from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I can't believe!

body:
I said "so are all of", not "so you're saying".

Mark

On 24/10/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Some might say this is comparable to Cantonese, however I disagree, as
> >> >YYBHW is used much more often than written Strine.
>
> >> Someone who would say that would be smoking crack big time.
>
> >So are all of the "oppose" voters, and in fact most
> >non-Mandarin-speaking Chinese, and most people who speak no variety of
> >Chinese but think they know something about it, smoking crack big
> >time?
> >I guess that makes sense -- after all, Cantonese religion forbids
> >crack, and those few Cantonese speakers who expressed opposition have
> >obviously gone astray.
>
>
> Unless you're saying that every one of them explicity compared
> Cantonese to written 'Strine (there are no books, newspapers, message
> boards or movie subtitles in 'Strine for reasons other than
> Australians making fun of themselves), then please don't put words
> into my mouth.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] AfD should be Arguments for Deletion

body:
M. Creidieki Crouch wrote:

>I've been running into the other side of this on CfD.  Someone
>nominated a bunch of categories that people were using on their
>userpages, including some sandbox pages of mine.  I've asked several
>times why the pages are harmful, but people seem less interested in
>discussion when they're already winning the vote, and simply say that
>userpage organization "isn't what categories are for".
>
I can understand their argument.  Could it be solved by two category
systems in separate namespaces.  One would pretty well function like the
present categories to provide a topical index for articles.  The new one
could be used for the administrative interests of people who do a lot of
editing.  Administrative categories (or whatever we choose to call them)
could be deleted for lack of interest in much the same way that sysops
can be removed from the list when they have been  absent for an extended
time.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] multilingual redirect

body:
I read it. I still have the same opinion.

It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's OK to change URLs
if the old URL links to the new one.

If it weren't, wouldn't it be bad to create disambigs where pages
already exist? Hmm? HMM?

Mark

On 24/10/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >What exactly do you mean by "permanently reserved"?
> >
> >Is there some sort of binding legal document which says this? Or is it
> >just a matter of "We could very well change it but we just don wanna"?
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> "Cool URIs don't change" by Tim Berners-Lee http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI should be required reading on this topic.
>
> Which reminds me: it might be interesting to consider the use of some outside-the-web URI namespace in addition to Wikipedia URLs for truly persistent documents; for example, the doi: namespace, which identifies a specific thing, rather than where to find it, and may be more useful that URLs for serious long-term (> 100 years) references to objects. We already go some way towards doing this with article revision numbering, but the renderings of even fixed revisions of an article are still mutable, as images, templates, and software changes change under them.
>
> To work properly, unlike the current scheme for revisions, a permanent version identifier for a truly persistent immutable document would need to capture the state of not only the wikitext of that article version, but the side-effects of context of the rendered page at the time of snapshot (template expansions, images, current software version and settings, user prefs etc.) at the moment of creation.
>
> Clearly it is impractical, to say the least, to represent an article by a complete snapshot of an installation; however, all that is really needed is a snapshot of the complete rendered/renderable article including all content referenced. Perhaps a .tgz of an HTML+files tree of a rendered Wiki page, or an XML file containing all the necessary data including images etc., or a .pdf, might be a suitable format for capturing truly immutable snapshots of Wikipedia articles, with the DOI being based on a high-quality hash of the generated file content?
>
> (See http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/enumeration.html for more context.)
>
> -- Neil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Created bug, pih, vec, lmo and udm wiki

body:
Actually, that's bat-smg or bat-smo.

Mark

On 24/10/05, Sulev Iva <juvasul at ut.ee> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> congratulation to Buginese, Norfuk, Veneto and Lumbaart users!
> And especial congratulations to Udmurts! There is so little Finno-Ugric
> languages that have their own Wikipedias. I hope the Udmurt Wiki will help
> much to the Udmurt people and their language!
>
> I think Ronline is right about Samogitian Wikipedia. It could be started with
> a xxx-xxx code like fiu-vro and roa-rup. Could it be for Samogitian something
> like blt-sam or blt-smo?
>
> V?rok
>
>
> 24.10.05 15:41:05, "Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)" <rowikipedia at yahoo.com>
> kirot':
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Yes - I've been looking forward most to the Samogitian
> >one, since I'm interested in the language and culture
> >of the Baltic states and Samogitian is an important
> >part of that heritage. Isn't the standard form just to
> >use the ISO code for the language family and then the
> >SIL code? For the Aromanian Wikipedia we used that, in
> >the form: roa-rup, where "roa" = ISO Romance languages
> >other and "rup" - SIL code for Aromanian. The same was
> >done for Voro - fiu-vro. But I think Samogitian
> >doesn't have a SIL code either...
> >
> >On another note, a big congratulations to the four
> >Wikipedias set up. A special one for Venetian and
> >Lombard - it's great to have Wikipedias in as many
> >Romance languages as possible, especially the
> >less-well-known ones. I'd really like to contribute to
> >these two, since the language is similar to Romanian.
> >
> >Ronline
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> >http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I can't believe!

body:
>> >Some might say this is comparable to Cantonese, however I disagree, as
>> >YYBHW is used much more often than written Strine.

>> Someone who would say that would be smoking crack big time.

>So are all of the "oppose" voters, and in fact most
>non-Mandarin-speaking Chinese, and most people who speak no variety of
>Chinese but think they know something about it, smoking crack big
>time?
>I guess that makes sense -- after all, Cantonese religion forbids
>crack, and those few Cantonese speakers who expressed opposition have
>obviously gone astray.

Unless you're saying that every one of them explicity compared
Cantonese to written 'Strine (there are no books, newspapers, message
boards or movie subtitles in 'Strine for reasons other than
Australians making fun of themselves), then please don't put words
into my mouth.

- d.


body:
I wrote:

>Unless you're saying that every one of them explicity compared

And again. Please kill me.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: I can't believe!


list: foundation-l

from_name: GerardM

subject:
[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New
	Partnership

body:
It is one thing to disagree (simple) it is another to address the issues
that I have raised.
*You quote of context and therefore you lose the main point that I made that
we will need money for other projects than just the English Wikipedia.
*You only rehash why you think this might be acceptable. You tell me that I
must assume good faith but where is your good faith where you assume that it
is only the other party that has to convince ? So far you have not convinced
at all.
*You assume that it goes against the ideals of the Foundation. Which ideals
are they ? As a Foundation we have objectives and it does say what we aim to
do. With more funding we can do more.
*If you cannot think of an admin who does not have the best interest of
Wikipedia at heart .. Well I am not a Wikipedia admin and I am an admin.
This does not mean that I do not have the best interest of Wikipedia at
heart, it only shows the fallacy of your line of thinking.

I do consider an admin who removes these links narrow minded. He does not
consider other things than his immediate concerns (that is what narrow
minded means). I also fail to see a justification for these things in your
arguments. I also miss how you would make the money that allows for the
growth pattern that we have seen. Please be constructive; make sure that our
projects can grow as boundless as the English Wikipedia has been allowed to
do untill now.

Thanks,
GerardM

On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > People who know me, now that I do almost everthing to have the things I
> > believe in come true. They also know that i will not squander away the
> > values of what we stand for. When some person aggresively removes these
> > links, I will be sorry for the narrow mindedness that it demonstrates.
> It
> > must also be an admin to do this, I will wonder to what extend this
> > behaviour will be mitigated by him finding the funds that are lost to
> the
> > rest of us. This is the least I would expect of someone who is this
> position
> > of responibility.
>
> I don't think it is narrow-mindedness that would cause someone to remove
> these links, and I think accusing someone of acting in this way is
> rather impolite and shows a lack of good faith. I can't think of one
> admin who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is
> only doing what they think best.
>
> The thing is, a large number of people have not been convinced that this
> is necessary for the Foundation's continued operations, but the
> partnership is going against some of the ideals on which Wikipedia was
> founded. At the moment, the impression I (and many others) am getting is
> that this deal is allowing corporations to influence how the Foundation
> operates. Some people do not mind; others do. It's up to the Board to
> demonstrate that this is a good move, not up to the community to say why
> it's a bad move. Saying "let's give it a trial and see what the results
> are" isn't good enough.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I fully understand this concern, Chris, but at least in my part of the
> world, it is to the ones making an accusation to prove a person is wrong
> (or should I say guilty ?). By showing facts. Proofs. Numbers.

I'm not accusing anyone of guilt. I simply believe that the Board should
make the case for putting this material on the various Wikimedia
websites, as they are the ones who want to change something.

The analogy to guilt/innocence is not applicable - I think a more
appropriate analogy would be "scientific proof"; in other words, if you
have an idea, you should say why you believe it is correct, not just
mention the idea, assume it is good, and wait for others to prove you wrong.

> Right now, your fears may be understandable, and I am ready to listen to
> them, but your fears are words. Only words. They are suppositions. They
> are fears.
> There is no way we can *prove* or *demonstrate* to the community that
> this deal is NOT gonna influence how the Foundation operates, but by
> telling you that this is not gonna change the way we think or act.

I highlighted why I believe that advertising or reliance on corporate
donations may lead to undue influence on the Foundation with my car
review on the BBC story. It's not just supposition - it happens in real
life.

> You, as an editor, have more power in raising a riot to have editors
> leave the project, than Answers.com have power to influence which
> decisions we will take. You, as an editor, have the power to kick Angela
> and myself from the board if you are not happy with us at next elections
> (and each time editors are not happy, they are quick to remind that to
> both of us). Any developer has more power to put the site to a halt if
> they are not happy with us. Answers.com can not do this.  Any admin on
> the english wikipedia has more power to protect an article than Bob has.

You can be sure I will never vote for anyone who believes that any
corporation contributing to a non-profit organisation is a good idea.
The only responsibility of a corporation is to deliver profit to its
shareholders. I believe it's a fundamentally bad idea to rely on a
corporation's goodwill.

> The way we can demonstrate it will be a good move is precisely by giving
> it a trial, showing the results and showing that Answers.com does *not*
> make decisions for us.

The way you can demonstrate it is a good move is to make a page which
clearly sets out why it is needed, why Answers is the correct
corporation to have a partnership with, and what will happen if anything
goes wrong. I think it would be a bad idea to jump in, cross our fingers
and hope for the best.

> The way *you* can demonstrate you are correct in your fear that
> Answers.com will be our boss from now is to provide mails where they
> actually tell us what to do. Can you do this ? You can't because it is
> only a fear. It has no reality. Are we always gonna do nothing because
> of *fears* ? I am sorry, but no. The very idea of having a project
> editable by anyone, including jerks and pov people is more dangerous and
> crazy than the current deal. It was good enough 4,5 years ago.

I'd prefer to be afraid and right, than unafraid and wrong.

Chris


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
On 10/24/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are low-quality
> > articles "tolerated"?
>
> by not being deleted

 So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I would
think making it higher quality would also suffice.

>Who would rather have more articles than better
> > articles?
>
> It is the logical endpoint of the inclusionist position

 Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles
than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that
could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two are
mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better
articles.
 So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's called
a strawman argument.

> Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and better
> > articles?
>
> Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is:
>
> Ew=A*meanAE
>
> AQ=AE
>
> So
>
> MeanAQ=Ew/A
>
> Where
>
> A= no of articles
> E=effort
> w=wikipedia
> Q=quality.

 I don't remember ever learning that one in my math class.

--
> geni


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I will never bow to any sort of pressure of that kind, and one of the
> reason partnerships like answers.com are so important is precisely to
> avoid our having to rely on a few large donors.

[...]

> NPOV is non-negotiable.

So what happens in this hypothetical scenario where we accept a
significant contribution from a corporation, and 6 months into the
partnership they turn around and say "we don't like that bit on the
article which criticises us, remove it or we pull the funding"?

I understand the need for money for the Foundation, I just disagree with
the idea that going to a corporation for donations is the best way to do
it. I am open to persuasion on this (of course), so please don't think I
am arguing for argument's sake.

Chris


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject: Ant: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I can't believe!

body:
But, they can't classify category "User zb" in some super-category of
South Slavic speaking people.

On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> > On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can
> > > make it look like a language template anyhow.
> > >
> > > So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a
> > > rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
> >
> > Because of categorization.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
> Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
> Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
> envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
> Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
> envie-me uma mensagem.
> Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to
	Form	NewPartnership

body:
Angela wrote:

>In a scenario which is hard to imagine ever occurring on Wikipedia,
>the influence could come from the fact that AdSense relies on context,
>and particular keywords on a page will lead to
>higher-revenue-generating ads. So, attempts to drop phrases like
>"credit repair" into articles could lead to greater revenues and might
>encourage some to insert an odd sort of influence on the content for
>this purpose. It would, of course, be violating Google's terms of
>service and not something I would recommend doing. :)
>
>
AdSense-style ads would also lead to the potentially undesirable
scenario where companies (or individuals) would be able to buy text on a
particular Wikipedia article's page, for example to refute it or point
to an advocacy page attacking the viewpoints the article summarizes.
There's no way to do this directly, but some trial-and-error playing
with keywords could allow an advertiser to,. with high probability, get
their ads to appear on specific Wikipedia pages in that manner.

-Mark


from_name: Wikiacc

subject:
[WikiEN-l] So,
	you think you're a good writer? The "Fix Crappy Prose" Challenge

body:
On 10/24/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just put the following text on my userpage. If you think you're
> hard enough, you take the challenge and then put this on your own
> userpage.
>
>
> ===The "Fix Crappy Prose" Challenge===
>
> I'd like everyone reading this who thinks they're a pretty good writer
> to middle-click

Not everyone has a three-button mouse.

> '''*''' "Random page" twenty times and
> rewrite any crappy prose you find without sacrificing any factual
> content. Do this at least once a week.
>
> Detail and accuracy beat elegant prose, if you're forced to make the
> choice. But that doesn't make crappy prose a good idea.
>
> '''*''' You do use [[Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]], right?
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
>
>  Those of us that can do the maths. The relivant caculation is:
> >
> > Ew=A*meanAE
> >
> > AQ=AE
> >
> > So
> >
> > MeanAQ=Ew/A
> >
> > Where
> >
> > A= no of articles
> > E=effort
> > w=wikipedia
> > Q=quality.
>
>  I don't remember ever learning that one in my math class.
>
 Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a constant,
and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and the
more effort you'll have. Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an
equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles happen
to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort, spent
on them. Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is
not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In fact, a
short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality short
article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average quality of
the encyclopedia up.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
>
> If we want Wikipedia to be not just a "free encyclopedia," but a "high-
> quality free encyclopedia," something needs to change.

 Here's an idea. Let's combine "cleanup" and "deletion" into "articles for
improvement". Any article which hasn't improved in one month, and isn't a
featured article, can be listed, along with a note on areas for improvement.
If no one adopts the article and addresses at least some of the issues of it
within 2 weeks, it gets deleted.
 I'd go for that, as long as we limited nominations to say 5 per person per
day.


from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Guardian article about Wikipedia

body:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:14 +0100, Martin Richards wrote:
> That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
> E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
> what they wanted to hear.
>

I'd have to agree there. Not to say that any of the criticisms in the
article are invalid, but overall, it takes a negative tone. The title
is, after all, "Can you trust Wikipedia?" and it begins by stating, "The
founder of the online encyclopedia written and edited by its users has
admitted some of its entries are 'a horrific embarrassment.'" Not
exactly a flattering introduction.

On a semi-related note, is there something mailman can do to alleviate
mailers that break threads? I'm using Evolution, and this topic has
broken into at least four separate independent threads.
--
Christopher Larberg ([[w:en:User:Slowking Man]])

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051024/cc2d71d8/attachment.pgp


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form New
	Partnership

body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> GerardM wrote:
>
>> People who know me, now that I do almost everthing to have the things I
>> believe in come true. They also know that i will not squander away the
>> values of what we stand for. When some person aggresively removes these
>> links, I will be sorry for the narrow mindedness that it demonstrates. It
>> must also be an admin to do this, I will wonder to what extend this
>> behaviour will be mitigated by him finding the funds that are lost to the
>> rest of us. This is the least I would expect of someone who is this
>> position
>> of responibility.
>
>
> I don't think it is narrow-mindedness that would cause someone to remove
> these links, and I think accusing someone of acting in this way is
> rather impolite and shows a lack of good faith. I can't think of one
> admin who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is
> only doing what they think best.
>
> The thing is, a large number of people have not been convinced that this
> is necessary for the Foundation's continued operations, but the
> partnership is going against some of the ideals on which Wikipedia was
> founded. At the moment, the impression I (and many others) am getting is
> that this deal is allowing corporations to influence how the Foundation
> operates. Some people do not mind; others do. It's up to the Board to
> demonstrate that this is a good move, not up to the community to say why
> it's a bad move. Saying "let's give it a trial and see what the results
> are" isn't good enough.
>
> Chris

I fully understand this concern, Chris, but at least in my part of the
world, it is to the ones making an accusation to prove a person is wrong
(or should I say guilty ?). By showing facts. Proofs. Numbers.

Not to the so-called guilty ones to prove they are innocents.

Right now, your fears may be understandable, and I am ready to listen to
them, but your fears are words. Only words. They are suppositions. They
are fears.
There is no way we can *prove* or *demonstrate* to the community that
this deal is NOT gonna influence how the Foundation operates, but by
telling you that this is not gonna change the way we think or act.

Answers.com does not have any members on the WMF board. Answers.com does
not a share in our "company". They have no voting power. Nothing.

You, as an editor, have more power in raising a riot to have editors
leave the project, than Answers.com have power to influence which
decisions we will take. You, as an editor, have the power to kick Angela
and myself from the board if you are not happy with us at next elections
(and each time editors are not happy, they are quick to remind that to
both of us). Any developer has more power to put the site to a halt if
they are not happy with us. Answers.com can not do this.  Any admin on
the english wikipedia has more power to protect an article than Bob has.

The way we can demonstrate it will be a good move is precisely by giving
it a trial, showing the results and showing that Answers.com does *not*
make decisions for us.

The way *you* can demonstrate you are correct in your fear that
Answers.com will be our boss from now is to provide mails where they
actually tell us what to do. Can you do this ? You can't because it is
only a fear. It has no reality. Are we always gonna do nothing because
of *fears* ? I am sorry, but no. The very idea of having a project
editable by anyone, including jerks and pov people is more dangerous and
crazy than the current deal. It was good enough 4,5 years ago.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Benefits of advertising (was Re: Our
 exponentially increasing costs)

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

> Neil Harris wrote:
>
>>Hmm. 2500 hits/sec * 86400 secs/day * $1 CPM = $216,000 / _day_, or
>>$78,000,000+/year. Have you considered that the Wikimedia foundation
>>board might be aware of this, and that its decision not to put up
>>advertising might be a principled decision, rather than motivated by
>>"fear of money"?
>
>
> We don't have 2500 hits/sec, we have 2500 requests/sec, i.e. including
> images, stylesheets, etc. The difference is roughly a factor of 3. The
> income would thus be closer to $26M.
>
> By these figures, we could cover our current operating costs by putting
> ads on the site for two weeks per year. I'm not sure if it's a good idea
> though.
>
> Like Jimbo, I think distribution of Wikipedia around the world,
> especially offline distribution to poorer countries, should be our top
> priority. But Wikimedia lacks the infrastructure for such hands-on work.
> It also lacks the moral high ground in the eyes of funding agencies,
> because its focus to date has been to provide a service for relatively
> wealthy Internet users. Our donors give money out of reciprocity, not
> out of compassion for those less well-off.
>
> There are other organisations who have been distributing information and
> technology to developing countries for many years, and these
> organisations are often well-funded and have a well-established HR
> infrastructure. For my part, I've been working with WiderNet, which is
> entirely capable of delivering Wikipedia to African universities in the
> next 6 months, without funding from us. Andy Rabagliati periodically
> updates installations of Wikipedia in secondary schools in South Africa.
> All we have to do is provide a free encyclopedia for these people to
> distribute, and they will distribute it.
>
> It's true that they could probably distribute it to more places in less
> time if we gave them millions of dollars, and we could probably raise
> that sort of money by advertising. But we would have to make it *very*
> clear to readers and editors that the ads are to support such activities.
>
> It's possible to display advertising and keep the moral high ground,
> thehungersite.com is a good example of that. But the connection between
> the advertising and the charitable goal has to be eminently clear.
> Editors who are thinking of leaving in a huff have to know that it is
> the poor children in Africa who will suffer if they do. The Board would
> have to have a well-documented plan for the immediate distribution of
> the funds that are collected, and that plan would need to be advertised
> relentlessly.
>
> The Answers.com deal, on the other hand, is just a recipe for offence.
> The benefit is unknown and will probably be small. The Board has agreed
> to it in secret, apparently to repay favours such as the Wikimania
> sponsorship. They've given a single organisation preferential treatment,
> which brings their motives into question: are they doing this to help
> Wikipedia or Answers.com?

Since you are mentionning the Board here, I am clearly included. I will
not speak for the other board members here, but only for me though.

I consider your comment being an accusation of corruption.

I do not think you have any basis, as far as I am concerned, for making
such a public accusation. Unless you can provide a good argument to
support it and explain how I could in any sens benefit of the current
deal, I will kindly ask you to provide public apologies for this comment
I consider defaming.

> That's why I join the chorus of editors in asking the Board to withdraw
> from this deal. If we are going to have advertising, it needs to be done
> with extreme sensitivity to the sensibilities of the community. Claiming
> that it's not advertising most certainly doesn't help -- even if the
> Board believes that line, the community certainly doesn't.
>
> I don't believe that we need to have advertising to keep the site
> running. We can still go a long way by pressing our readers to donate
> more money, and by making better use of strings-free hardware donation
> offers such as the Google deal. Some people have expressed reservations
> against "begging", but it's generally seen as a more acceptable activity
> than advertising.
>
> If the Board wants to perform "special projects" such as offline
> distribution, these projects first have to be rigorously justified to
> the community. Supporting them by advertising can only be considered
> after the community has been convinced of their benefit.
>
> -- Tim Starling

All your other comments are yours and I see no problem with them.


from_name: Martin Richards

body:
That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
what they wanted to hear.

----- Original Message -----
From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Guardian article about Wikipedia

> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
On 10/24/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > So deletion is the only solution to something that is low quality? I
> would
> > think making it higher quality would also suffice.
> >
>
> yeah but I think we have fairly firmly established that that isn't
> happening.

 Articles aren't getting better? I disagree.

> Not at all. I'm an inclusionist, and I'd much rather have better articles
> > than more articles. However 1) I think deletion is a waste of time that
> > could be better spent improving articles, and 2) I don't think the two
> are
> > mutually exclusive, I think you can have more articles *and* better
> > articles.
> > So please, if you're not an inclusionist, don't speak for us. That's
> called
> > a strawman argument.
> >
>
>
> 1)I can delete stuff at a rate of more than once a second

 Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent to
allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you allowed
editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until then it
isn't.

2)Errr that isn't happening.

 I disagree.

> 3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the
> inclusionist position is to include everything.

 Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete
everything?


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 10/24/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
>

Interesting. I'm not familiar with any of the articles except the
Dylan one, but there are no surprises.  There are problems of balance,
smaller but still significant problems of accuracy, and the prose
style isn't up to professional standards.

A whole section on the spelling of the word "encyclopedia"?   This is
one of the problems that are endemic to wikis.  Relatively trivial
topics become extended into a pseudo-debate.


body:
On 10/24/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
> That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
> E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
> what they wanted to hear.

Indeed.  An expert opinion.


body:
Martin Richards wrote:
>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>

>> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html

>That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
>E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
>what they wanted to hear.

The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the
managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia
(so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the
interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).

That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the
real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.

- d.


from_name: Zordsdavini iz Litvy

body:
Hi :)

About "But I think Samogitian
doesn't have a SIL code either.." The code is only in our mind :(
we say ?M or SMG.

respectfully
Arns Udovi??

2005/10/24, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Yes - I've been looking forward most to the Samogitian
> one, since I'm interested in the language and culture
> of the Baltic states and Samogitian is an important
> part of that heritage. Isn't the standard form just to
> use the ISO code for the language family and then the
> SIL code? For the Aromanian Wikipedia we used that, in
> the form: roa-rup, where "roa" = ISO Romance languages
> other and "rup" - SIL code for Aromanian. The same was
> done for Voro - fiu-vro. But I think Samogitian
> doesn't have a SIL code either...
>
> On another note, a big congratulations to the four
> Wikipedias set up. A special one for Venetian and
> Lombard - it's great to have Wikipedias in as many
> Romance languages as possible, especially the
> less-well-known ones. I'd really like to contribute to
> these two, since the language is similar to Romanian.
>
> Ronline
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Chris Jenkins writes:
>
>>So what happens in this hypothetical scenario where we accept a
>>significant contribution from a corporation, and 6 months into the
>>partnership they turn around and say "we don't like that bit on the
>>article which criticises us, remove it or we pull the funding"?
>
>
> Then we tell them to fuck off.
>
>
>>I understand the need for money for the Foundation, I just disagree with
>>the idea that going to a corporation for donations is the best way to do
>>it. I am open to persuasion on this (of course), so please don't think I
>>am arguing for argument's sake.
>
>
> It has been my longstanding policy to seek support for our work from a
> diversity of sources.  We were offered complete hosting for everything
> from a major internet company, and I simply turned it down, even though
> it would have made our lives a lot easier in a lot of ways.  I turned it
>  down because it was _too much_.

Thanks for the clarification (and to Fred Bauder and Anthony DiPierro).
I think it's important that the community hears the answers to these
questions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a FAQ based on the
questions/answers discussed on the mailing list?

Chris


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
On 10/24/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Let me expand on why that equation is bullshit. Effort is not a
> constant,
> > and the more articles you have, the more contributors you'll have, and
> the
> > more effort you'll have.
>
> I think the term you are looking for is over simplifed modle. I know
> this is the case (Ew is a compersite of at least three terms). I could
> go go through with more complex models but the result is the same.
> Beyond a certian number of articles the law of diminishing returns
> kicks in and the average article quality starts to fall.

 I guess I'm supposed to take your word for this.

> Also, not all effort is equal, nor does it have an
> > equal effect on quality. In fact, some of the worst quality articles
> happen
> > to be the articles which have the most editors, and the most effort,
> spent
> > on them.
>
> Prove it.

 Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but if I recall correctly those two
articles that Jimbo brought up before were quite popular and heavily edited.

> Keeping around a short factual article about an obscure topic is
> > not going to bring the average quality of the encyclopedia down. In
> fact, a
> > short article on an obscure topic is easy to make into a high quality
> short
> > article on an obscure topic, and will therefore bring the average
> quality of
> > the encyclopedia up.
> >
>
> However such articles don't seem to turn up at AFD much and even these
> articles require mentanence.

 I don't understand what you're getting at. In my experience most articles
listed on AFD could be turned into quality short factual articles in about 5
minutes. Did you read my suggestion about replacing AFD with "Articles for
Improvement"? Would that satisfy your problem with articles which require
"mentanence"?


body:
Delirium wrote:
>Tony Sidaway wrote:

>>A whole section on the spelling of the word "encyclopedia"?   This is
>>one of the problems that are endemic to wikis.  Relatively trivial
>>topics become extended into a pseudo-debate.

>I agree to some extent, but only in that it's a problem of organization
>and focus.  I think this sort of information is useful to have, just not
>useful to have highlighted in prominent places.  I've taken the liberty
>of moving the "debate about how this article should be spelled" sections
>out of the intro of a few articles to a #Name section near the end,
>which I think works fine.  There's certainly no reason to remove
>information that might be of interest to someone, so long as it's
>verifiable and not unduly getting in the way of other information.

I agree. Excellence in prose is important, but it's secondary (though
a close second) to good information. I think that if I look something
up and have  the choice between information presented in excellent
prose and more complete and accurate information presented in middling
prose, I'll find the latter much more useful. Comprehensiveness and
accuracy is more important than excellent prose, given a choice.
(Though both are much better.) Does anyone disagree?

(This is something to watch out for when you're overly proud of your
writing - if someone adds new information to the article in clunky,
horrible prose, you have to resist the urge to remove the blemish!)

- d.


from_name: Han Dao

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
Losing contributors? Excuse me? I am a
comixpedia.org<http://comixpedia.org>adiminstrator and a wikipedian at
the same time. I saw some wikipedians and
they are certainally not abandoing Wikipedia. I may not edit Wikipedia as
often as I used to, but in the first place; all I know is webcomics and a
little bit about open source software. The things is...you can backport some
of the article suitable to become a wikipedia article. Some of our article
are even more comperhensive than the one at Wikipedia but not certainally
all. We save some webcomic on wikipedia article that may not be even
"notable" so we are the dumping ground for webcomic that got deleted from
wikipedia.

Yes, we are also licensed under the GNUFDL. If you guys decided that you
want a certain webcomic article back, you might find them at Comixpedia.
On 10/24/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/25/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know how many times I can continue to put this in new and
> > innovative ways. Deletion is broken. We are making mistakes. Our
> > mistakes are costing us contributors. They are costing us good
> > contributors.
>
> Oh let's just shut down AfD for a month and see if the wiki explodes.
> Honestly I don't think it would even come near. There just aren't
> enough articles involved for it to impact the wiki much (many times
> more rubbish is speedied daily) and we shouldn't be driving away good
> editors.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: M. Creidieki Crouch

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Working towards balance on controversial topics (was:
	Guardian article about Wikipedia)

body:
On 10/24/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:10 PM
>
> > Thank goodness for that. In a Wikipedia with otherwise really
> > very good and *useful* computer articles (i.e., I use it as
> > my standard reference in real life), [[Linux]] is a POV-
> > pushing dog's breakfast of advocacy. This happens with a lot
> > of open source-related articles, because too many
> > contributors really do not understand NPOV in any context
> > whatsoever, only advocacy. I've tried fixing it in the past,
> > but the effort of holding back the tide made me wish I was
> > working on more peacable areas of the wiki, like Israel-
> > Palestine topics.
>
> I have concentrated more on "balance" than on any other aspect of
> quality, during my nearly 4 years of volunteer service here at
> Wikipedia. Holding back the tide of advocacy is exhausting work, David,
> let me tell you!
>
> Fortunately, the editor in chief at EP is an expert in Israeli-Palestine
> peace efforts. He drafted the [[Jerusalem Declaration]], for one thing.
> And at a small meeting he arranged last Thursday, I got to meet the
> Development Director of "Children of Abraham".
>
> We need more dialogue and understanding. We also need to identify and
> celebrate what we have in common. I believe that an encyclopedia can
> provide reliable knowledge that helps people realize that "underneath
> our differences, we all are one". Anyway as a Unificationist, that's my
> dream.
>
> Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] JBOD vs. RAID0

body:
> --- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht ---

> I see that the wm servers use RAID 0 quite a bit, and wondered why not
> JBOD?
>
> Does RAID 0 perform better, or was there some other reason?
>

Striping data over multiple disks usually allows equal utilization of all
disks in a RAID0. Usually, there are some hot spots in a database, where
most write and read operations happen, and some colder areas, for example
very old revisions. Since our database grows continuously, hot spots usually
are at the end of the database file. With concatenation this would be on
only one disk, while other disks were idle.

JeLuF

--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen f?r GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Part of the problem here may be that there are many people who are new
> to the community who might not know me very well.  I think anyone who
> knows me would know the answer to the question "What do we do if some
> donor demands that an article be changed to suit them?"

In which case, I think it would be a very good idea to make this
perfectly clear what the Board's response would be to this (and the
other questions that have been asked a number of times).

Chris


body:
On 10/24/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I've taken the liberty
> of moving the "debate about how this article should be spelled" sections
> out of the intro of a few articles to a #Name section near the end,
> which I think works fine.  There's certainly no reason to remove
> information that might be of interest to someone, so long as it's
> verifiable and not unduly getting in the way of other information.

That sounds pretty sensible.  The linear form of the article can be
exploited for organisation.  If relatively trivial sections of the
article are placed further down, it doesn't matter much if they become
a little bloated.

On the question of style, I'd say that the section in question could
be rewritten as one or two sentences to the effect that the ae form
derives from a romanization of the alpha-iota diphthong, major
dictionaries in UK and US describe both ae and e forms as acceptable
spellings, and the ae form is preserved primarily in the latin titles
of some encyclopedias.  The rest is just filling.


from_name: Cormac Lawler

body:
On 10/24/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> (This is something to watch out for when you're overly proud of your
> writing - if someone adds new information to the article in clunky,
> horrible prose, you have to resist the urge to remove the blemish!)
>
>
> - d.

 Work with it - the zen of the wiki :-)
 Cormac


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 09:58 -0500, slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html

Yes I was just reading it. Generally they are fairly complimentary; its
not surprising they could come up with a few factual errors; they are
experts after all. Apart from haute couture which got 0 out of 10. Maybe
I will get my fashion friends to improve it. The Britannica guy wants us
to write 26000 words in one article about encyclopaedias, obviously
hasnt understood the web.

Justinc


body:
I'm Arns Udovi??. "Udovi??" is sng. with the dot and "Udovi??" is pl.
with the -. :)

2005/10/24, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>:
> Is that Udovi?? or Udovi???? (it may not display correctly, try using
> Code2000 font)
>
> Mark
>
> On 24/10/05, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi :)
> >
> > About "But I think Samogitian
> > doesn't have a SIL code either.." The code is only in our mind :(
> > we say ?M or SMG.
> >
> > respectfully
> > Arns Udovi??
> >
> >
> >
> > 2005/10/24, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Yes - I've been looking forward most to the Samogitian
> > > one, since I'm interested in the language and culture
> > > of the Baltic states and Samogitian is an important
> > > part of that heritage. Isn't the standard form just to
> > > use the ISO code for the language family and then the
> > > SIL code? For the Aromanian Wikipedia we used that, in
> > > the form: roa-rup, where "roa" = ISO Romance languages
> > > other and "rup" - SIL code for Aromanian. The same was
> > > done for Voro - fiu-vro. But I think Samogitian
> > > doesn't have a SIL code either...
> > >
> > > On another note, a big congratulations to the four
> > > Wikipedias set up. A special one for Venetian and
> > > Lombard - it's great to have Wikipedias in as many
> > > Romance languages as possible, especially the
> > > less-well-known ones. I'd really like to contribute to
> > > these two, since the language is similar to Romanian.
> > >
> > > Ronline
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> > > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
> > :)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
> Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para juntar gmail, env?eme un mensaje.
> Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
> envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
> Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
> envie-me uma mensagem.
> Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>

--
Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
:)


from_name: Abigail Brady

body:
On 24/10/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html

The Basque history guy is obviously rather shockingly ignorant of
Basque history, if he hasn't heard of Acquitanian...  And some of his
other comments appear to be POV pushing.

--
Abi


from_name: charles matthews

body:
The only thing that stands out is that we should send for a fashion victim,
right now, to fix up [[haute couture]].

Might be a little harder than finding a Linux wizard ...

Charles


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I'm sorry but it is quite strange for me to imagine that someone would
> remove such a link, _other than_ if they were in the grip of some of the
> false and inflammatory rhetoric which has been thrown around here.

Possibly there is false rhetoric involved in the discussion, but this is
probably due to a lack of information and clarity from the Board on this
issue. To quote from the press release:

"Wikipedia will create a Tools page on its English-language site to
promote useful tools that access Wikipedia, and 1-Click Answers,
Wikipedia Edition, will receive charter placement on that page."

I don't think it's a big leap to assume, from this short excerpt (and in
fact from the rest of the press release) that Answers have in some way
paid for this placement. I think it's the idea that the Board has
announced a partnership which results in the direct addition of
something to Wikipedia which has created this confusion. The press
release is vague and finding out that this is not the case is, at best,
difficult.

Regardless, you still haven't answered the question.

> Such as what?  Do you really know what you're saying, or are you jumping
> to some false conclusions?

I would have thought that the founder of Wikipedia and the President of
the Wikimedia Foundation would be the foremost upholder of "assume good
faith".

One of the ideals which I am referring to is free access of information
which is not influenced by individuals, governments or corporations. The
idea that it is possible to purchase text placement on Wikipedia gives
many cause for concern - some people see advertising as the next step.

Chris


from_name: Sulev Iva

body:
Hi,

congratulation to Buginese, Norfuk, Veneto and Lumbaart users!
And especial congratulations to Udmurts! There is so little Finno-Ugric
languages that have their own Wikipedias. I hope the Udmurt Wiki will help
much to the Udmurt people and their language!

I think Ronline is right about Samogitian Wikipedia. It could be started with
a xxx-xxx code like fiu-vro and roa-rup. Could it be for Samogitian something
like blt-sam or blt-smo?

V?rok

24.10.05 15:41:05, "Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)" <rowikipedia at yahoo.com>
kirot':

>Hi,
>
>Yes - I've been looking forward most to the Samogitian
>one, since I'm interested in the language and culture
>of the Baltic states and Samogitian is an important
>part of that heritage. Isn't the standard form just to
>use the ISO code for the language family and then the
>SIL code? For the Aromanian Wikipedia we used that, in
>the form: roa-rup, where "roa" = ISO Romance languages
>other and "rup" - SIL code for Aromanian. The same was
>done for Voro - fiu-vro. But I think Samogitian
>doesn't have a SIL code either...
>
>On another note, a big congratulations to the four
>Wikipedias set up. A special one for Venetian and
>Lombard - it's great to have Wikipedias in as many
>Romance languages as possible, especially the
>less-well-known ones. I'd really like to contribute to
>these two, since the language is similar to Romanian.
>
>Ronline
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
On 10/24/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Speedy delete, maybe, but the current deletion process is too permanent
> to
> > allow any admin to speedy delete any article for any reason. If you
> allowed
> > editors to view deleted articles that might be a solution, but until
> then it
> > isn't.
> >
>
> I dunno it seems to be working at Uncyclopedia. Servival of the
> fittest and all that.

 Is that sarcasm or something? You're not seriously suggesting that
Wikipedia become more like Uncyclopedia, are you?

> 2)Errr that isn't happening.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
>
> See all the recent messages on the mailing list
>
> > > 3)It's called Reductio ad absurdum. The logical endpoint of the
> > > inclusionist position is to include everything.
> >
> > Huh? Is the logical endpoint of the deletionist position to delete
> > everything?
>
> Yep. In practice deletionists tend to be in a much better position to
> draw a line in the sand.

 You're seriously misunderstanding the technique of reductio ad absurdium.
For one thing, you seem to be expanding rather than reducing. I really don't
have the time to teach you logic, but your current argument is more of a
slippery slope argument than one of reductio ad absurdium.
 In fact, I think I've decided (once again) to not get involved in any
discussions with you. I just wish I could force myself to abide by this
decision.


body:
On 10/24/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> The Britannica guy wants us
> to write 26000 words in one article about encyclopaedias, obviously
> hasnt understood the web.

Actually his point wasn't that we should produce 26,000 words.  It was
rather that by contrast to the Britannica article of that length, ours
runs to a mere 2000.  This is surprisingly short, given the subject.
If we can manage 750 words on Squeaky Fromme, why so few on
Encyclopedia?


from_name: GerardM

body:
On 10/24/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> GerardM wrote:
> > It is one thing to disagree (simple) it is another to address the issues
> > that I have raised.
> > *You quote of context and therefore you lose the main point that I made
> that
> > we will need money for other projects than just the English Wikipedia.
>
> I didn't lose that at all. In fact, I didn't even mention the English
> Wikipedia. I said the principles on which Wikipedia is founded (which
> applies to all projects).

As you assume that it is enough to have your own point of view and do not
need to consider what others say and as you do not bring alternatives that
addresses the negative side-effects of your stance. I fail to see what
principles you are referring to; the primary goal is to bring good NPOV Free
information to all people in all languages.. What are you referring to?

> *You only rehash why you think this might be acceptable. You tell me that
> I
> > must assume good faith but where is your good faith where you assume
> that it
> > is only the other party that has to convince ? So far you have not
> convinced
> > at all.
>
> I don't understand what you're referring to. As far as I'm aware, the
> principle of "assume good faith" does not apply to corporations, but
> only to individuals. Since the partnership is between the Foundation and
> a corporation, the principle does not apply, and it is up to those
> proposing the deal to explain why it is needed and will be beneficial.

Why does it not apply to corporations and, why have all individuals the
moral high ground ? From my perspective organisations including corporations
can do good and I hate the idea that every cooperation needs to be
considered evil.

> *You assume that it goes against the ideals of the Foundation. Which
> ideals
> > are they ? As a Foundation we have objectives and it does say what we
> aim to
> > do. With more funding we can do more.
>
> The ideals I am referring to include the policy of neutral point of
> view. See my other email
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004580.html
> )
> which explains why reliance on companies is a bad idea.

You have to assure that you do not become beholden to one source of revenue.
So let us have many corporate sponsors. Let us have many organisational
sponsors. Let us get loaded with money, let us be able to do good, the good
that we do not do because of lack of funds.

> *If you cannot think of an admin who does not have the best interest of
> > Wikipedia at heart .. Well I am not a Wikipedia admin and I am an admin.
> > This does not mean that I do not have the best interest of Wikipedia at
> > heart, it only shows the fallacy of your line of thinking.
>
> I don't understand what you are talking about. You don't have the best
> interests of the project at heart? What exactly are you trying to say?

The project as far as I am concerned is not Wikipedia. We are bigger than
that. Please read what I say; I am an admin NOT a Wikipedia admin.

> I do consider an admin who removes these links narrow minded. He does not
> > consider other things than his immediate concerns (that is what narrow
> > minded means). I also fail to see a justification for these things in
> your
> > arguments. I also miss how you would make the money that allows for the
> > growth pattern that we have seen. Please be constructive; make sure that
> our
> > projects can grow as boundless as the English Wikipedia has been allowed
> to
> > do untill now.
>
> I am well aware of what narrow-minded means, which is why I said in my
> previous email that removing the links would not be narrow-minded. If
> you make an accusation, it's up to you to explain why it is so, not up
> to me to explain why it is not so. Why is someone who removes the link
> narrow-minded, and how is he only considering his immediate concerns?
> You are the one who must justify why, not I.

We disagree strongly. I try to explain why removing these links wrong and
you do not want to know. The lack of revenue will disproportially hurt
projects other than the English Wikipedia. You must be an
en.wikipediaadmin, I do not see andy consideration for the other
projects or languages.
I fail to see how your stance helps us get information that is NPOV, free
and available in all languages to all people of this world. I only see that
your stance prevents us from getting aditional funds. Funds that are needed.

Also, it's not up to me to budget for the Foundation. I believe there is
> someone appointed by the Board to do this. I can give you my suggestions
> if you like, but I fail to see how this is relevant.
>
> Please, explain to me why this partnership is a good move.

It is cheap to only consider your POV and not consider the implications.
Money is needed and money from *MANY* sources prevents us from becoming
reliant on any one of them. Your argument that the consequences of your POV
are for someone else is inconsiderate.

You have read the arguments why this partnership is a good move. You do not
accept these arguments, it does not mean that it was not explained to you
and it does not mean that the reasons are not valid. It only shows that you
disagree.

Thanks,
GerardM


body:
On 24/10/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:44 +0100, Abigail Brady wrote:
> > The Basque history guy is obviously rather shockingly ignorant of
> > Basque history, if he hasn't heard of Acquitanian...  And some of his
> > other comments appear to be POV pushing.
>
> I suggest you read his book on Basque history before making comments
> like this. Mark Kurlansky, A Basque History of the World. He doesnt say
> he hasnt heard of the Aquitane language, just that he doesnt speak it,
> and thinks it is unlikely to be related to Euskera. Read more carefully.

No, you read carefully.  He says "I am not familiar with the Aquitaine
language but would be very surprised if it bore any relation to
Euskera, the Basque language." Such a language is recorded (it's now
extinct so of course he doesn't speak it), and does indeed appear to
bear some relation to Basque, although not much of it is attested.
If he was rejecting the proposed connection, that would be fair
enough, but instead he is (in admitted ignorance) rejecting any
possibility of a link.  Anyone who knows anything about Acquitanian
knows about the possible link with Basque, he's just dismissing it out
of hand.

--
Abi


body:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:44 +0100, Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 24/10/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
>
> The Basque history guy is obviously rather shockingly ignorant of
> Basque history, if he hasn't heard of Acquitanian...  And some of his
> other comments appear to be POV pushing.

I suggest you read his book on Basque history before making comments
like this. Mark Kurlansky, A Basque History of the World. He doesnt say
he hasnt heard of the Aquitane language, just that he doesnt speak it,
and thinks it is unlikely to be related to Euskera. Read more carefully.

Justinc


body:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:52 +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 10/24/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> > The Britannica guy wants us
> > to write 26000 words in one article about encyclopaedias, obviously
> > hasnt understood the web.
>
> Actually his point wasn't that we should produce 26,000 words.  It was
> rather that by contrast to the Britannica article of that length, ours
> runs to a mere 2000.  This is surprisingly short, given the subject.
> If we can manage 750 words on Squeaky Fromme, why so few on
> Encyclopedia?

But how much of this would be in other articles? I suspect most. There
are lots of articles in the category. It is true that is pretty crap
with respect to history and has too much POV stuff, and doesnt talk
about lots of stuff it should though.

Justinc


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Snowspinner wrote:

>Does Britannica also have separate articles on Encyclopedia
>Britannica, Brokhaus Encyclopedia, Great Soviet Encyclopedia,
>Encyclopedia Judaica, Etymologiae, Bibliotheke, Cyclopaedia, or
>Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopedie, Pseudodoxia
>Epidemica, Lexicon technicum, or, for that matter, Wikipedia?
>Because I bet if you count all of those (And probably a few more),
>we've got more than EB on the subject, just broken into multiple
>articles.
>Which may well be a flaw on our part.

I would say not in the least, because we're primarily writing for the
Web. 32 kilobytes (which used to be a hard technical limit but I still
think is a very good *stylistic* limit) is 6000 words, which is a LOT
of text to read on a screen. It's really quite a lot even if you print
it (about ten or so pages). Anything longer than 32k really needs some
attention to what can possibly be spun out.

- d.


subject:
[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form
	NewPartnership

body:
On 10/24/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
>
> >In a scenario which is hard to imagine ever occurring on Wikipedia,
> >the influence could come from the fact that AdSense relies on context,
> >and particular keywords on a page will lead to
> >higher-revenue-generating ads. So, attempts to drop phrases like
> >"credit repair" into articles could lead to greater revenues and might
> >encourage some to insert an odd sort of influence on the content for
> >this purpose. It would, of course, be violating Google's terms of
> >service and not something I would recommend doing. :)
> >
> >
> AdSense-style ads would also lead to the potentially undesirable
> scenario where companies (or individuals) would be able to buy text on a
> particular Wikipedia article's page, for example to refute it or point
> to an advocacy page attacking the viewpoints the article summarizes.
> There's no way to do this directly, but some trial-and-error playing
> with keywords could allow an advertiser to,. with high probability, get
> their ads to appear on specific Wikipedia pages in that manner.
>
> -Mark

 I can't actually think of a situation where that would be a bad thing, even
if I add in the types of ads which Google isn't going to allow anyway (like
a pro-Nazi page being advertised on a Wikipedia page on Nazism). But maybe
that's just because I believe the best way to fight speech is with speech, a
position which not everyone agrees with. If Nazis (or any POV pushers) want
to give us money to help spread factual neutral information, that's fine
with me.
 I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to insert
certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away from the
pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to appear on those
articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though.
 Anthony


body:
Yeah, but the EB hates Wikipedia with a passion, Expert != Neutral.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Guardian article about Wikipedia

> On 10/24/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
>> That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
>> E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
>> what they wanted to hear.
>
>
> Indeed.  An expert opinion.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>The only thing that stands out is that we should send for a fashion victim,
>right now, to fix up [[haute couture]].
>Might be a little harder than finding a Linux wizard ...

Thank goodness for that. In a Wikipedia with otherwise really very
good and *useful* computer articles (i.e., I use it as my standard
reference in real life), [[Linux]] is a POV-pushing dog's breakfast of
advocacy. This happens with a lot of open source-related articles,
because too many contributors really do not understand NPOV in any
context whatsoever, only advocacy. I've tried fixing it in the past,
but the effort of holding back the tide made me wish I was working on
more peacable areas of the wiki, like Israel-Palestine topics.

It's the same problem [[George W. Bush]] has. Some topics have
*entirely too much* interest for editors, to the detriment of readers.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Oour quality could rival Encyclopedia Britannica
	(was:Guardian article about Wikipedia)

body:
Ed Poor wrote

>What conclusion can we draw from this? I'd like to hear some discussion
on this, please.

Interesting that Ed and I, not a usual combination, have both been talking
recently about the [[Arnold J. Toynbee]] article on its Talk page.

Interesting, that is,  in the sense that Toynbee was hot on civilizations'
responses to challenges, as catalytic of development.

WP actually needs rivals, right now.  My view is that WP can easily take on
_any_ online opposition, as far as factual volume is concerned.  We have the
bodies.  We can simply put up enough 6/10-rated articles (today's Guardian)
about _everything_, and dominate Google.  Simply extrapolate from where we
are.

I like that approach.  I like, for example, posting good bibliographies of
prolific authors, where the WWW generally has scrappy lists.  In the long
run, and with good search and hyperlinking, we create a most awesome
research tool.

There are these other challenges:

- quality writing (doesn't come easy)
- higher accuracy
- fuller reach into deep academia, outside the Anglophone world (for
wiki-en), across cultures
- get the other breaking-new media to say 'uncle'
- put hard-copy encyclopedias out of business
- make people want to release under GFDL so that WP can easily assimilate
their content
- Textbooks'R'Us, have our articles segmented so that getting a reasonable
first textbook draft is just a filtering exercise.

But I think we know all this.  To return to Toynbee, it is more a question
of how to get Wikipedians to 'feel challenged', on the specifics.  Right
now, with the site running slow, the main practical challenge seems to be
hardward/developers/cash.  _I_ mostly feel challenged by the sheer breadth
of approach needed.

Charles


body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
>On 10/24/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> (This is something to watch out for when you're overly proud of your
>> writing - if someone adds new information to the article in clunky,
>> horrible prose, you have to resist the urge to remove the blemish!)

> Work with it - the zen of the wiki :-)

I know, I know. I didn't realise explicitly that content beats prose
quality until I was doing an interview where I was asked about prose
quality and content. I answered, thinking out loud, that articles will
tend to go in a quality cycle of excellent prose, then a clunky lump
of important information added, then smoothed out to excellent prose,
rinse and repeat. And that if forced to choose, information beats
elegant prose, though the latter is always a good idea.

In particular, I realised guiltily that I have reverted clunky new
information because it broke up elegant prose. Bad! Wrong! Don't do
that! I swore to grit my teeth and resist in future.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Our quality could rival Encyclopedia Britannica

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>There are these other challenges:
>- quality writing (doesn't come easy)

I'd like everyone here who thinks they're a pretty good writer to
middle-click "Random page" twenty times and rewrite any crappy prose
you find without sacrificing any factual content. I'll be doing this
tonight.

>- get the other breaking-new media to say 'uncle'

So far, asking nicely is much more Wikimedia-ish ;-)

>- put hard-copy encyclopedias out of business

Nah. I'd rather see if we can synergise with them. I understand
Brockhaus is trying to work out how the heck to work *with* de:
Wikipedia instead of getting economically trampled by [[worse is
better]]. Britannica has really quite a lot to be arrogant about, but
when you're already haemorrhaging red ink, then arrogance is just that
close to hubris.

OTOH, any Wikipedian who runs down the general quality of Britannica
is IMO being foolish. They do set a *consistently* very high standard.
I suspect Wikipedia will always have about the same percentages of
great/good/mediocre/rubbish articles as it expands, we need to find
ways to get people to find the good stuff more easily.

- d.


body:
GerardM wrote:
> As you assume that it is enough to have your own point of view and do not
> need to consider what others say and as you do not bring alternatives that
> addresses the negative side-effects of your stance. I fail to see what
> principles you are referring to; the primary goal is to bring good NPOV Free
> information to all people in all languages.. What are you referring to?

I don't assume that at all; I would be interested to know how you came
by that assumption (because it is absolutely wrong). The principles I am
referring to are the exact same as you have said there - free access to
uninfluenced information.

> Why does it not apply to corporations and, why have all individuals the
> moral high ground ? From my perspective organisations including corporations
> can do good and I hate the idea that every cooperation needs to be
> considered evil.

It doesn't apply to corporations because corporations are legal entities
whose reason for existence is to deliver profit to shareholders. By
definition, they are not required to "do good".

I don't think every corporation is evil or should be considered evil,
and I never said that. Of course corporations can do good, they aren't
required to - which is exactly why we shouldn't assume that they are in
existence to "do good".

This is why the Board needs to explain why the partnership is good for
the continued existence of the various projects.

> You have to assure that you do not become beholden to one source of revenue.
> So let us have many corporate sponsors. Let us have many organisational
> sponsors. Let us get loaded with money, let us be able to do good, the good
> that we do not do because of lack of funds.

Yes, let's - but let's not compromise on our core beliefs.

> The project as far as I am concerned is not Wikipedia. We are bigger than
> that. Please read what I say; I am an admin NOT a Wikipedia admin.

I still have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you try
rephrasing it in a different way?

> We disagree strongly. I try to explain why removing these links wrong and
> you do not want to know. The lack of revenue will disproportially hurt
> projects other than the English Wikipedia. You must be an
> en.wikipediaadmin, I do not see andy consideration for the other
> projects or languages.

Yes, I am an admin on the English language Wikipedia, but that's not
relevant. I would be making the same points if it were a different
language Wikipedia or one of the other projects (in any language).

> I fail to see how your stance helps us get information that is NPOV, free
> and available in all languages to all people of this world. I only see that
> your stance prevents us from getting aditional funds. Funds that are needed.

My stance is that we shouldn't compromise on our key beliefs - free
access to information which is not influenced by individuals,
governments or corporations. If we have to scale back our operations or
reject some funding because it might affect this in some way, then so be
it. Money is not our goal here.

> It is cheap to only consider your POV and not consider the implications.
> Money is needed and money from *MANY* sources prevents us from becoming
> reliant on any one of them. Your argument that the consequences of your POV
> are for someone else is inconsiderate.

I don't have the legal skills nor financial skills to budget for an
organisation like this. It's not inconsiderate for me to constructively
criticise the Board or the Foundation. It's not only inconsiderate but
socially negligent of me not to.

> You have read the arguments why this partnership is a good move. You do not
> accept these arguments, it does not mean that it was not explained to you
> and it does not mean that the reasons are not valid. It only shows that you
> disagree.

I have heard some arguments regarding this partnership, but not all, and
not all the arguments are complete. I agree with some of what I have
heard, disagree with other bits, and believe there is more information
on this to come - as with anything. Please don't tell me what I do or do
not believe, and let me be the judge of what I think is valid.

Chris


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion again

body:
The problem is that most webcomics that are added into the encyclopedia are
usually non-notable. So editors tend to vote delete because most will be non
notable.

On 10/24/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >
> > It looks perfectly notable to me, and Snowspinner would have had my
> > vote had
> > he not fought so hard to get me banned from voting.
> >
>
> Well sniped.
>
> -Snowspinner
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Snowspinner wrote:
>On Oct 24, 2005, at 12:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:

>> I would say not in the least, because we're primarily writing for the
>> Web. 32 kilobytes (which used to be a hard technical limit but I still
>> think is a very good *stylistic* limit) is 6000 words, which is a LOT
>> of text to read on a screen. It's really quite a lot even if you print
>> it (about ten or so pages). Anything longer than 32k really needs some
>> attention to what can possibly be spun out.

>On the other hand, I've seen many an article that starts spinning out
>stuff well before it's sensible - mysteriously, it's the "criticism
>of" sections that always are the first to go. Wonder why that could be.

Gosh! etc ;-)

There's nothing wrong with spinning out "criticism of" sections as log
as a good summary is left behind in the main article, so that the
split is main/sub rather than POV/POV. This is of course an editorial
matter.

- d.


from_name: Poe, Marshall

body:
Anthony Wrote:

"I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to
insert certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away
from the pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to
appear on those articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though."

I don't really follow.  WP contributors would not gain anything by
trying to increase traffic/click-throughs on articles with bogus key
words, would they?  Contributors wouldn't profit from AdSense at all,
would they? All the money from AdSense would flow to the Foundation,
right?

MP

Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
DiPierro
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to
FormNewPartnership

On 10/24/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
>
> >In a scenario which is hard to imagine ever occurring on Wikipedia,
> >the influence could come from the fact that AdSense relies on
> >context, and particular keywords on a page will lead to
> >higher-revenue-generating ads. So, attempts to drop phrases like
> >"credit repair" into articles could lead to greater revenues and
> >might encourage some to insert an odd sort of influence on the
> >content for this purpose. It would, of course, be violating Google's
> >terms of service and not something I would recommend doing. :)
> >
> >
> AdSense-style ads would also lead to the potentially undesirable
> scenario where companies (or individuals) would be able to buy text on

> a particular Wikipedia article's page, for example to refute it or
> point to an advocacy page attacking the viewpoints the article
summarizes.
> There's no way to do this directly, but some trial-and-error playing
> with keywords could allow an advertiser to,. with high probability,
> get their ads to appear on specific Wikipedia pages in that manner.
>
> -Mark

 I can't actually think of a situation where that would be a bad thing,
even if I add in the types of ads which Google isn't going to allow
anyway (like a pro-Nazi page being advertised on a Wikipedia page on
Nazism). But maybe that's just because I believe the best way to fight
speech is with speech, a position which not everyone agrees with. If
Nazis (or any POV pushers) want to give us money to help spread factual
neutral information, that's fine with me.
 I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to
insert certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away
from the pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to
appear on those articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though.
 Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject:
[Foundation-l] Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to
	FormNewPartnership


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Quality

body:
We can try to eliminate the really easy backlog and than work our way to the
really hard one? The endless piles of backlog continue to grow at a rapid
rates but let finish on eliminating the backlog to zero and maintain that
way until next week and than move on. It just an idea on a way to focus the
effort of wikipedians and editors so we clean up the really ugly masses so
we can focus on the ugly one thus systemically improve wikipedia one level
of quality at a time.

On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > > I really don't know where you get these ideas from. How are
> low-quality
> > > articles "tolerated"? Who would rather have more articles than better
> > > articles? Who even thinks there is a choice between more articles and
> > better
> > > articles?
> > >
> > Editor makes a good-faith edit to article. It is reverted by another
> > editor who is uncompromisingly pushing a POV. A conflict results,
> > sometimes
> > more acrimonious than at other times.
> >
> > Rinse, lather, repeat. Eventually the first editor will decide that it
> is
> > more rewarding to start creating articles & turn those red links blue
> > than to argue over content -- unless that editor is also uncompromising
> > about a certain POV, & decides to squat on certain articles to preserve
> > that POV.
> >
> > Either path means that articles improve to a certain point, then unless
> > something happens they remain at that level of quality. We need more
> > tools to ensure that "something happens".
> >
> > Geoff
>
>
> I'm not sure you're referring to the same issue as Daniel, but you do
> raise
> a major one. What tools do you think we need more of to ensure that
> something happens?
>
> I think the Requests for Comments page is a good idea for how to resolve
> these types of problems, but last time I followed it (many months ago) it
> was more about trying to get someone banned than about resolving problems
> with articles. Looking at the page again it seems it's been reorganized
> and
> more focused around "Article content disputes". But it's just a bunch of
> links to talk pages, so in that sense it's probably not focussed enough to
> do much good.
>
> Do you think the RfC page could be adapted to resolve these issues more
> easily? I don't know if it could or not. It takes a lot of effort to argue
> your point effectively, and it's pretty easy for a troll to game the
> system
> until you give up. This is a really tough problem, somewhat inherent in
> the
> concept of a wiki, and I don't have much of a clue how to resolve it.
>
> Initially I saw Wikipedia as more of a rough draft than a finished
> product.
> Over the years it's been made abundantly clear that the majority of
> Wikipedians don't see it that way. I've come to accept that, but I guess I
> never really figured out how it would work. Along those same lines, I've
> never heard anyone explain how you could solve the quality problems
> inherent
> in a wiki without throwing out all the advantages.
>
> Nowadays my greatest optimism is that we'll be able to point to the
> highest
> quality version of any particular article, even if it isn't the most
> recent
> version. So in your example, the POV pusher might be able to make his/her
> version the latest version, but the software would still recognize that
> most
> people consider that version to be POV. I suppose if you're going to that
> you might as well just make that version the latest version, though. So
> now
> I've come full circle.
>
> I don't know. :)
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dori

body:
On 10/24/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Surely there's only a handful of logical conclusions here:
>
> 1. We stay with just donations (small private and few large coporate
> ones) and the site slowly bogs down as traffic demand outstrips server
> supply
> 2. We try more small stuff like the Amazon and the forthcoming 1-Click
> experiments, but let's be honest unless WP is plastered in them
> they'll never make much of a difference
> 3. We eventually accept a small amount of Adsense (or Adsense-syle)
> advertising on the site, which will most likely pay for what we need.

Obviously you're highlighting 3 there, and the obvious corollary to
all three is that a bunch of editors and readers will pack their bags
and leave. If the stacks of money is better than editors and readers,
then the foundations should go for it. And don't for a second think
that it will be one or two, many people are opposed to this, and a
tidy sum have already left just because of the *possibility*.

--
Dori


body:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:59 +0100, Abigail Brady wrote:
> On 24/10/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:44 +0100, Abigail Brady wrote:
> > > The Basque history guy is obviously rather shockingly ignorant of
> > > Basque history, if he hasn't heard of Acquitanian...  And some of his
> > > other comments appear to be POV pushing.
> >
> > I suggest you read his book on Basque history before making comments
> > like this. Mark Kurlansky, A Basque History of the World. He doesnt say
> > he hasnt heard of the Aquitane language, just that he doesnt speak it,
> > and thinks it is unlikely to be related to Euskera. Read more carefully.
>
> No, you read carefully.  He says "I am not familiar with the Aquitaine
> language but would be very surprised if it bore any relation to
> Euskera, the Basque language." Such a language is recorded (it's now
> extinct so of course he doesn't speak it), and does indeed appear to
> bear some relation to Basque, although not much of it is attested.
> If he was rejecting the proposed connection, that would be fair
> enough, but instead he is (in admitted ignorance) rejecting any
> possibility of a link.  Anyone who knows anything about Acquitanian
> knows about the possible link with Basque, he's just dismissing it out
> of hand.

Well the helpful link to Aquitanian links to the geological era, so its
no wonder he couldnt verify this. Fixed now. The actual [[Aquitanian
language]] article has no references or indeed much content.

Justinc


subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Answers.com and Wikimedia Foundation to Form
	New	Partnership

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> The press release, and the text posted by Angela in various locations,
> was certainly not clear on the nature of the agreement, especially
> regarding the rules relating to placement. Accordingly, I've updated the
> page on Wikipedia on the subject, with some help from Jimbo:

Thanks, that's a great deal clearer! As I've mentioned previously, the
initial press release sounded greatly like Answers paid to get their
tool prominently displayed on Wikipedia.

Now it turns out that Answers are simply making a new tool with
advertising, and are giving some of the revenue to the Foundation, and
are asking nicely if we'd put the tool on the Tools page.

Hopefully the lesson learnt from this is that the detail should be
provided right from the beginning, rather than confusingly-worded which
creates false impressions right from the start.

Chris


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Yes, and I take full responsibility for that and apologize for the
> confusion.

Thanks Jimbo, it's great that we've finally cleared up what the
partnership actually entails. Hopefully we won't have this situation
arising in the future!

Chris


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Dan Grey wrote:
> On 24/10/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>>There are other reasons to be worried about ads
>
>
> With people saying they could lead to an income of $26m a year, or pay
> for all of our normal hosting costs in a fortnight, I'd like to know
> what these other reasons are!

Well, I think that's an overestimate.  I don't think it's any more than
$12m a year *yawn*. ;-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unnecessary nudity on [[Hogtie bondage]]

body:
--- BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First, I'd like to state that, in general, I support Wikipedia being
> > explicit in its illustration where necessary. I have never had a
> > problem with potentially-offensive photos on pages like [[penis]],
> > [[clitoris]] and the like.
>
> You have never had a problem with from an American viewpoint
> potentially-offensive images? OK. I have never had a problem with
> potentially-offensive photos (and text!) on pages like [[female]],
> [[hair]], [[feet]], [[homosexual]], etc... By saying that only
> [[penis]] and [[clitoris]] are potentially offensive but not the other
> examples I mentioned, you are implying that your viewpoint is the
> supreme one and more important than all others.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here, but I'd like to point
out that I'm British, not American.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Answers.com stuff

body:
Well, since the list is being overrun by people's comments on the
Answers.com agreement, I may as well dive in with some thoughts of my
own. I think I am pretty qualified to speak-after all, I actually saw
the agreement, which is more than I can say for many of the people
commenting on it.

But first, I want to tell you a little story about my former place of
employment, a museum in Manhattan. Said Museum is now $17 million
dollars in debt. It has used up its emergency fund. It has been forced
to let people go (I was not let go, and was immediately replaced, but a
few of my colleagues, including many more qualified than me, were).

It's part of a problem faced by most not-for-profits today. Lots of
great ideas, and not enough money to go around. In fact, the little
donations ($10-$500), or in the case of museums, admissions are never
enough to cover basic operating costs.

We are now among the top 30 websites in the world. I believe that we
are the only one that is a not-for-profit (haven't checked it recently,
but it is a fairly safe assumption). How can we cover our operating
costs?

Grants are one possibility, but there are plenty of people competing
for those same grants. Besides, grants have to be sexy. And they have
to be something we can really carry through with. And NO ONE will give
us a substantial sum to just do whatever we want with it. The CFO of my
old place of employment used to tell me that it was easy to find people
to pay for some crap sculpture that no one else liked, or for marble in
the elevators, but when it came to basic operating costs like a monthly
cleaning bill of $40,000-forget it.

Nor are we in the position to put up a plaque, have a cocktail
reception, and dedicate the "Stanley and Edith Rosenthal Server in
honor of their grandson Milton's bar mitzvah." Nor do we want to.

We don't want pop up ads on our site. We don't want ad sense or Google
ads, though I find it rather odd that one of the vocal opponents to the
Answers.com deal admits to running a mirror of Wikipedia with Google
ads. Along comes someone who wants to use our information, which we are
giving away for free, and to pay us for it in the name of fair play.
Rather than asking for ads on every page, they simply suggested a
modest link on a single page, a tools page which most people don't go
to. They did this out of respect for our mission and our ideals.

How are people responding? Well, someone suggested that it would be
better to shut down Wikipedia for editing except for one hour a day.
People are talking about drastically cutting the budget, though I can
only wonder if they can point to anything significant in the budget
that can be cut, or if they have even seen the budget at all. Of
course, everyone wants the site to run faster. I would just like
someone to tell us how we can do just that without getting significant
funding. I would like someone to explain to me how we can realize our
goal of providing every person in the world with an encyclopedia in a
language that they can understand without paying for it in some way.

Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Answers.com stuff


body:
On 10/24/05, Poe, Marshall <MPoe at theatlantic.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony Wrote:
>
> "I did just think of another potential problem with Google Adsense in
> particular, though. It may provide incentive for certain people to
> insert certain keywords into random articles to draw competitors away
> from the pages they want to advertise on (and thus lower the cost to
> appear on those articles). I'm not sure if it'd work or not, though."
>
> I don't really follow. WP contributors would not gain anything by
> trying to increase traffic/click-throughs on articles with bogus key
> words, would they? Contributors wouldn't profit from AdSense at all,
> would they? All the money from AdSense would flow to the Foundation,
> right?
>
> MP

Well, there are two reasons click fraud happens. One is when you click on
ads on your own website to boost your own revenue. That one is pretty easy
to detect and stop. But the new one that has emerged with Google Adsense is
where one company will click on the ads of its competitors in order to run
that competitor out of money. Their position in the list of ads will then
increase, because their competitor is out of money and can't advertise any
more.

I was trying to think of how this type of abuse could be done if Wikipedia
used Google Adsense, and that was the best I could come up with. Not sure if
it would work or not though, it could in theory be stopped by Google's
algorithm when it notices that even though a page has certain keywords it
isn't providing a good CTR for certain of those keywords.


from_name: TGGG85 at aol.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Find-A-Grave's founder provides us with list of famous
	people

body:
FindaGrave was established out of Salt Lake City by Jim Tipton years ago. He
takes the scholarship on his website very seriously. I am a member and find a
lot of painstaking work displayed. It is a very valuable resource on the lives
and deaths of "famous" and not-so-famous people.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] AfD should be Arguments for Deletion

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I can understand their argument.  Could it be solved by two category
> systems in separate namespaces.  One would pretty well function like
> the present categories to provide a topical index for articles.  The
> new one could be used for the administrative interests of people who
> do a lot of editing.  Administrative categories (or whatever we choose
> to call them) could be deleted for lack of interest in much the same
> way that sysops can be removed from the list when they have been
> absent for an extended time.

"Administrative categories" would also solve the long-standing problem I
have with the "Cricket subcategories" category, my general dislike of
the "stub" categories, and other similar cases that may crop up
elsewhere. It'd be sort of like how the Wikipedia: namespace fuctions -
it'd be for stuff that's handy for editing, but which should be excluded
from "purely for use" versions like our many mirrors or the eventual 1.0
version.