from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject:
[Textbook-l] Textbook development and role of Wikibooks (was:
	Problem with NPOV)

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Some of the main points that I think are important...
>
>-- Wikibooks is something we can get very passionate about, but that
>passionate vision is marred if we allow it to become a dumping ground
>for stuff people don't want in Wikipedia, or a POV haven for nonsense, etc.
>
>-- Wikibooks has a serious possibility to get independent funding, so
>long as it remains focussed on its serious mission of textbooks.  Such
>funding can be used to customize and improve the software for wikibooks,
>as well as to *purchase and liberate* textbook works that already exist.
>
>Suffice to say: we can get funding for Wikibooks to radically change the
>education world if potential funders come to the project and see a
>serious project doing good work.  We can not get funding for Wikibooks
>if potential funders come to the project and look at it and see a bunch
>of nonsense that we did not have the pride to disallow (random crap that
>got pushed out of Wikipedia, for example).
>
>Funders are eager to find solutions to important questions facing
>education.  They are not eager to fund videogame manuals and pokeman
>trivia reference books.
>
>-- Wikibooks needs to focus on actual courses because we passionately
>care that our work *actually be used in education*.  In order to get
>textbooks adopted by real schools, they must meet curriculum standards.
>  It is as simple as that.
>
>-------------
>
>I could go on, but I think you begin to see... there are some basic
>standards and concepts, but really we need to work together carefully as
>a community to build detailed policies to implement these and other
>natural and sensible guidelines.
>
>A fair amount of that work is already done, of course, and it will be a
>long and ongoing process.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>

Jimbo,

I want to thank you for at least providing a pretty clear manifesto
(even though I don't think that was your intention here) of what you
think Wikibooks ought to be like and the direction it can and perhaps
should go.

I do want to say, however, that it has been a very, very, very hard
uphill battle to even find a strong vision of what Wikibooks was
supposed to be when it was founded, and what the "typical" Wikimedian
(if you can use such a term) thinks of Wikibooks that is outside of the
general Wikibooks development community.

This huge disconnect between the veiw of Wikibooks as a seed-project
wiki (especially as evidenced by the Wikimania proceedings), those who
see Wikibooks as strictly academic textbooks, and those who push more
for general non-fiction scholarship books (more my viewpoint) have a
hard time to find a common ground when one viewpoint or another comes up.

I will say that the current Wikimedia Incubator Wiki has provided a
legitimate forum to send people if they want to develop independent
projects, a huge number of which I've been involved with moving
(generally successfully I might add) to places that were more
appropriate for the content.  I mention the Wikimania proceedings in
particular because they are clearly not textbook oriented or even book
oriented, and emotions ran very high when I tried to transwiki that
content.  So much opposition was had that Brion Vibber himself went and
reverted just about every adminitrator action that was performed by
myself in a huge slap on the face without even trying to find out what
was really going on and why there was opposition to such content on
Wikibooks.  That and having Anthere threating to block my account wasn't
too helpful either (it didn't happen, but I did exchange some rather
heated e-mails over the issue).

I could add things like Wikiversity, Wikijunior, the 1911 Encyclopedia
Brittanica project, and a Hatian Creole langauge translation project
(the last two now on Wikisource) that have also helped to blur a mission
of Wikibooks.  If the idea is that Wikibooks is not to be used as a new
Wikimedia wiki project seed wiki (arrr, I don't know how else to explain
this!) this type of activity must simply stop.  I will also point out
that almost all of these idea were home brewed on Wikibooks and were not
"dumped" on Wikibooks by Wikipedia editors, although Wikipedia editors
were instrumental in making the suggestion to use Wikibooks in this
manner for most cases like these.

----

All this said, I want to point out that I am not directly against using
Wikibooks for textbook development, and I do believe that even to
emphasis this viewpoint can and should be done right from the main page
and from other areas of Wikibooks as well.  It is being done somewhat,
but certainly a stronger emphasis in terms of encouraging the following
of academic standards for the development of Wikibooks content could be
also encouraged.

As far as getting independent funding for Wikibooks, this is an area
that is going to be a virtual landmine of political and social problems
for the project of an unprecedented scale.  There is a potential for a
rather large amount of money to be made by some individuals, and it
won't necessarily be the individuals who have been putting up the most
amount of effort the for creation of content and editing of Wikibooks
material either.  As soon as one person is starting to make money off of
content from Wikibooks (however that happens), there will be people with
hurt feelings to wonder why they too aren't getting a "piece of the action".

Wikibooks is right at the cusp of starting to make a huge difference in
how open souce textbooks and book-length material is created and edited.
 I think you acknowledge that too, Jimbo, or you wouldn't be so active
in this project.  Developments over this past year to identify
substantial Wikibooks and release them as *.pdf files have gone a long
way to show what can be done so far with even the existing individuals
who have been helping out so far.

As far as how to allocate financial resources to improve Wikibooks, I'm
not completely sure what the best approach ought to be.  I will say that
the current approach being used to raise funds for Wikijunior is, IMHO,
a complete utter and dismal failure of the worst kind.  That Wikijunior
has brought in some funds to be generally used by the Wikimedia
Foundation for purchasing servers and paying the light bill is a nobel
thing, but there is no reasonable way to provide accounting to say that
Wikijunior hosting cost $xxx and money from the Beck Foundation (or
others that I'm not aware of) raised $yyy.  Promises were implied,
deadlines demanded (and met in a couple of cases), and herculan efforts
made by volunteers to help out.  But their efforts were wasted in vain
other than in a general view that Wikijunior now a slightly better
project because of their efforts.  However the money raised had
absolutely nothing to do with those efforts to produce Wikijunior in any
way, shape, or form, other than an intangible view that Wikibooks might
have been shut down without that money which nobody ever even claimed
might have been the case anyway.

Point being here that if money is used to try and purchase textbooks and
then host them on Wikibooks, it is going to take a very similar kind of
herculean effort on the part of Wikibooks volunteers just to get them
moved over to Wikibooks, proofread the content, update to current
standards and knowledge, and to reconvert them back to something capable
of being used in the print textbook industry.  Simply buying the content
is just 10%-20% of what is needed to even develop the content and make
it available for use as a textbook through Wikibooks.  A useful 10%-20%,
but only the beginning.

For a slightly larger "bang for the buck", I would try to encourage
something of a sort of X-prize type arrangement to encourage skilled
professionals to develop perhaps targeted textbooks of specific themes
and audience targets (such as a high school Algebra textbooks, for
example) that meets specific curriculum requirements.  When a book is
100% complete, has gone through some sort of academic review to compare
against the standards, and is available in a pdf (or similar) document
format that is press-ready for print publication, that the participants
would be able to claim some sort of prize and decide how and where to
spend the money from the prize.  Even if the money is mainly folded back
into the Wikimedia Foundation or some other charity like the
International Red Cross (decided by the participants), you would find
some keen interest and some surprising volunteers to help out and make
it happen.

Think here something like what Nupedia tried to do in terms of its
review process, but using a Wiki-editing interface for the content
development in the first place.  You could even have "competing" books
that try different approaches to the material for a real competition.

There are many other potentially useful ideas for spending money on
Wikibooks.  Direct grants to school teachers to develop textbooks during
the "summer" instead of working as a construction sub-contractor?
 Advertising campaigns of various sorts for the purpose of recruiting
volunteers?  Setting up a physical book publisher of Wikibooks content?

I do have the attitude that the volunteers at Wikibooks have the
capability of creating the kinds of textbooks that you are looking for,
Jimbo.  And that other than recruiting more talented wordsmiths we can
pull off the kinds of ground breaking shifts in the textbook publication
industry that have only been hinted at so far.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] Javascript

body:
I am bit confused..
I have enabled wgAllowUserJs
Still does not work..
any example of simple js working with this?
Thank you..

On 10/24/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > question overview:
> > Where/How could I add new javascript files into wiki?
> > I would like to add dynamic functions as a part of the header which will
> be
> > static on all pages.
> >
> > details:
> > I have gone in and changed the content under skins/.
> > "Sidebar" now exist as a horizontal navigation bar.
> > What I would like to do is to include a set of javascript funcions and
> call
> > it from Monobook.php
> > (I have just edited the default Monobook.php file) when outputing the
> items.
> >
> > I have tried it on a separte test php file where it echos: "<script
> > type='text/javascript' src='menu.js'>"
> > It works fine on this test run. When added to Monobook.php, it stops
> > working.
> >
> > I have also tried to delete all content form Monobook.php to nothing but
> > just the javascript include and hard-code definition of the sidebar
> items &
> > its dropdown menu
> > (pretty much the same as the test run php file from above) but the
> > javascript capability is still
> > lost.  I have checked paths of these files and am sure that it works
> outside
> > of wiki...
> >
> > Any inputs would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Thank you
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
> Just modify the page MediaWiki:Monobook.js in-wiki.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body:
Stephen Streater wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006, at 22:45, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:51:58 -0700, "George Herbert"
>> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> the Red Menace strikes again.
>>>
>> Shout it clear, shout it loud, we are [[WP:ROUGE]] and we are proud.
>>
>> And now back to rehearsing Mr. Beethoven's fiendish Missa Solemnis.
>>
>
> Is there a concert coming up?
>
Everyday 8 pm, at RFC. Most nights feature the World's Smallest
Violins(tm), as seen under an electron microscope, while the Missa
Solemnis is to be musical accompaniment for the next userbox war.

:-)

Stan


list: textbook-l

subject: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

body:
Sanford Forte wrote:

>I want to second everything that Jimmy Wales has said.
>
<*snip*>

>
>That said, it bears repeating that public K-12 schools in America
>will generally adopt ONLY those books that have been peer reviewed at
>the state level, and approved for having met each particular state's
>individual curriculum requirements. (some states don't require
>curriculum frameworks, but follow other state's standards - an issue
>that relates to the private school scenario, mentioned below)
>
>Whether any of us agree with what those curriculum requirements are,
>is entirely beside the point - as regards the success of the open
>source effort in K-12 public schools in America. (it's a somewhat
>different story in other countries, but challenging in somewhat
>similar ways).
>
>If someone wants to write a non-standards-based approach to a K-12
>subject for *private* schools, go right ahead. In doing so, be aware
>that that open source book will NOT be adopted en masse, by any large
>entity. It will be a one-at-a-time adoption, by one school at a time
>(as by public schools in states without curriculum standards,
>mentioned above)
>
>The great irony here is that many people who participate in open
>source content directed at public education are thinking not only of
>the efficiencies and economies that can be brought to the public
>education enterprise, they are also passionately concerned with the
>quality of the K-12 enterprise. The latter impulse tends to drive
>open source projects to the imagined ideal for a particular topic,
>rather than following the strict adherence to curriculum framework
>rules mentioned above - with the ultimate result that the work
>doesn't get considered for large-scale adoption What results is
>something that the schools won't use.
>
>This is an irony because if we can simply find ways to play by the
>framework rules to begin with, we will get books written, published,
>and adopted, en masse. Once that's accomplished, it will provide an
>opening into opportunities to impact curriculum with open source
>curriculum materials.
>
<*snip*>

>
>A final note: Content is no longer the problem - we now understand
>what the content rules are, and need only to have the will to execute
>projects based on those rules. The forward challenges for open source
>K-12 publishing are constraints in content filtering, actual print
>publishing, and effective distribution. Thus, the California Open
>Source Textbook Project will continue - as it has in the last year -
>to alter its primary focus from one of proselytizing for content
>construction in specific ways, to a focus on innovative means to
>solving the latter group of problems just mentioned. Stay tuned.
>
>Cheers,
>Sanford
>
>Sanford Forte, Director
>California Open Source Textbook Project
>Palo Alto, CA
>http://www.opensourcetext.org
>
>

I want to point out here that there is a sort of disconnect between the
typical users and participants of Wikibooks and those who are involved
with academia.  The books that have been most popular on Wikibooks in
terms of content development either have a strong technological
orientation to them (the Technology and Computer Science bookshelves are
quite full and have been subdivided several times over the history of
Wikibooks) or are focused on linguistics.  Of these, I think it would be
the linguistics books like [[b:German]] or [[b:Spanish]] that are
perhaps closest to being ready for a K-12 academic standards and
submitted for professional peer review such as what you have mentioned.
 Even then, there is some final polish and meeting specific curriculum
requirements that would prove to be useful if were to use these as
formal textbooks.

As for the technology books, this is clearly an area where submittal to
an academic review board is not needed for being widely used.  All you
have to do is go down to your nearest bookstore and see a major
technology section filled with similar kinds of books.  Already the
[[b:Blender 3D]] book is one of the leading books of any kind on the
(admittedly narrow) subject.  And there are some other gems that perhaps
could use just a minor amount of polish and be usable in a college
classroom environment.

So the question comes on how can Wikibooks be used to help push forward
the development and publication of a K-12 school textbook.  I do believe
that some changes could take place on a number of pages on Wikibooks
(mainly introduction pages and perhaps even the front page) that would
help encourage Wikibooks participants to try and meet specific academic
requirements.  One thing to keep in mind is that Wikibooks participants
come from a huge range of nationalities.  Of even just Americans working
on Wikibooks, I'm not even sure that two regular participants are from
the same state, which causes some minor problems in terms of trying to
determine what academic standards ought to be met.

As far as finding ways to get physical publication of content
accomplished, that is certainly something that I think applies not just
to school textbooks, but almost all open source content in general.  New
business rules will have to be developed, and perhaps even new laws
enacted or at least new interpretations of existing copyright laws and
how they apply with this sort of content as printed media.  While groups
like Lulu Press certainly help out, building the infrastructure to get
this working is not going to be easy and there are only skattered pieces
available at the moment.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body:
On 10/24/06, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is that 8pm UTC?
>

In typical damatic fashion, there will be a local chapter concert in every
timezone around the globe at 8pm local time.  As particularly appropriate,
the concerts in regions without a local chapter will be held by the mobile
Redlink Players.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 10/24/06, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is that 8pm UTC?
>>
>>
>
> In typical damatic fashion,
Tsk tsk, may I remind you of [[WP:NOWC]].

(That's "No original word coinage", for the uninitiated)

Stan


from_name: Toira

subject: [Wikitech-l] Need a developer for a Kabyle wiki

body:
Hello everybody,

Our request to have a wikipedia in the Kabyle Berber language have been aproved
by an administrator :

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TUF-KAT

On this page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requests_for_new_languages/Kabyle

The use/admin TUF-KAT said we need to ask a developer to do the rest, here we
are ;-)

Can anybody do it? thanks in advance.


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.

body:
On 10/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your conduct was as far from civil as possible.

On 24/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... jack shit ... dickwad ... Shittopedia ... shit ... crap ... shit ...

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


list: foundation-l

from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong Kong

body:
I am looking the new chapters and I have seen that there is the
project of creation of Wikimedia Hong Kong.

I don't understand if this creation is correct considering that
Hong Kong will be completely integrated in mainland of China in the
2047.

Ilario


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
You know, it's not that hard to just SPELL THINGS OUT.

Can't stand these acronyms. Never could, never will.

What the hell is BITE?

--an old timer

On 10/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/10/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
> > If we have too steep or long a learning
> > curve - by for example needing to know
> > fifty pages of policy, guidelines and process
> > to get started - content people will be put off
> > at the expense of process people. It's easy
> > for long timers to forget that the system was
> > much simpler when they joined.
>
>
> I came along in early 2004 and am reluctant to call myself a "long
> timer", but I seem to be compared to many. It seemed a lot simpler.
>
> Policy and process has to be trivially derivable from the very few
> fundamental processes, or people won't be able to remember it. NPOV,
> NOR, V, AGF, NPA. And let's add BITE. That's six pieces of jargon, but
> six is enough to remember. Six fundamental policies, you could write
> above your monitor for continuous reference.
>
>
> - 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
>


body:
Ok... and in this case can also South Tyrol create its own chapter
considering that he has the some autonomy that Hong Kong and it not
will finish in 2047?

...and also Guernesey, Man, Shark....

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: shimgray at gmail.com
Data: 24.10.06 18.19
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong
Kong

>
> I don't understand if this creation is correct considering that
> Hong Kong will be completely integrated in mainland of China in
the
> 2047.

2047 is a long, long time away. When it comes, we can cross that
bridge.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> You know, it's not that hard to just SPELL THINGS OUT.
>
> Can't stand these acronyms. Never could, never will.
>
> What the hell is BITE?

Don't bite the newbies.

Our one non-acronymed policy. ;)

-Phil


body:
Why?

If the chapter must have a legal basis and legal ability it must be
founded on "jurisdictional" basis.

The rule is based on jurisdiction and not in the countries border.

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: smoddy at gmail.com
Data: 24.10.06 19.01
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong
Kong

On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying
to do.
> >
> > Delphine
>

Delphine was quite clearly not saying this was a hard-and-fast
rule.
Obviously these things should be taken case-by-case.

There's no need to pick holes in everything anyone says.  It's very
impolite.


from_name: ikiroid

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body: Is that 8pm UTC?


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 24/10/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> I am looking the new chapters and I have seen that there is the
> project of creation of Wikimedia Hong Kong.
>
> I don't understand if this creation is correct considering that
> Hong Kong will be completely integrated in mainland of China in the
> 2047.

2047 is a long, long time away. When it comes, we can cross that bridge.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
There are new ones being invented all the time.  I've been around not
quite as long as Cunc, but share his view on acronyms.  I often have to
ask myself whether it's worth knowing what each one is.  Abbreviations,
like complicated templates can.  They're like a set of secret codes that
one needs to know in order to join the cabal.  That's very unfriendly to
newbies who just want to add content, and don't have Cunc's thick skin.

Ec

The Cunctator wrote:

>You know, it's not that hard to just SPELL THINGS OUT.
>
>Can't stand these acronyms. Never could, never will.
>
>What the hell is BITE?
>
>--an old timer
>
>On 10/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 08/10/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we have too steep or long a learning
>>>curve - by for example needing to know
>>>fifty pages of policy, guidelines and process
>>>to get started - content people will be put off
>>>at the expense of process people. It's easy
>>>for long timers to forget that the system was
>>>much simpler when they joined.
>>>
>>>
>>I came along in early 2004 and am reluctant to call myself a "long
>>timer", but I seem to be compared to many. It seemed a lot simpler.
>>
>>Policy and process has to be trivially derivable from the very few
>>fundamental processes, or people won't be able to remember it. NPOV,
>>NOR, V, AGF, NPA. And let's add BITE. That's six pieces of jargon, but
>>six is enough to remember. Six fundamental policies, you could write
>>above your monitor for continuous reference.
>>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

body:
Sanford Forte wrote:
> If someone wants to write a non-standards-based approach to a K-12
> subject for *private* schools, go right ahead. In doing so, be aware
> that that open source book will NOT be adopted en masse, by any large
> entity. It will be a one-at-a-time adoption, by one school at a time
> (as by public schools in states without curriculum standards,
> mentioned above)

And outside of Christian schools, who might be actively seeking an
alternative to secular texts, there is not much reason for most private
schools to want to deviate a lot from state standards.

And I suspect that our NPOV approach to the world is not really going to
work very well for most Christian schools.  (Though, non-NPOV forks of
our basic work might succeed.  Someone else will have to make those,
though, for the obvious reasons.)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body:
Stephen Streater wrote:

>On 24 Oct 2006, at 22:45, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:51:58 -0700, "George Herbert"
>><george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the Red Menace strikes again.
>>>
>>>
>>Shout it clear, shout it loud, we are [[WP:ROUGE]] and we are proud.
>>
>>And now back to rehearsing Mr. Beethoven's fiendish Missa Solemnis.
>>
>>
>Is there a concert coming up?
>
No.  Solemnly sending is just his way of trying to compensate for the
dis-concert-ing experiences that he often encounters.

Ec


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/24/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> Ok... and in this case can also South Tyrol create its own chapter
> considering that he has the some autonomy that Hong Kong and it not
> will finish in 2047?
>
> ...and also Guernesey, Man, Shark....

Gibraltar would be a more interesting case

In any event Hong Kong declares independence after the Chinese civil
war of 2020 (noted as being the first civil war in which nukes play a
part).

Trying to set up a firm policy of one chapter per country is a really
bad idea since it gives us the problem of trying to define what a
country is.
--
geni


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Javascript

body:
On 10/24/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> question overview:
> Where/How could I add new javascript files into wiki?
> I would like to add dynamic functions as a part of the header which will be
> static on all pages.
>
> details:
> I have gone in and changed the content under skins/.
> "Sidebar" now exist as a horizontal navigation bar.
> What I would like to do is to include a set of javascript funcions and call
> it from Monobook.php
> (I have just edited the default Monobook.php file) when outputing the items.
>
> I have tried it on a separte test php file where it echos: "<script
> type='text/javascript' src='menu.js'>"
> It works fine on this test run. When added to Monobook.php, it stops
> working.
>
> I have also tried to delete all content form Monobook.php to nothing but
> just the javascript include and hard-code definition of the sidebar items &
> its dropdown menu
> (pretty much the same as the test run php file from above) but the
> javascript capability is still
> lost.  I have checked paths of these files and am sure that it works outside
> of wiki...
>
> Any inputs would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

Just modify the page MediaWiki:Monobook.js in-wiki.


body:
On 10/24/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Trying to set up a firm policy of one chapter per country is a really
> > bad idea since it gives us the problem of trying to define what a
> > country is.
>
>
> Hence the reason why we are not trying.
>
> One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying to do.
>
> Delphine

Even that doesn't work (see transnistria) and then there is the issue
that Kaliningrad and Vladivostok are under the same jurisdiction.

--
geni


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying to do.
> >
> > Delphine
>
>
> Even that doesn't work (see transnistria) and then there is the issue
> that Kaliningrad and Vladivostok are under the same jurisdiction.

Delphine was quite clearly not saying this was a hard-and-fast rule.
Obviously these things should be taken case-by-case.

There's no need to pick holes in everything anyone says.  It's very impolite.

--
Sam


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] Gooooooogle

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> I have a couple of persistent problem users on my watchlist at the
> moment, both of whom persistently obfuscate the titles of articles
> they created and which have since been deleted, in an attempt to keep
> their shenanigans off the Google results for the subjects (Ecopave and
> Patrick Buri for the interested).
>
> Is there any merit in requesting a change so that user and project
> space are excluded from the Google indexing?  What about
> deleted-protected?

I would support only having article and portal space indexed, not even
having talk pages indexed.  Is there a way of doing it so it would be
picked up across mirrors too?  I have no idea of how it's done beyond
the no robots or something command in the headers.  I have a feeling
this is a perennial though.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/494 - Release Date: 24/10/06


subject: [Wikitech-l] Javascript

body:
On 10/24/06, Liz Kim <lizkim270 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am bit confused..
> I have enabled wgAllowUserJs
> Still does not work..
> any example of simple js working with this?
> Thank you..

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js for an example
of use.  $wgUseSiteJs needs to be true, but it appears to be enabled
by default, so that should work.  I believe this feature was added in
1.5; if you aren't at least at that version, it would probably be a
good idea to upgrade.


body:
On 10/24/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> Why?
>
> If the chapter must have a legal basis and legal ability it must be
> founded on "jurisdictional" basis.
>
> The rule is based on jurisdiction and not in the countries border.

Geni pointed out some problems in the one-chapter-per-juristiction
approach.  I pointed out that Delphine had not suggested such a thing
as a hard and fast rule.

Obviously chapters must have reference to juristictions for legal reasons.

--
Sam


body:
On 24/10/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> Ok... and in this case can also South Tyrol create its own chapter
> considering that he has the some autonomy that Hong Kong and it not
> will finish in 2047?
>
> ...and also Guernesey, Man, Shark....

[shrug] If legal and practical reasons in the relevant jurisdictions
make it practical and desirable to set up Wikimedia Guernsey, then
yes, there's no reason we wouldn't set up that chapter. I am assuming
that, currently, Hong Kong is a sensible and viable option, even if it
will not remain so forever.

This isn't some kind of one-chapter-per-country, or
one-per-geographic-unit, it's an attempt to set up local chapters on a
sensible scale on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, this will mean
subnational entities; in other cases, it may mean regional ones.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Gooooooogle

body:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Steve Block wrote:

> I would support only having article and portal space indexed, not even
> having talk pages indexed.

I would support that as well.

-- Jossi


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Emails as factual confirmations

body:
> From: SPUI <drspui at gmail.com>
>
> I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their
> data shows:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%
> 29#SQUIDWARD.21
> The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it;
> is he
> correct?

Well, yes, technically it is.

Sending something to your email inbox is not a "publication," and
there's no direct way for me to access your email inbox.

Now, personally I've used email queries to get facts straight, and
have sometimes quoted these emails (with permission) on talk pages.
For example, it wasn't too clear from published sources whether the
Babson Globe on the Babson College campus in Needham does or does not
rotate _as of 2006_, and I queried Babson to resolve the ambiguity; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Babson_College#Phrasing_claim_for_the_Babson_Globe

This has held up mostly because not many people care deeply about the
fact, and other editors have been willing to accept this. It wouldn't
hold up against an editor that seriously challenged it.


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
If you live there, and find enough people who want that as well, you
can think about it. I can imagine very well that in very big countries
such as china, russia, US etc a number of chapters could be set up
anyway. It is not reaonable to have general assemblees for your hobby
where you have to fly for several hours to attend. so, when there are
enought people, they can make a proposal for the chapters committee I
guess :)

Lodewijk

2006/10/24, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch>:
> Ok... and in this case can also South Tyrol create its own chapter
> considering that he has the some autonomy that Hong Kong and it not
> will finish in 2047?
>
> ...and also Guernesey, Man, Shark....
>
> Ilario
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: shimgray at gmail.com
> Data: 24.10.06 18.19
> A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong
> Kong
>
> >
> > I don't understand if this creation is correct considering that
> > Hong Kong will be completely integrated in mainland of China in
> the
> > 2047.
>
> 2047 is a long, long time away. When it comes, we can cross that
> bridge.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Delphine Ménard

body:
On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Trying to set up a firm policy of one chapter per country is a really
> bad idea since it gives us the problem of trying to define what a
> country is.

Hence the reason why we are not trying.

One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying to do.

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


body:
On 10/24/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Delphine was quite clearly not saying this was a hard-and-fast rule.
> Obviously these things should be taken case-by-case.
>
> There's no need to pick holes in everything anyone says.  It's very impolite.

I admit to being a Falsificationist.

I don't like baseing stuff around countries or jurisdictions because
that risks furthering nationalism which is the cause of some of our
more persistent edit wars.

Instead I would prefer that chapters were based around logistics of
transport, population, and comunication (languages). Not of course in
many cases this will give a result that lines up with existing
boarders either national or sub-national but I would dislike makeing
such a link explicit.

--
geni


body:
There are many ways of seeing jurisdictions. I thought Russia was
formally a federal republic btw? But otherwise you could also take
provinces if you'd like. or states. I think as long as it is one law,
and it is clear where the chapter stops being a chapter.

Lodewijk

2006/10/24, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com>:
> On 10/24/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > If the chapter must have a legal basis and legal ability it must be
> > founded on "jurisdictional" basis.
> >
> > The rule is based on jurisdiction and not in the countries border.
>
> Geni pointed out some problems in the one-chapter-per-juristiction
> approach.  I pointed out that Delphine had not suggested such a thing
> as a hard and fast rule.
>
> Obviously chapters must have reference to juristictions for legal reasons.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

body:
geni napisa?(a):
> On 10/24/06, Delphine M?nard wrote:
>> On 10/24/06, geni wrote:
>>
>>> Trying to set up a firm policy of one chapter per country is a really
>>> bad idea since it gives us the problem of trying to define what a
>>> country is.
>>
>> Hence the reason why we are not trying.
>>
>> One chapter per "jurisdiction" is closer to what we are trying to do.
>>
> Even that doesn't work (see transnistria) and then there is the issue
> that Kaliningrad and Vladivostok are under the same jurisdiction.

I would approach this from a more practical angle, i.e. do we *need* a
chapter in a given territory?

Hong Kong: Yes, it is/will eventually be China. Go ahead and try to set
up a non-profit tied to a US-based Foundation in mainland China. :) If
we can have Honk Kong instead, lets do it.

Poland: WMPL has been set up and is doing fine. We could go for a
sub-chapter in each voivodship but right now that doesn't make any sense
(and probably never will ;)).

US: Being the huuuge country that they are, the US might benefit from a
more local (e.g. state-level) structure than most smaller countries (see
Poland above).

So, to answer Illario's question about South Tyrol with a question of my
own: Is South Tyrol within the 'reach' of WMIT? If so, I would be
inclined to say no to a South Tyrol chapter. If not, however, a new
chapter (possibly a subdivision of WMIT) would be something to consider.

--
TOR


body:
>
> No becuase logistics issues would kick in
>
> The languages thing with to deal with the problem of countires
like
> say India where it is quite posible that people would not share
a
> common language
>

It is quite possible the opposite position: they will probably
speak in english (that is the "lingua franca" of India).

> Switerland has German, French, Italian, and Romansh that I know
of. I
> don't know how bi/trilingual people are in Switzerland.

They speak in english or in german. In Europe you can easily find
persons who speak three languages without problems.

>
> While logicists will most require that to the case there are
logical
> exceptions (any kurdish speaking chapter would probably have to
be
> based in northen Iraq although sadly I suspect it will be a long
time
> before that becomes an issue).

In any case it's important to be recognized outside your nation
with a legal value. My question was based in this mean... if the
Wikimedia Hong Kong is recognized in any country as an association
with legal value.

Ilario


subject: [Textbook-l] Textbook development and role of Wikibooks

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> I do have the attitude that the volunteers at Wikibooks have the
> capability of creating the kinds of textbooks that you are looking for,
> Jimbo.  And that other than recruiting more talented wordsmiths we can
> pull off the kinds of ground breaking shifts in the textbook publication
> industry that have only been hinted at so far.

I agree with this completely of course.  I don't know how it can happen,
but a part of what needs to happen is that Wikibooks needs to really
encourage people to make use of the existing frameworks... Sanford can
probably help us by pointing out where to find them on the web, etc.,
and by being here to help start making the right kind of noises to get
them adopted, at least in California, which is one place to start.

--Jimbo


body:
On 10/24/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm somewhat opposed to the concept of basing chapters around e.g.
> languages. Because this would mean, that we'd have for example just
> one "german-language-chapter" covering Germany, Austria and
> Switzerland.

No becuase logistics issues would kick in

The languages thing with to deal with the problem of countires like
say India where it is quite posible that people would not share a
common language

Switerland has German, French, Italian, and Romansh that I know of. I
don't know how bi/trilingual people are in Switzerland.

> So I'd propose a kind of "one judicature per chapter" (note the word
> order) system.

While logicists will most require that to the case there are logical
exceptions (any kurdish speaking chapter would probably have to be
based in northen Iraq although sadly I suspect it will be a long time
before that becomes an issue).

--
geni


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] svn server down?

body:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Travis Derouin wrote:
> I can't seem to connect today:
>
> http://svn.wikimedia.org/

Yes, apache has crashed. It's being worked on. Thanks for your report!

Regards,

	jens


from_name: Michael Bimmler

body:
On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Instead I would prefer that chapters were based around logistics of
> transport, population, and comunication (languages).
I'm somewhat opposed to the concept of basing chapters around e.g.
languages. Because this would mean, that we'd have for example just
one "german-language-chapter" covering Germany, Austria and
Switzerland. You know what was the very initial reason to set up an
independent Swiss chapter? Tax deductibility of donations. If there is
an association is Germany or in the USA, Swiss (and Austrian) people
are less likely to donate money, as they can't deduce it from taxes.
Of course, this would be the same problem with an "english-language"
chapter or a "french-language" chapter or a population-based chapter
("Alaska+Canada") or a transport-based chapter (I can't find an
example here).
Further, much legal things are easier, if the association is based
there where it operates (not only tax deductibility but also doing
marketing, renting locations, all the postal mail stuff [postage] and
so on).
So I'd propose a kind of "one judicature per chapter" (note the word
order) system. This means, one chapter cannot serve / operate in
several countries, but there is still the possibility of
"sub-chapters" in different parts of the country (think of "Wikimedia
Suisse Romandie" or "Wikimedia US Pacific Coast" or "Wikimedia North
Germany" or whatever)

Regards
Michael

>Not of course in
> many cases this will give a result that lines up with existing
> boarders either national or sub-national but I would dislike makeing
> such a link explicit.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Chris Picone

subject: [WikiEN-l] CC-BY-SA suitable for Wikipedia?

body:
How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content
is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?


body:
Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL,
right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer
in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?

On 10/24/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content
> > is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?
>
> The *text* is GFDL, not all content. If we put a CC image in an
> article, we are just redistributing it, one of the cornerstones of the
> Creative Commons licenses.
>
> Why would it be a problem?
>
> --Oskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Articles for

body:
On 10/24/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> Surely having an article on every "Rugrats" episode ever (to pick a
> random example) is overkill?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rugrats_episodes
>
> The list begins as a plain list but descends into a morass of redlinks.

Merge, merge, merge. There's no compelling reason why all these
substubs need separate articles. Better to lump them together, so the
cruft can stay but stay contained.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
On 10/24/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm somewhat opposed to the concept of basing chapters around e.g.
> > languages. Because this would mean, that we'd have for example just
> > one "german-language-chapter" covering Germany, Austria and
> > Switzerland.
>
> No becuase logistics issues would kick in
>
> The languages thing with to deal with the problem of countires like
> say India where it is quite posible that people would not share a
> common language
>
> Switerland has German, French, Italian, and Romansh that I know of. I
> don't know how bi/trilingual people are in Switzerland.
depends... You are supposed to learn a second language (usu french for
german-speakers and german/italian for french-speakers) in school but
this doesn't mean you're biligual afterwards... There is a slight
tendency to communicate rather in English.
>
> > So I'd propose a kind of "one judicature per chapter" (note the word
> > order) system.
>
> While logicists will most require that to the case there are logical
> exceptions (any kurdish speaking chapter would probably have to be
> based in northen Iraq although sadly I suspect it will be a long time
> before that becomes an issue).
Truly so.
Michael
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

body:
>I want to point out here that there is a sort of disconnect between the
>typical users and participants of Wikibooks and those who are involved
>with academia.  The books that have been most popular on Wikibooks in
>terms of content development either have a strong technological
>orientation to them

I would argue that many of the technology and computer-related books are
poorly organized, and are in severe need of help (even if they contain alot
of content, and are numerous). A look at the list of the "books near
completion" and [[b:Featured books]] shows a much more homogenous
distribution across the various disciplines. Many people are inclined to
start new books on technology subjects, but we don't have enough authors
with enough expertise in those topics to really get the books to a
near-completed status.

>Even then, there is some final polish and meeting specific curriculum
>requirements that would prove to be useful if were to use these as
>formal textbooks.

Perhaps it would benefit everybody to list specifically what the standards
are? This would make an excellent addition to [[b:Wikistudy]], to list not
only books that meet specific standards, but also list the standards
themselves from around the world.

>So the question comes on how can Wikibooks be used to help push forward
>the development and publication of a K-12 school textbook.  I do believe
>that some changes could take place on a number of pages on Wikibooks
>(mainly introduction pages and perhaps even the front page) that would
>help encourage Wikibooks participants to try and meet specific academic
>requirements.

A good solution perhaps would be to write books with a large amount of
general information on a topic, and then prepare different
Tables-Of-Contents and "Printable versions" of each book that would be
targeted at different audiences. In essence, we could transclude the
existing pages in different orders. This would save us from having to write
multiple versions of the same books. Each different jurisdiction then can
simply specify which subjects, and in which order to have the information
presented.

>As far as finding ways to get physical publication of content
>accomplished, that is certainly something that I think applies not just
>to school textbooks, but almost all open source content in general.

It does seem like a waste to prepare "printable versions" of a book, if we
can't find an organized way to actually print and distribute them. If copies
are distributed at the cost of materials, and there is no profit, I don't
quite see how there would be any complications from the distribution
process. Do we have/could we get support from the WMF to actually use
Wikimedia logos/trademarks in these distributed works? I seem to remember
that was a major hangup last time.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with
Live Search!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Gooooooogle

references:
<0ksrj2da1oi4rndt3d240k6dfkdoc07bui@4ax.com>
	<453E4949.1040207@myrealbox.com> <ehlku1$7pl$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
I'm with Nguyen. It would be a shame to have problem users take away a
useful tool.
Google is very useful to look for Ref desk answers for example. The
Wikipedia search engine is usually crap. Besides, why worry if they try to
keep their shenanigans off google. We have other ways of finding out and if
it's not on Google less people will find the crap by accident.

Mgm

On 10/24/06, Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Block wrote:
> > Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >> I have a couple of persistent problem users on my watchlist at the
> >> moment, both of whom persistently obfuscate the titles of articles
> >> they created and which have since been deleted, in an attempt to keep
> >> their shenanigans off the Google results for the subjects (Ecopave and
> >> Patrick Buri for the interested).
> >>
> >> Is there any merit in requesting a change so that user and project
> >> space are excluded from the Google indexing?  What about
> >> deleted-protected?
> >
> > I would support only having article and portal space indexed, not even
> > having talk pages indexed.  Is there a way of doing it so it would be
> > picked up across mirrors too?  I have no idea of how it's done beyond
> > the no robots or something command in the headers.  I have a feeling
> > this is a perennial though.
> >
> > Steve block
>
> Would it be possible to set up a Google Sitemap that gives very low
> priority to project-space pages? I often find it useful to search for
> project pages at Wikipedia, but the built-in search engine doesn't
> support some querying features that Google does, like placing phrases in
> quotes.
>
> --
> Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
> [[en:User:Mxn]] [[vi:User:Mxn]] [[m:User:Mxn]]
> AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

body:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:51:58 -0700, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>the Red Menace strikes again.

Shout it clear, shout it loud, we are [[WP:ROUGE]] and we are proud.

And now back to rehearsing Mr. Beethoven's fiendish Missa Solemnis.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 10/24/06, valdelli at bluemail.ch <valdelli at bluemail.ch> wrote:
> It is quite possible the opposite position: they will probably
> speak in english (that is the "lingua franca" of India).

Amoung certian groups. Less so in others.

> They speak in english or in german. In Europe you can easily find
> persons who speak three languages without problems.

I'm aparently in europe.

Other examples of langue issues would be parts of africa and china.

--
geni


from_name: Bogdan Giusca

subject: [WikiEN-l] Gooooooogle

body:
Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 2:26:18 PM, Guy wrote:

> Is there any merit in requesting a change so that user and project
> space are excluded from the Google indexing?  What about
> deleted-protected?

I often find useful to use google to search in the talk
page/user/project space. Maybe they should have a much lower
rank, but for that we should talk to the google guys. :-)


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/24/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't bite the newbies.
>
> Our one non-acronymed policy. ;)
>
> -Phil

OWN?

Fortunely typeing WP:whatever will normaly tell you what the person means.

Of course there are a few odities such as [[WP:WTF]] and [[WP:ORLY]]

--
geni


from_name: Toira

body:
In Algeria, Kabyle is taught in the latin alphabet
(schools/university). All experts in the kabyle
language use the latin alphabet (mouloud mammeri,
salim chaker, inalco, acad?mie berb?re...etc),
and all kabyle websites who write in
kabyle write it in the latin alphabet.
(www.imyura.net or tamazight.fr for example)

All those who are willing to participate
 have studied the grammar of the kabyle
language in the latin alphabet (including me),
so obviously the kabyle wiki will
be written in latin.

But if you want me to develop some arguments
 on why we prefer the latin alphabet
over the tifinagh or cyrillic or chinese
 or hebrew or eventually arabic
alphabet, here they are:

-We are a little people of 3 millions
in Kabylie (6 if we add the diaspora), so
we choosing the most practical solution :
 the latin alphabet. Just have a look
at the kurdi wikipedia which uses the
 latin and arabic alphabet, 99% of the
articles are in the latin alphabet, and
 less than 1% are in the arabic script.
Also note that the number of kurdi-speaking
people is the tenth of that of the
arabic-speaking people but the kurdi wiki
 have more articles than the arabic
wiki, add to this paradox the fact
that 99% of kurds never studied their
language because the states where kurds
live do not promote the kurdi-language.
 facts prove that the latin alphabet is
 much more practical and efficient.

-Modern Tifinagh works exactly like
the latin alphabet, it is written from left
to right and has vowels, so it is easily
 convertible to latin with the use of a
software (it would take less than one
second for the whole process). but as I
said earlier we seek efficiency in both
real world and internet. No one's going
to read the articles in the tifinagh
 alphabet... and especially write them
 on a paper.
I have an experience of 5 years writing
with the tifinagh alphabet, but still,
it takes about 5 seconds to write a word
 in tifinagh but less than 1 second in latin.
 (don't forget that tifinagh dates back to 500 BC,
 so the letters are very primitive, very big,
 and complex to write.. I'd say draw since
they look like geometric figures). Trying
to improve the tifinagh would mean
creating a new alphabet, sincerely we
 do not have the capacity. Also,
"improving" means that it (tifinagh) is used,
 which is not the case.

-As for the rest of the remaining scripts,
 I wonder why we would use them since
we don't even use the one our ancestors used.
 Moreover, 99% of newly written
languages are in latin alphabet, that's because
 it is the most efficent. Do not
get me wrong, I respect the chinese who wants
to keep using the chinese
pictograms, it's good that they keep an
ancestral tradition but I'm not going to
adventure my language which is very,
 very weak into more troubles.

-some say that because Berber works
like other afro-asiatic language, by knowing
the grammar and some practice, you can
guess 90% of the words' vowels, therefore
 it should use the alphabet used by other
 afro-asiatic languages. This is also
the case for english :

"Many non-Semitic languages such as English
 can be written without vowels and
read with little difficulty. For example,
 the previous sentence could be written"

"Mny nn-Smtc lnggs sch `s `nglsh cn b
wrttn wtht vwls `nd rd wth lttl dffclty."
(example taken from wiki)

but I care a lot for the remaining 10%.
 the second sentence looks pretty much
primitive if you ask me.
Also, not all afrasian languages
use hebrew or arabic alphabet,
for example maltese and ethiopian
 use the latin alphabet. Speaking
about maltese... there 1000 times
more arabs than maltese (300 millions against
0.3 million), but the maltese
wiki has half the number of what the arabic wiki
has as articles.

-I hope I have answered your main question,
and most importantly anticipated
your eventual replys.


from_name: Stephen Streater

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist graft

references:
<429f4f500610231956v5b8a307fy5e38c1f4e4b174d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<hmorj2damvi0s8a9410mlccss4ds22q4kb@4ax.com>
	<38a7bf7c0610241351s6a4a2225g3368ba5ad4e0f907@mail.gmail.com>
	<p92tj2hsnec2vb19vlqkpi4hopnndrfiho@4ax.com>

body:
On 24 Oct 2006, at 22:45, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:51:58 -0700, "George Herbert"
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the Red Menace strikes again.
>
> Shout it clear, shout it loud, we are [[WP:ROUGE]] and we are proud.
>
> And now back to rehearsing Mr. Beethoven's fiendish Missa Solemnis.

Is there a concert coming up?


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Sanford Forte wrote:
>
>
>>If someone wants to write a non-standards-based approach to a K-12
>>subject for *private* schools, go right ahead. In doing so, be aware
>>that that open source book will NOT be adopted en masse, by any large
>>entity. It will be a one-at-a-time adoption, by one school at a time
>>(as by public schools in states without curriculum standards,
>>mentioned above)
>>
>>
>
>And outside of Christian schools, who might be actively seeking an
>alternative to secular texts, there is not much reason for most private
>schools to want to deviate a lot from state standards.
>
>And I suspect that our NPOV approach to the world is not really going to
>work very well for most Christian schools.  (Though, non-NPOV forks of
>our basic work might succeed.  Someone else will have to make those,
>though, for the obvious reasons.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
>
>
Good points Mr. Forte and Jimbo,

Personally I do not think the impetus for change will come from the
within the system unless and until professional teachers and
administrators step up inside those systems and write some GPL'ed
electronic materials that can be free reviewed and shared to save their
employers some tax money.

As I see it, the drive for open source materials comes from self study
home schooling of either kids and/or adults from sheer interest and/or
in attempts to pass valuable certifications.

I devoured everything the public school system in several U.S. states
set before me in accordance with standards and found it a poor
preparation for serious study at university despite high SAT scores.

I think the real benefit of open source textbooks is to serious students
interested in learning, not studying for tests to provide bonuses to
teachers under no child left behind programs.    Their effective use
should result in high SAT scores providing opportunity to join excellent
university programs as well as adequate grounding to allow excellent
performance in first and second year university courses.

In other words, I think Wikibooks NPOV textbooks should be standards
plus, not standards only.   If this is met in some or all K1-K12 cases
by standards only texts with augmenting texts then I think that would
also be satisfactory for serious students, parents, and self study scholars.

Sincerely,
mirwin


from_name: David Monniaux

subject: [Wikitech-l]  a table with links to  commons

body:
I may have been a little unclear: I'm not asking for *image* links but
normal interwiki links to pages on commons. :-)

We have a langlinks table for interwiki links to other languages, but
none for other projects.


from_name: Damian Finol

body:
Hsiang-Tai Chien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to state that due to the political status of Taiwan, it's not
> proper to say "Taiwan from the PRC". Please see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan for more
> information.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> H.T.
> From Taiwan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Damian Finol
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:27 AM
>> To: effeietsanders at gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Some question about Wikimedia Hong Kong
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I see it more like, if a group of people feel socially,
>> culturally, politically or for some other reason, different
>> from other people in their "country" they could create a chapter.
>>
>> For example:
>> Hong Kong and Taiwan from the PRC (maybe Macau too).
>> Puerto Rico from the USA
>> French Guiana from France
>> And maybe (not wanting to start a war here :P) Quebec from Canada.
>>
>> Just examples of my perception.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Damian
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
>  ??????? ? ????????????????
>  http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello H.T.

I'm aware of the political status of Taiwan as the RoC, I was just
making an example, might not have come as I wished, but that's because
my main language isn't English.

Regards,
Damian


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: ScottL

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wish List

body:
   "Historical reference material" is going to go out of date?

SKL

David Goodman wrote:
> They won't stay authoritative very long, unless we were to finance further
> editions as as well.
>
> On 10/24/06, sigmaman <sigmaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mr Wales wanted it, so I am going to give him mine...
>>
>> For me, I see two main areas where the money could be spent:
>>
>> 1- Text books copyright buyouts. Primarily historical reference material.
>>
>> 2- Commisioning original photographic and illustrative content for
>> Wikipedia
>> (under the SA or GFDL, of course).
>>
>> Let's face, $100 million can buy a lot of stuff. Certain established text
>> books being licensed under a SA license would do a world of good.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
>
>
>


from_name: Kevin T

body:
>From my understanding, the founding of a local chapter shall be based more
on the need of local members than relying solely on lingual or political
status of a place. Local chapters enable the local members with a legal
status in getting sponsors, communication with organization.


from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wish List

body:
They won't stay authoritative very long, unless we were to finance further
editions as as well.

On 10/24/06, sigmaman <sigmaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Wales wanted it, so I am going to give him mine...
>
> For me, I see two main areas where the money could be spent:
>
> 1- Text books copyright buyouts. Primarily historical reference material.
>
> 2- Commisioning original photographic and illustrative content for
> Wikipedia
> (under the SA or GFDL, of course).
>
> Let's face, $100 million can buy a lot of stuff. Certain established text
> books being licensed under a SA license would do a world of good.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] please remove my moderating bits

body:
I have to agree with a lot of what you have said.

Every Wikipedia seems to have been best when it was just around 100K
articles. When Wikis go beyond that, they get overregulated, and/or go
crazy in some other way.

I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My
reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other
language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too
hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.

The good admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and
the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.

en.wp has even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain
sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at
them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth,
ED).

Mark

On 25/10/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
> all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
> adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
> having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
> being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
>
> The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
> teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
> other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
> themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
> (the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
> is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
> processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
> (like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
> applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
> the lists (me) it is ignored.
>
> Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
> disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
> But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
> regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
> an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
> got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
> write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
> wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
> fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
> covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
> enforce this.
>
> The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
> and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
> Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
> important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
> everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
> is taking to much time and stress.
>
> Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
> wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
> progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
> blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
> the boss.
>
> Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
> themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
> played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
> much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
> niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
> looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
> and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
> that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
> it, let other people do that job.
>
> On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Javascript

body:
On 10/25/06, Andrew Dunbar <hippytrail at gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that there is one Monobook.js per interface
> language. So if you have users using any language besides
> the default one they will not have access to your JS unless
> you put the same functions in every  version of Monobook.js
> that is being used.

I'm fairly sure this is no longer true: Monobook.js is called via
wfMsgForContent, and so uses the content language and not the
user-selected language.


body:
On 25/10/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have to agree with a lot of what you have said.
> >
> > I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My
> > reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other
> > language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too
> > hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.
>
> I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic.  It's not so
> much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there
> should be one  bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping
> them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping
> people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.

Indeed.

> > The good admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and
> > the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.
>
> I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way.  But some good and
> subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism
> and certain they have the only solutions remain.

Agreed.

> > en.wp has even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain
> > sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at
> > them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth,
> > ED).
>
> Is it a bannable offense?  There should be a special award for people
> who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.

Well, after ED posted an article about User:MONGO which he thoroughly
disliked, he started his campaign against it. Wikitruth and other
similar projects have long been viewed as not good because they were
mostly started by banned users.

Mark


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> How are we allowed to use CC-BY-SA images on Wikipedia if our content
> is GFDL'd, which is entirely incompatible?

The *text* is GFDL, not all content. If we put a CC image in an
article, we are just redistributing it, one of the cornerstones of the
Creative Commons licenses.

Why would it be a problem?

--Oskar


body:
On 10/25/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, if I'm printing Wikipedia, I have to print it under the GFDL,
> right? So I can't use the image. Besides, couldn't some crazy lawyer
> in the future consider the article used by an image "derivative work"?

There is no problem in printing a page with bout CC-BY-SA and GFDL on
it. Aslong as you follow both licenses when you redistibute it. The
images and text just have different licenses, that's all. If you
follow them, you'll be fine.

And no, when you include a picture of an image in an article, you are
not making a derivative work of it. You are redistributing it. That's
it.

--Oskar


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] please remove my moderating bits

body:
Waerth,

I am very sorry to read this.  When you make noise on the foundation
list, for instance, even if it is a bit too much noise, you are not
ignored.  Your comments about verification are a good example...
sometimes it is just hard to answer effectively.

I agree that projects should look more towards cooperation with others
-- other languages and other types of projects.  You are right that
lack of cooperation is a problem.  En:wp has a policy as of this year
not to allow usernames with non-latin character sets. I have no idea
where that came from, but it is a shame.  But this is nothing new --
if I recall correctly, wiktionary was started thanks to division and
bickering about what belongs in an encyclopedia, not solely thanks to
a desire to have separate useful projects...

I hope you will eventually come to have more faith in the long-term
process of rule development, and the long-term motivations of
wikimedians... and that you will still shout, from the sidelines or
the field.

SJ

On 10/25/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
> all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
> adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
> having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
> being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
>
> The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
> teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
> other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
> themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
> (the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
> is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
> processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
> (like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
> applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
> the lists (me) it is ignored.
>
> Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
> disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
> But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
> regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
> an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
> got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
> write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
> wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
> fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
> covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
> enforce this.
>
> The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
> and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
> Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
> important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
> everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
> is taking to much time and stress.
>
> Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
> wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
> progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
> blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
> the boss.
>
> Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
> themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
> played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
> much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
> niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
> looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
> and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
> that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
> it, let other people do that job.
>
> On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l]  please remove my moderating bits

body:
Waerth,

I am very sorry to read this.  When you make noise on the foundation
list, for instance, even if it is a bit too much noise, you are not
ignored.  Your comments about verification are a good example...
sometimes it is just hard to answer effectively.

I agree that projects should look more towards cooperation with others
-- other languages and other types of projects.  You are right that
lack of cooperation is a problem.  En:wp has a policy as of this year
not to allow usernames with non-latin character sets. I have no idea
where that came from, but it is a shame.  But this is nothing new --
if I recall correctly, wiktionary was started thanks to division and
bickering about what belongs in an encyclopedia, not solely thanks to
a desire to have separate useful projects...

I hope you will eventually come to have more faith in the long-term
process of rule development, and the long-term motivations of
wikimedians... and that you will still shout, from the sidelines or
the field.

SJ

On 10/25/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
> all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
> adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
> having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
> being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
>
> The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
> teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
> other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
> themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
> (the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
> is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
> processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
> (like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
> applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
> the lists (me) it is ignored.
>
> Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
> disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
> But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
> regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
> an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
> got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
> write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
> wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
> fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
> covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
> enforce this.
>
> The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
> and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
> Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
> important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
> everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
> is taking to much time and stress.
>
> Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
> wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
> progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
> blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
> the boss.
>
> Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
> themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
> played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
> much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
> niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
> looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
> and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
> that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
> it, let other people do that job.
>
> On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] please remove my moderating bits


body:
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to agree with a lot of what you have said.
>
> I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My
> reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other
> language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too
> hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.

I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic.  It's not so
much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there
should be one  bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping
them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping
people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.

> The good admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and
> the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.

I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way.  But some good and
subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism
and certain they have the only solutions remain.

> en.wp has even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain
> sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at
> them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth,
> ED).

Is it a bannable offense?  There should be a special award for people
who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.

SJ

> On 25/10/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> > I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
> > all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
> > adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
> > having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
> > being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
> >
> > The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
> > teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
> > other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
> > themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
> > (the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
> > is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
> > processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
> > (like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
> > applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
> > the lists (me) it is ignored.
> >
> > Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
> > disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
> > But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
> > regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
> > an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
> > got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
> > write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
> > wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
> > fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
> > covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
> > enforce this.
> >
> > The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
> > and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
> > Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
> > important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
> > everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
> > is taking to much time and stress.
> >
> > Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
> > wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
> > progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
> > blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
> > the boss.
> >
> > Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
> > themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
> > played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
> > much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
> > niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
> > looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
> > and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
> > that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
> > it, let other people do that job.
> >
> > On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> > to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> > on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> > projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> > Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> > only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> > lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
> >
> > Waerth
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
++SJ


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Some nice pieces in the Chronicle of Higher Ed

body:
One long article and a few short essays color the current/upcoming
Chronicle of Higher Education.  They draw on Wikimania, interview
academics interested in contributing (notably Alex Halavais of ancient
misinformation-study infamy, and Elijah Meeks), profs on using WP as a
reference, Jimbo and Larry Sanger.  Overall, well researched if
sparing of detail.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i10/10a03101.htm
"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?"

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10a03501.htm
"Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Now a Critic, Starts Spinoff With Academic Editors"

If you want to ask any questions of Halavais in person, there will be
a live online chat (CHE 2.0?!) Thursday at 3pm EST:
http://chronicle.com/live/2006/10/halavais/

++SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] Other mailing lists to summarise

body:
My heroes.

I hope you tackle wikipedia-l next.  A bit more traffic, but worth it,
and also in spirit a multilingual list.  And you can perhaps gain
economies of scale from the longer average thread length.

SJ

On 10/23/06, Pat Gunn <pgunn at dachte.org> wrote:
> Hello,
> As some of you may have noticed, I, along with a few
> volunteers who showed up, now have LSS (List Summary Service)
> going for foundation-l in English, French, and Spanish:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>
> Earlier when I announced it, I said I'd like to wait to get
> used to the workload before I took on any other lists. I'm
> pretty comfortable with the pace at this point, and would
> be willing to take on another list with roughly the same
> volume -- if anyone can suggest another list important to
> the community that's not too much bigger, I'll start on
> it. If anyone has ideas on how to get more eyes on the
> list summaries, feel free to put them into practice.
>
> I can't speak for the volunteers willingness to take on
> more translation, but I suspect that foundation-l is the
> most important list, for community relations, to translate
> anyhow (and that translated versions are actually more important
> than the English edition because they improve trust between the
> other-language communities and the English-dominated foundation
> folk). The people who stepped up so far are, from the Spanish
> Wikipedia, FAR and Cinabrium, and from the French Wikipedia,
> (:Julien:) and Teofilo (with a few smaller edits from other folk).
>
>
> ---
> Pat Gunn
> mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
> http://dachte.org
> Ceaselessly the river flows, and yet the water is never the same,
> while in the still pools the shifting foam gathers and is gone,
> never staying for a moment.
>         -- Hojoki (poem by 13th century Japanese monk)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
++SJ


from_name: James Hare

body:
Walter, all I can say is, this situation isn't going to get better by you
going away. You need to fight for the good cause and get the idiots (I'm not
mentioning names because I don't know any) to go away.

On 10/25/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking it over and decided to face reality. I have lost
> all my believe in the wikimediaprojects. So much even that I am now
> adding content to places outside of the wikimediaprojects instead of
> having to deal with all the 100000000000000's of procedures and rules
> being implemented by people who do not even know how to write an article.
>
> The projects have been taken over by a group of people, mostly
> teenagers, whom apparently have lost all sight of realism and have taken
> other people's work hostage, without creating one bit of content
> themselves. Who feel that adding templates, writing rules and policing
> (the process) is more important than what we set out to do. Also there
> is a very very very strong western bias in the projects. Ideas and
> processes are launched which might work perfectly in a western world
> (like the rules for verification) but which fall flat on their face when
> applied to non-western items. When someone actually rises this point on
> the lists (me) it is ignored.
>
> Also Jimbo's statement that en: wikipedia has covered most subjects
> disappoints me. This might be true for subjects on developed countries.
> But the projects are heavily lacking in the same sort of content with
> regards to the developing world. While every lake in the US probably has
> an article. Most Asian / African / South American countries have barely
> got articles describing these kind of features. And if someone does
> write an article about it, it gets deleted as non-encyclopedic. Also
> wikipedia's become very nationalistic like the nl: wikipedia where a
> fairly large group feels non-Dutch and non-Belgian topics should not be
> covered in the Dutch language edition! And they actually wrote rules to
> enforce this.
>
> The amount of people who only care about their own backyard (the west)
> and wanna delete everything they do not understand has grown to big.
> Also other idiocism like on nl: wikipedia where procedure is 100x more
> important than the smooth running of the project, resulting in an
> everyone can insult everyone situation and no-one get's actually blocked
> is taking to much time and stress.
>
> Jimbo invented the wheel with the wikimedia projects. Unfortunately the
> wheel never evolved, nor will it in the current climate. Every form of
> progress of the projects in something meaningfull and working gets
> blocked or grinded in bureaucracy by a group of people who want to be
> the boss.
>
> Meanwhile on the boardlevel politicians rule who only give a shit about
> themselves and about political games. I have seen many of these games
> played out over the years. Also the projects diversify to much and to
> much new niches where new small groups start that take their particular
> niche hostage (commons being a prime example) are started. Instead of
> looking at how things can co-operate people start their own new kingdoms
> and fiefdoms (like wikitionaryz, which is GerardM's fiefdom) into things
> that are not our core imho. We are about creating content, not spreading
> it, let other people do that job.
>
> On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
>
> Waerth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
Walter van Kalken wrote:
> On some projects I still have moderating bits, I hereby ask the stewards
> to take these bits away as I do not wish to spend to much time anymore
> on the projects, I might shout a bit from the sideline. The wikimedia
> projects will always exist, and the original idea was great.
> Unfortunately Winston Churchill was right .... democracy works in theory
> only. When the masses take over like on our project, the sum gets
> lowered to the level of the masses. Which means herd thinking.
>
>
Walter,

When you say "moderating bits", do you mean your administrator status?
If so, I urge you to withdraw your request. There are, I believe, many
of us "old-time" admins, who stay away from the politics, use our admin
powers sparingly, and  perhaps contribute sparingly. While we may be in
the minority, there may come a time when our presence will be important
to the project again.

In the meantime, keep your admin privileges. They have not (yet) decided
that the privileges can be removed due to lack of use.

-Rich Holton
(Rholton on en.wikipedia)


list: commons-l

from_name: Cary Bass

body:
Hey Gordo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Gordon Joly
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:08 AM
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> Subject: [Commons-l] Picture of the Day criteria.
>
>
>
> Does a Picture of the Day have to be a Featured Picture first?
>
> [[User:Digon3]] seems to think so... did I miss something?
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LoopZilla
>
> aka
>
> Gordo
>

No, it does not.  Given the arbitrariness of late of picking images, many
people feel as if the rules need to change.

Cary


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [Commons-l] Picture of the Day criteria.

body:
Does a Picture of the Day have to be a Featured Picture first?

[[User:Digon3]] seems to think so... did I miss something?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LoopZilla

aka

Gordo