--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> > How many "respected encyclopedias" are updated on a day-by-day basis
> > like Wikipedia is, with a front page that shows current events within
> > minutes of their happening and then the next day replaces them with
> > something else newer?
>
> The process by which we create the encyclopedia this encyclopedia is
> irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is an encyclopedia (the mass majority
> of our users never edit).
The process is entirely relevant. Wikipedia would be a very poor encylopedia
indeed without its Wiki-based community -- Nupedia? Your argument here makes
little sense -- you might equally say that we should remove the "Edit this
page" link because "no other reputable encyclopedia has it".
Fun brings the community together, and the community builds the encyclopedia.
If the joke is harmless and transient, I don't see how we lose here.
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> How many "respected encyclopedias" are updated on a day-by-day basis
> like Wikipedia is, with a front page that shows current events within
> minutes of their happening and then the next day replaces them with
> something else newer?
The process by which we create the encyclopedia this encyclopedia is
irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is an encyclopedia (the mass majority
of our users never edit).
I'll only 'lighten up' if and when Jimbo says this is OK.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
> You're being unreasonable by demanding that a tradition cannot apply to
> Wikipedia unless it also applies to "respected encyclopedias."
> There are no encyclopedias like Wikipedia. Britannica and Encarta don't
> change from one day to the next.
You are the one that said this was a tradition. I called you on that.
> Nonsense. The European toilet paper holder article proposed is a
> transparent hoax and quite harmless. That Wikipedia cannot ever be more
> reliable than its latest edit is intuitively understood by all readers, so
> let's not foster the false impression that the situation is otherwise.
That is not an article. If I find it or any other hoax in the article
namespace, then I'll delete it on sight (might move it to BJAODN).
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
mgm wrote
>Nope, things are working fine for me. Have you got a cookie installed
>that keeps you logged into Wikipedia?
As I said, the problem is not logging in -- I am logged in automatically,
and when I use other links (e.g. to my watchlist or to an article) I have
no problems. It is only when I try to access my "user contributions" that
I am logged out, and the user contributions is missing all of my
contributions starting 3/27. If I am at my "user contribution" page and
re-log in, I get a message that the login was successful. When I try to
return to "special:contributions," however, I get the message "No Target:
You have not specified a target page or user to perform this function on."
The problem involves my user contribution page only, and it has been almost
four days.
I do not have any other problems.
Also, I figured that no one else is having this problem since no one else
has posted. But that doesn't change the fact that I am having this
problem. Can anyone help me?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Tony Sidaway said:
>Absolutely. Why is this word so taboo? We all censor.
We all attempt to make the facts reflect the what we think is the truth.
Censorship isn't that. Censorship is attempting to make the body of
facts reflect a POV we wish to present as the truth. Censorship is
hiding the truth for other reasons. It's a dirty word because it's also
political, and generally unconstitutional; the censorship is meant to
promote a particularly religious view of a moral issue that should be
innocuous in a free society. It's an attack on the freedom of the
speaker by a body purporting a higher knowledge of morality.
Not all of us censor. It should be a taboo.
--Blair
For the past few days, whenever I hit "user contributions" I am taken to my
user contribution page, BUT the most recent contribution listed is from
19:05, 27 Mar 2005 (I have made many edits since then). Also, it seems to
have logged me out in the process, as "create an account/log in" appears in
the upper right-hand corner of my screen (in place of the usual choices:
Slrubenstein My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log
out). When I log back in, and try to go the "user contributions," the same
thing happens.
This does not happen why I go to my watchlist or other pages, only when I
go to my user contribution page.
Does anyone know what is going on, and what I can do?
Thanks,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Magnus Manske schrieb:
> I would like to remind everyone that the German Wikipedia has
> just been published on a combined CD-DVD-set, at a price of
> about 10 Euros.
Where can I order a copy? I don't know German, but some of my colleagues
probably do.
And did you do the programming and configuration for that DVD? You are
certainly keeping busy; how do you find the time?
Gratefully,
Ed Poor
Hi,
OK. However, in the page I read:
"The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository
for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and
spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project"
It seems like a spot for Music and visual arts, more than computer
articles...
Please remember that we don't mind changing the license of the articles
if we need to!
Is Wikipedia Commons really the best spot for non-encyclopedia articles?
Bye!
Merc.
On 29/03/2005, at 5:27 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
> Tony, you're right, it seems wikicommons is probably a better fit,
> since it supports more than just GFDL, and has Creative Commons
> licenses.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:45:29 +0800, Tony Mobily IMAP <merc(a)mobily.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> From the Welcome page:
>>
>> Welcome to Wikisource. This site is a repository of source texts in
>> any
>> language which are either in the public domain, or are released under
>> the GNU Free Documentation License. The site is part of the Wikimedia
>> foundation and is a sister project of Wikipedia, which is a
>> multilingual project to create a complete and accurate, free content
>> encyclopedia.
>>
>> It only talks about GNU FDL, not Verbatim.
>>
>> Is the page not up-to-date?
>>
>> Merc.
>>
>>
>> On 29/03/2005, at 2:01 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>
>>> You might want to take a look at Wikisource, which is a repository
>>> for
>>> verbatim content.
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:54:38 +0800, Tony Mobily IMAP
>>> <merc(a)mobily.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> My name is Tony Mobily. I am the Editor In Chief of Free Software
>>>> Magazine (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com).
>>>>
>>>> Our magazine has articles about free software and free culture in
>>>> general. All our articles are released under a free license (Cretive
>>>> Common, GFDL or Verbatim Only) 6 weeks after the magazine is out.
>>>> I KNOW that a Verbatim Only license is hardly free, but it's our
>>>> current option for "opinionated" articles about a specific subject.
>>>>
>>>> Some of my authors told me that some of the articles would be
>>>> perfect
>>>> as follow-up articles to wikipedia entries. The beauty of this is
>>>> that
>>>> the follow-up articles themselves would be editable, and would
>>>> therefore stay "alive".
>>>>
>>>> For example he article "Format Wars"
>>>> (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_01/
>>>> focus_format_history/) would fit very neatly in Wikipedia's
>>>> "File_format" entry.
>>>>
>>>> The requirement of course would be that these article are released
>>>> under the GFDL. That will depend on the authors, but I have talked
>>>> to
>>>> some of them already and they said that they would be happy with
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is: do you have a spot in Wikipedia (or in "Wikimedia"
>>>> in
>>>> general) for general articles such as the ones we publish? If the
>>>> answer is "no", would it be worthwhile creating such a spot?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot,
>>>>
>>>> Merc.
>>>>
>>>> Tony Mobily
>>>> Editor-In-Chief
>>>> Free Software Magazine http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> ----
>> Tony Mobily
>> Author of "Hardening Apache" (Apress)
>> "...this book can save you..." -- Mitchell Pirtle, PHP Magazine
>> 05/2004
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Tony Mobily
Author of "Hardening Apache" (Apress)
"...this book can save you..." -- Mitchell Pirtle, PHP Magazine 05/2004
RK emerged from his lonely exile to comment that censorship is
suppression of IDEAS.
I submit that this is only one form of censorship. When it comes to
ideas about politics or religion, the U.S. Constitution seems to oppose
this form. "Freedom of press", according to my meager and scanty reading
of the Federalist Papers and other documents of the Founding, guarantees
all political ideas an airing. Whether any one wants to hear, of course,
is up to them. (No question of religious ideas: we freaky faith-based
folks are allowed to print, read and sell whatever screwy scriptures we
can scrape up.)
Let's not allow the general Wikipedian distaste for (or outrage at)
censorship blind us to what is really is, or is not.
When a junior high school library decides not to shelve Lady Chatterly's
Lover (or The Story of O), that is most definitely censorship. Whether
you think pubescent students should be "shielded" from sexual texts or
not, the ACT of shielding them has a name, and it's called "censorship".
Complying with local, regional or national laws which forbid certain
expressions or depictions is also censorship. If we want to send a print
edition to "strait-laced" countries, such as Communist China (or
possibly even Uganda), we will have to respect their laws - or try
smuggling in some CDs instead. I want no part of smuggling (the legal
liability is too high).
Masking censorship by calling it "editorial decisions" sounds timid at
best. Why not call a spade a spade?
Uncle Ed
P.S. Attagirl, Anthere!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Haws [mailto:hawstom@sprintmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:45 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] censorship and guidelines
>
>
> Tony Mobily IMAP wrote:
>
> > I understand you were making a point, and I also understand I am the
> > new kid in the block.
> > However, I would like to suggest that such a crude list could be
> > avoided without weakening your point.
> >
> > If not, I don't think I will last very long in this mailing list.
>
> Thank you for saying that, Tony.
>
> Tom Haws
>
>
>
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Equally, if there is a consensus that the hoax should go ahead, it will be
> > restored.
>
> I will not let any mob of people subvert our goal of creating an encyclopedia
> just because it it is popular in part of the community.
Grrr. Please stop declaring "how things will be" unilaterally, it's not very
Wikipedia-like. (Jimbo is the only person for which that would be appropriate.)
Imagine if I responded with "Well, I will not let one user impose his personal
whims on the project" -- where would we be? Impasse.
Moreover, I don't really think an April Fool's hoax on the main page is quite
"subverting the goal of creating an encyclopedia". It's certainly tangential,
but what harm are you seeing here? It's a minor diversion, not a major
subversion.
> The community exists to create the encyclopedia. When the community starts to
> pull pranks on our readers for nothing more than some type of thrill, then
> the community needs to be reminded of our goals.
Don't be so patronising! I'm sure everyone is quite as aware of the goals of
this project as you are. I just think it's quite unfortunate if Wikipedia takes
itself so seriously that it fears to do what institutions like, say, the BBC
are quite happy to do.
Please excuse the ill-temperedness of this email, and I'd really rather not
engage in acrimony. I'll try to just go and forget about it, but I find such
humourlessness to be disproportionately frustrating for some reason. Is this
the kind of community we want to be? (More "Grrs" etc),
Regards,
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com