my two U.S. cents.

--Slowking Man

On 12 Nov 2004 04:27:00 +0100, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue. I
> ask the Board to review this mail carefully as this has significant long-
> term implications and we need Board input to go ahead. I also ask other
> developers to correct me if I misrepresent anything.
>
> *snip*
>
> The question for the Board is: Given that we have at least two, and
> possibly three, implementations where there are volunteers, which one
> should we choose? To me, this seems to be a matter that could be decided
> by the Board; others have said that a poll will be necessary first. Either
> way is fine with me - what does the Board say?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

body:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:07:19PM +0100, Joel Wiesmann wrote:
> ANTWORT:
> Ja, dem ist so. Am besten du kommentierst alle "text-transform: lowercase;"
> aus in stylesheets/monobook/main.css.
> Textstellen mit:
> text-transform: lowercase;
> einfach mit:
> #text-transform: lowercase;
> ersetzen.

Falsche Programmiersprache mein Lieber:
CSS nimmt nur /* solche Kommentare */
Was du gemacht hast ist dass die class="text-transform" formatiert
wird, allerdings ist das f?r den CSS-Parser totaler schwachsinn und
es wird nie und nimmer validiert werden.

ciao, tom
--
== Weblinks ==
* http://shop.wikipedia.org - WikiReader Internet zu kaufen
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
* http://www.hammererlehen.de - Urlaub in Berchtesgaden


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] election fraud article

body:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:52:43 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> It is the duty of anyone who sees this on the main page to remove it. And
> just who is putting it back? This is a clear violation of [[Wikipedia:What
> Wikipedia is not]], not propaganda. But there is something to it. Here in
> the county where I live the county clerk, a Republican, was removed from
> supervising the election due to failure to mail out absentee ballots which
> would mostly have gone to Democrats. She was also keeping early ballots in a
> closet accessable to the public rather than in the safe. But what happened
> was more an example of the system working than not working.
>
> Fred

I am not a registered democrat; living in a Kerry safe state, I voted
Libertarian.  That said, I sympathize *strongly* with Kerry.

I am one of those who returned the article in question to the main page.

I am a regular /. reader, and try to avoid the groupthink there; I am
also an IT professional (as soon as I get a paid job, that is, but
yeah).  Some of the flaws in the Diebold machines I could have found
in high school.  In addition, their CEO has potential conflicts of
interest.  I am not saying that he did or did not, or anyone else did
or did not, help George W Bush steal the election.  The popular vote
margin was overwhelmingly wide, and some of the anomalies happened in
safe states such as Indiana, where neither candidate would have any
motive to, or at least be able to get away with, any kind of
tampering.

I feel that there's a need for *balanced* discussion of the *facts*
about this.  That said, I think NPOV is important.  Note that we do
not have an article titled [[Death of Yasser Arafat due to Posioning
by Mossad]] or [[Death of Yasser Arafat who got AIDS from Homosexual
Encounters]].  If we did, I'd be annoyed to say the least.  If an
article was written from that perspective, I'd be equally annoyed.  I
think the current election contraversies article is intrinsically PoV,
and I would welcome contributions from editors who, or links to
sources which, feel that tampering did not happen, or that the
anomolies in question do not exist in the first place.

I would also welcome comparable charts regarding elections which
nobody alleges to be "stolen," or in which irregularities did not
happen, for comparison purposes.

Personally I'm aware that my professional and political biases have me
emotionally involved with this, and being a several-dozen-time /.
moderator probably doesn't help,  I'm also aware that the geek press
has as much of a bias as Fox News does.

Just some thoughts, sorry for the length of this message.

Pakaran


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

body:
Joel Wiesmann wrote:
> Hi Raul
>
> - (Deutsch unten) -
> To all non-german speakers. He asked about the monobook-stylesheet why
> the "text-transform: lowercase;" is used for the tabs with "settings",
> "edit" and so on because you write some of those words with a capital
> letter in german.

Thanks for the translation Joel :p

I believe the only one able to answer the question is god^H^Hwicke who
ported the skin to mediawiki.

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
Servers in trouble ? noc (at) wikimedia (dot) org


from_name: Gerrit

subject: [Wikitech-l] ANN: editarticle.py 0.1

body:
Gerrit Holl wrote:
> http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/creaties/editarticle.py
>
> The current version is 0.1.

Version 0.2 has been released now.
It's now possible to use your own username, create new pages, use
redirect pages, have non-minor edits.

Gerrit.

--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 11/11 22:25:
	-3.0?C   wind 0.4 m/s None (57 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
    -Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] IRC

body:
On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> For me freenet is unavailable. I do not know where else to report it..

Seems fine here.

We don't run Freenode, we're just fellow users... you might also check
their website: http://freenode.net/

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20041111/accfd348/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] election fraud article

references:
<4192CB6D.8000104@hackish.org> <BDB8A09B.8D50%fredbaud@ctelco.net>
	<1e20f12904111119363dc46c1e@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Nathan Russell wrote:

>I would also welcome comparable charts regarding elections which
>nobody alleges to be "stolen," or in which irregularities did not
>happen, for comparison purposes.
>
>
Well, I'd be interested in things like these too, but we as Wikipedia
aren't the ones to do it, which is my main problem with the article.
Many of the people working on the article are essentially investigating
the possibility of election fraud, which might make sense at WikiNews,
but on Wikipedia we really ought to be waiting until some reputable
sources do the investigations first, and then just report on them.

I'd be very interested to see an analysis of e-voting vs. paper voting
results, with appropriate statistical analyses done for various
confounding factors and alternative explanations.  But some guy with who
threw together some back-of-a-napkin correlations and put up the graphs
on a free-image-hosting site isn't what I mean by "reputable sources" or
"statistical analyses".  There is already a widespread enough
misunderstanding of correlation and causation, and we seem to be
propagating it with articles like these.  As [[spurious relationship]]
notes, there is a strong correlation between ice cream consumption and
murder rates.  Obviously, we at Wikipedia have not jumped on this fact
as a reason to start [[Allegations ice cream manufacturers are colluding
to increase the murder rate]] backed up with pages of mind-numbing
scatterplots.

Anyway, I do strongly sympathize with Kerry, and think there might even
have been vote rigging, but: 1) it's not our job to investigate it; and
2) we'd need much better analyses than the ones on that page even if we
were going to investigate it.

-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bokmål and Nynorsk - examples

body:
At 14:16 11/11/2004 +0000, James R. Johnson wrote:
>Could you give some examples of the differences between the three forms of
>Norwegian?

Hello James,
Bokm?l and Riksm?l are, as already mentioned, slightly different subsets of
the same. The Riksm?l end of the scale has a higher number of -en, -ene and
-et endings (rather than -a) as well as a higher number of monophthongs (e,
? rather than ei, ?y, au). Some word forms that are relatively frequently
used in Riksm?l and very infrequently in Bokm?l are: nu (Bm. n?; Nn. no) =
now; efter (Bm./Nn. etter) = after; sprog (Bm. & Nn. spr?k) = language.

Riksm?l tends in general to be closer to Danish, Bokm?l tends to be closer
to Nynorsk.

The differences between mainstream-to-conservative Bokm?l and mainstream
Riksm?l are too small to necessarily show up in a sample of, let's say,
some 5-10 lines or so of text.

The differences between Bokm?l (w/Riksm?l) and Nynorsk are greater. Mainly,
the personal pronouns vary (Nn. "eg", Bm. "jeg" = I; Nn. "dei", Bm.
"de/dem" = they/them; Nn. "vi"~"me", Bm. "vi" = we; etc.), there is a fully
extant three-gender system in Nn., as opposed to the two-gender or
modified/expanded two-gender system in esp. conservative Bokm?l and
Riksm?l; the Old Norse / Icelandic diphthongs are kept in most cases in
Nn., but more often monophthongised in Bm./Rm. (Nn./Bm. bein, Bm./Rm. ben,
bone(/leg); Nn. blaut, Bm. blaut/bl?t, Rm. bl?t = wet); there is much more
direct-tense writing in Nynorsk than in Bokm?l -- one strongly prefers to
"investigate" rather than to "perform an investigation"; loan words from
German are lower in number and more infrequently used in Nynorsk; etc.

The following are some examples of Nynorsk and Bokm?l, with other
Scandinavian written languages being thrown in for the perspective --
please bear in mind that differences within the Bm.~Rm. contrast are
subtle/fussy and that the examples are a bit of an over-simplification in
that respect. (Also please bear in mind that these examples are coming off
the top of my head here and now, so I apologise in advance for errors I may
have committed in the Swedish or Danish.

Sv: Jag k?rde hem hennes bil.
Nn.: Eg k?yrde heim bilen hennar.
Bm.: Jeg kj?rte heim bilen hennes. ~ Jeg kj?rte hennes bil hjem.
Rm. Jeg kj?rte hennes bil hjem.
Da:: Jeg k?rte hendes bil hjem.
= I drove her car home.

Sv.: Jag m?lade alla husen r?da.
Nn.: Eg m?la alle husa raude.
Bm.: Jeg malte alle husa r?de.
Rm.: Jeg malte alle husene r?de.
Da.: Jeg malede alle de hus r?de.
= I painted all the (those) houses red.

Sv.: Pojkarna och flickorna gette getterna hela veckan l?ng.
Nn.: Gutane og jentene gjette geitene heile veka lang.
Bm.: Guttene og jentene gjette geitene hele uka lang.
Rm.: Guttene og jentene gjette gjetene hele uken lang.
Da.: Dr?ngerne og pigerne gedte gedderne hele ugen lang.
= The boys and the girls herded the goats all week long.

Sv.: Hon hadde mycket l?ng erfarenhet av att hantera farliga ?mnen.
Nn.: Ho hadde sv?rt lang r?ynsle med handsaming av farlege stoff.
Bm.: Hun hadde meget lang erfaring med h?ndtering av farlige stoffer.
Da.: Hun hadde lang erfarenhed i at h?ndtere farlige stoffer.
= She had a lot of experience in handling dangerous substances.

Sv.: F?renta staternas utrikespolitik medf?r stor oenighet i hela v?rlden.
Nn.: Utanrikspolitikken ?t Sambandsstatane er grunn til mykje usemje verda
ikring.
Bm./Rm.: De forente staters utenrikspolitikk for?rsaker mye uenighet verden
rundt.
Da.: De Forenede Staters udenrigspolitik for?rsager megen uenighed v?rden
rundt.
= The United States' foreign policy causes much controversy around the world.

Enjoy! :-)

All the best,

Olve

___________________

Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org


from_name: jneden at bellsouth.net

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [...] An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for
	Bokmaal?

body:
Hi, everyone

Thank you all for your intelligent comments. This has been a most interesting discussion.

Ulf, I am glad to hear that I have as good of a grasp of the Norwegian language situation as I seem to. ;-) I started teaching myself "Norwegian" (bokm?l) between ages 13 and 14 (I actually have no idea when I really started learning; it just happened over time) and quickly came to understand the situation regarding Norwegian dialects.

Lars (Alvik), you, like many bokm?l users, are indeed tired of nynorsk. However, a large percentage of the Norwegian population and the Norwegian community uses nynorsk exclusively in school and in their daily life. While you might prefer for everyone to use your form (bokm?l) and be done with it, you resent that nynorsk has equal status and you are required (in terms of your schooling) to use a form of the Norwegian language with which you are neither familiar nor explicitly comfortable. However, nynorsk users (people who GROW UP using nynorsk) have to do the same thing with bokm?l--and they are not necessarily happy about it. "Samnorsk" doesn't work because nobody wants to change that which they have grown up using or been forced to use, and, to a large degree, both sides of the nynorsk/bokm?l debate resent each other's encroaching presence in standardized language, especially if Norway were to shift to some "samnorsk" version. Nynorsk deserves its place, as does bokm?l, but neither form is *the* Norwegian language, and that's a fact. There is no single "Norwegian" language form that's truly Norwegian--and if we were to find one to adopt, nynorsk would undoubtedly be it. It's really just a dialect spectrum with two standardized versions. There's nothing wrong with nynorsk or bokm?l, but they are different, and that's okay.

Ja, jeg forst?r bokm?l, men jeg snakker bedre engelsk, og wikipedia-l er p? engelsk. *shrug* ;-)

Lars Aronsson wrote:

 > To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the concept of
 > the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand
 > and unambigious.   [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian = Bokm?l]

Many people do equate bokm?l with "Norwegian," but I think that's purely because most non-Norwegians initially learn to understand the Norwegian dialects with absolutely no knowledge of the dialects of Norway. People should know, but it's rarely specified to foreigners. Eventually, they realize that there are two official Norwegian forms and don't even know WHICH form they use, because happenstance arbitrarily picked a form for them (likely bokm?l) and never explained that there are two equally acceptable Norwegian standards. Most foreigners really don't know of the bokm?l/nynorsk contrast, and "teach yourself Norwegian" publications are usually (but never explained to be) in bokm?l. We need to educate them. It's unfair to encourage people to think of bokm?l, one of two official standards, as *the* Norwegian language.

Ulf wrote:

>My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac or Linux
>users on this list, or my point may be moot):

[...]

>When Bokm?l users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is
>just as upset
> as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend to have
> monopoly on American heritage.

Oh, your point strikes such a strong chord for me. I understand perfectly, for a variety of reasons. I am no Linux expert, but I have used Linux in the past and am currently suffering under Windows XP. More importantly, I am myself an American Indian. Additionally (and humorously!), in terms of my mother's family, I am a third-generation American, although I am really part of a long line of Americans over *millenia* (a NATIVE American!) :-). There are some fascinating things to talk about and explain here, regarding Native America and my own family, but I'll digress for sake of space.  My friend, there are three main things at work in regards to our "white" friends' perceptions:

-----------------------------------------------------

"Token-Indianism" -- You are my little Indian. We ["white" people] own the Indians. "Today, many of *our* Indians live in poverty. We must help them [and we have no knowledge whatsoever about the past or about Native communities]." "My *Indian* friend says," etc. It's all about stereotypes, a "lesser evil" extension of colonialism, and ignorance.

"Pan-Indianism" -- Indians are one big culture.

AND... (drumroll)

Colonialism (cultural genocide). My culture is better than your culture, and *we* (the foreigners) are the real American culture. And the lovely "noble savage" concept (a combination of colonialism and token-Indianism).

I love statements from like the following from "all-American" middle-aged "white" women (or wannabes) with no knowledge of one Native culture, much less ALL Native cultures:

"I went up to an Indian reservation and there weren't any real Indians there/there were just a bunch of Mexicans there (1)! Where did all our Indians (2) go?! This great culture (3) must be saved (4)!"

(1) pan-Indianism + ignorance
(2) token Indianism + colonialism + ignorance
(3) Read "these noble savages."
(4) First her ancestors decimate entire cultures. Then she has no clue about Native communities and is operating out of all the wrong motives (including the pure idiocy of finding "real Indians" to her liking).

-----------------------------------------------------

Imagine the uproar in Scandinavia if everybody outside of Scandinavia thought that all Scandinavians were the same. In Norway alone, everybody would be freaking out from the village level to the fylker and onwards. And you know that Norwegians and other Scandinavians share so much in common but are very different.

Now imagine the most diverse continent possible with hundreds and hundreds of distinct cultural *groups* (not to mention distinct cultures), nearly 100 language families, hundreds of languages and thousands of traditions that change from family to family. That's how insane pan-Indianism really is, and why I am not an "American Indian," because an "American Indian" does not exist: it matters which people you come from. There was no "Indian" cohesion before Europeans set themselves down on our birthright.

But back to Norwegian! ;-)

You guys figure out what to do about no:. I agree with Ulf. Norway has a special lingual situation and the greater Norwegian language (the spectrum of dialects and the two official versions) *does* merit special treatment. It's rude to nynorsk users to act as if bokm?l is *the* Norwegian, and it's even worse if we ever want foreigners to understand the bokm?l/nynorsk contrast. In the best case, I am in favor of two specific Norwegian encyclopedia communities: nynorsk and bokm?l. I'll leave it to you all to figure out what you will do, but to be fairest to all parties, no: should probably serve as a redirect to nynorsk and bokm?l.

(I'm actually a bokm?l user, mainly, but I put nynorsk first when comparing them to go against the trend of thinking of bokm?l first. ^_^)

Ha det bra!

 -- Jeremy Edenfield
-------------- next part --------------
Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokm?l?
      (Stirling Newberry)
   2. Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokm?l? (Ulf Lunde)
   3. Re: Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokm?l?
      (Lars Alvik)
   4. Re: Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokm?l?
      (Lars Alvik)
   5. Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for (Olve Utne)

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reply
Type: null
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20041112/af3d80b3/attachment.diff


from_name: David Gerard

references:
<cmpv6e$g1i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<5309126704110902596ef972f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<cmqlv7$ib4$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [041111 22:05]:

> Not all of them use IRC. We can provide technical support to help
> arbitrators install a client on their computer. We could also set up a
> CGI:IRC gateway, or make a proxy available, if it proves to be
> necessary. The idea of setting up a CGI:IRC gateway for all the
> Wikipedia channels has been suggested before, we could probably just do
> that, if we have the hardware resources.

CGI:IRC is awkward to use, though, and may be offputting. Is there a free
software Java applet similar to (non-free) jIRC (from jpilot.com)? jIRC is
pretty usable in my experience. (Presumably we can find one that works
under Kaffe, to keep the free software purity ;-)

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
Good brainstorming,

To go on, speaking of briefs, we could require that participants in
arbitration be represented by members advocates who would be required to
prepare and highlight relevant evidence so we don't have to do it by hand.

Fred

> From: Rich Holton <rich_holton at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: rich_holton at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:23:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the AC needs people with free time and interest
>
> It seems to me that one of the big obstacles to
> participating in the AC would be the three-year
> commitment. Assuming I were qualified and interested
> in being on the AC, I would still hesitate because of
> the length of the term. It's hard enough for me to
> know what my life will be like next month, let alone
> three years from now. And I avoid making a commitment
> if I can't reasonably foresee fulfilling it.
>
> If nothing else, perhaps magistrates could have a
> shorter term of office?
>
> It also seems like there may be room for other types
> of official assistants for AC members. Someone to
> prepare briefs, for example.
>
> Just kind of brainstorming here...
>
> -Rich Holton
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l