Hello,
>From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
because it is uncomfortable.
Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
fair to the people involved.
Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
list.
http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-directo…
Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
any merit in what they say.
This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.
Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
notable.
We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
and gone forever without proper process or review.
In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
television show, is that what you really want?
I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
the project of important information because they are not able to get
started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
chance to be heard.
We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
thanks,
mike
While preparing Missing Wikipedias [1], I've got numbers of speakers and
languages by area and country with chapter not covered by Wikipedias.
Numbers are preliminary, some of them should be corrected. I didn't
exclude Han languages, which mostly shouldn't be counted, and similar.
Note, also, that every language should be analyzed separately. Many
languages are spoken not just inside of one country.
Please, fix errors and comment.
* * *
Areas. They approximate the usual definitions of areas, but they are
different because of linguistic corrections.
* Afro-Asiatic Area: Area where Afro-Asiatic languages are dominant.
North Africa + Middle East + Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia - Iran.
* Europe: Europe (including Caucasus) includes Turkey.
* South Asia: South Asia + Iran. Dominantly Indo-European and Dravidian
languages.
* Sub-Saharan Africa: The rest of Africa.
* Polynesia, Australia and Oceania: Includes Malaysia and Taiwan
(Taiwanese languages not covered in Wikipedias are dominantly Austronesian.)
* East Asia: Han China "China (Central)", Korea and Japan.
* South-East Asia: Includes non-Han south China "China (South)".
* Latin America: Parts of America where Spanish and Portuguese are
official languages.
* Anglo-French America: Parts of America where English, French and Dutch
are official languages.
* North Asia: Asian part of former USSR, Mongolia and non-Han northern
and western China "China (North)".
The first column is number of speakers, the second number of languages,
the third is area.
399259294 592 South Asia
353676706 1805 Sub-Saharan Africa
221855457 253 Afro-Asiatic Area
138979263 2198 Polynesia, Australia and Oceania
107363760 37 East Asia
99260271 447 South-East Asia
47901185 143 Europe
30361602 724 Latin America
8481452 227 Anglo-French America
3724384 45 North Asia
* * *
Countries with chapters. (Numbers are not fully correct, as they include
some languages removed in the list below this one.)
If any chapter (or interested group) is interested in full list of
missing languages, I'll provide it by request before completing the
work. I suppose that some chapters are interested in languages with less
than 100K of speakers, as well.
296,097,274 349 India
71,356,176 681 Indonesia
46,676,395 157 Philippines
7,819,010 9 Germany
7,994,871 76 Russian Federation
5,386,580 5 Serbia
4,785,299 6 South Africa
2,841,300 17 Israel
1,139,750 4 Ukraine
1,085,931 125 United States
832,000 3 Netherlands
705,967 70 Canada
472,470 1 Czech Republic
375,704 17 Taiwan
313,642 6 Chile
246,900 3 United Kingdom
200,500 4 Spain
191,430 5 Poland
151,240 7 Sweden
132,809 12 Argentina
86,390 155 Australia
50,000 1 France
30,000 1 Hungary
29,980 4 Switzerland
17,460 5 Finland
15,000 1 Portugal
10,500 2 Norway
5,000 1 Denmark
4,500 1 Estonia
Languages with more than million or more than 100,000 of speakers
without Wikipedia and with chapter in the country:
India (more than million)
38261000 Awadhi
34700000 Maithili
17500000 Chhattisgarhi
13000000 Magahi
13000000 Haryanvi
12800000 Deccan
10400000 Malvi
9500000 Kanauji
9000000 Dhundari
7760000 Bagheli
6970000 Varhadi-Nagpuri
6170900 Santali
6000000 Lambadi
5622600 Marwari
5000000 Mewati
4730000 Hadothi
4004490 Konkani
3900000 Merwari
3800000 Mina
3633900 Konkani, Goan
3000000 Shekhawati
3000000 Godwari
2920000 Garhwali
2680000 Indian Sign Language
2360000 Kumaoni
2110000 Dogri
2100000 Bagri
2094200 Kurux
2000000 Mewari
1970000 Sadri
1950000 Tulu
1950000 Gondi, Northern
1930000 Waddar
1710000 Wagdi
1700000 Kangri
1580000 Khandesi
1560280 Mundari
1543300 Bodo
1500000 Ho
1430000 Nimadi
1391000 Meitei
1300000 Bhili
1200000 Vasavi
1150000 Bhilali
1045000 Panjabi, Mirpur
1000000 Pahari, Mahasu
Indonesia (more than million)
13600900 Madura
5530000 Minangkabau
3930000 Musi
3502300 Banjar
3330000 Bali
2700000 Betawi
2350000 Malay, Central
2100000 Sasak
2000000 Batak Toba
1880000 Malay, Makassar
1600000 Makasar
1200000 Batak Simalungun
1200000 Batak Dairi
1100000 Batak Mandailing
1000000 Malay, Jambi
Philippines (more than 100k)
5770000 Hiligaynon
2500000 Bicolano, Central
1900000 Bicolano, Albay
1062000 Tausug
1000000 Maguindanao
776000 Maranao
639000 Capiznon
540000 Bontoc, Central
500000 Ibanag
395000 Inakeanon
378000 Kinaray-a
350000 Masbatenyo
345000 Surigaonon
319000 Sama, Southern
293000 Chavacano
234000 Bicolano, Iriga
200000 Romblomanon
200000 Bantoanon
185000 Sorsogon, Waray
150000 Kankanaey
150000 Blaan, Koronadal
147000 Davawenyo
140000 Subanen, Central
134000 Itawit
123000 Cuyonon
122000 Bicolano, Northern Catanduanes
111000 Ibaloi
107000 Yakan
100000 Philippine Sign Language
100000 Binukid
Germany
4910000 Mainfränkisch
2000000 Saxon, Upper
819000 Swabian
Russian Federation
783720 Lezgi
696630 Erzya
614000 Moksha
516490 Dargwa
499300 Adyghe
460090 Mari, Meadow
422550 Kumyk
413000 Ingush
363000 Yakut
264400 Tuva
217000 Komi-Zyrian
164420 Lak
128900 Tabassaran
113710 Balkar
Serbia and Kosovo
4156090 Albanian, Gheg
709570 Romani, Balkan
318920 Romani, Sinte
172000 Romano-Serbian
South Africa
4101000 Sotho, Northern
640000 Ndebele
Israel
1762320 Yiddish, Eastern
352500 Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian
258930 Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan
110000 Bukharic
100130 Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi
United States
600000 Hawai’i Creole English
250000 Sea Island Creole English
Netherlands
592000 Gronings
220000 Zeeuws
Canada
402900 Plautdietsch
Czech Republic
472470 Romani, Carpathian
Taiwan
138000 Amis
Chile
300039 Mapudungun
United Kingdom
202900 Angloromani
Spain
102000 Spanish Sign Language
Sweden
109600 Finnish, Tornedalen
On 30 June 2011 17:00, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[a git-like distributed wikisphere]
> It's not my idea, I believe it's been independently suggested at
> least five different times that I know of. But it's a HUGE step that
> would require a big, bold push from developers and thus potentially a
> large initial commitment from the foundation to spur development of
> such a thing. That commitment might not be huge in terms of
> resources-- a few professional lead developer-coordinators, perhaps.
> But it would require some courage, leadership, and a vision to rally
> volunteer developers around. If you visibly agree to it being built,
> an amorphous 'they' will likely show up to actually build it for you,
> free of charge. It would will radically change things for everyone
> the instant such a tool is actually created.
Adapting MediaWiki to git has been tried a few times. I suspect the
problem is that the software deeply assumes a database behind it, not
a version-controlled file tree. Wrong model for an easy fix to
MediaWiki itself.
Pouring en:wp's entire history into git is feasible (Greg Maxwell
posted about doing it, IIRC).
svnwiki exists - a wiki engine which uses files version-controlled by
Subversion. Perhaps something like that - articles as files in a git
repository, read by the new parser when that's done.
> Such a wiki is inevitable, I just hope we can be the ones to develop it.
Someone else could actually do it without our weight of organisational
inertia and NIH. We need competitors.
Further to your idea: people developing little specialist wikis along
these lines, and said wikis being mergeable. This makes such wikis
easier to start, without having to start yet another wiki-based
general encyclopedia that directly competes with Wikipedia. Disruptive
innovation starts in niches, not in a position where it'll just end up
a bug on Wikipedia's windscreen.
- d.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:35 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 June 2011 17:00, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [a git-like distributed wikisphere]
>
>> It's not my idea, I believe it's been independently suggested at
>> least five different times that I know of.
I have added your postings to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HaeB/Timeline_of_distributed_Wikipedia_pr…
Regards, HaeB
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 17:01, Fajro <faigos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This remind me of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi2i_Y7gSE
and http://www.thefilterbubble.com/
I don't like filter bubbles.
"And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do - but the thing is that, you don't decide what gets in - and more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi2i_Y7gSE&t=4m23s
What am I misunderstanding? Surely there is a difference between the "filter bubble" that decides what content to show me on it's own, and an "opt-in" filter where I can decide for myself what content I may or may not want to see?
The progress of Façonnable USA Corp. v. John Does 1-10 a U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado case which concerns editing of the
article Façonnable can be followed at
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/fa%C3%A7onnable-usa-corp-v-john-does-1-1…
The edits complained of, made by similar ip addresses in the spring of
2011, have been suppressed as potentially libelous and the page
semi-protected, but a screenshot of a version of the article during this
period is included as Exhibit A in the pleadings.
Fred
Hi,
I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
have any say on who gets onto the board in the appointed seat). I might have
missed it (probably have) but is there some kind of evaluation of the
functioning of the NomCom and a good reasoning why it was totally abolished?
Is it clear /why/ it did not work?
Birgitte seems to suggest it didnt work because procedures were not
followed. Earlier (don't recall where exactly) (a) board member(s) seemed to
suggest that it did not work because they were too slow and did not do their
job. Both arguments seem to me something that can be solved quite easily -
by starting to follow procedures or by getting different people on the
committee.
Perhaps someone who was there on the board at the time could clarify?
Thanks a lot,
Lodewijk
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> > I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I cannot agree that Matt's
> appointment was more problematic than Stu's or Jan-Bart. Frankly all the
> appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can
> focus on Matt's appointment alone as a significant issue, nor how you reach
> the conclusion that disorganization on the part of the board had any
> significant role in the problems of appointed board seats.
> >
> > I am going to be frank and clear about how the issue appears to me: The
> bylaws, in regard to appointed board seats, are unredeemably flawed.
> >
> > I find it offensive that any appointed Board Member should be singled out
> and undermined merely because an impossible appointment process failed to
> offer them greater legitimacy. All the appointments fell so far short of the
> outlined process that I believe concluding one appointment to be less
> acceptable than the others is impossible to objectively judge. Yes
> Bishakha's seat was settled with more active discussion from NomCom than any
> of the others. However the outlined process for appointed seats is not at
> all what occurred. I suggest you re-read the by-laws (pay attention to the
> time-line as well), consult your notes and dates, and honestly tell me how
> the board might have believed that NomCom had any hope fulfilling the
> official process at the time of Matt's appointment.
>
> That's other issue and I am not a legal expert.
>
> My logic behind suggesting to keep current members was probability that
> changing them would bring more instability in already unstable Board at
> that time. Board is today more stable than it was at that time and it is
> good that this issue has been opened, so we can go further.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hi. I forward this e-mail, I hope there are people interested on this map.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2011/6/11
Subject: Wikis around Europe!
To: wikiteam-discuss(a)googlegroups.com
Hi all;
A friend of mine has sent me this link about wikis (locapedias) around
Europe.[1] I'm very surprised about the huge amount of wikis available.
Time to archive all of them.[2] I have been working on Spanish ones. If you
want to help archiving one country, please, reply to this message to
coordinate. If not, I will try to archive entire Europe!
Regards,
emijrp
[1]
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=115570622864617231547…
[2] http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/
Hi Richard;
Yes, a distributed project would be probably the best solution, but it is
not easy to develop, unless you use a library like bittorrent, or similar
and you have many peers. Althought most of the people don't seed the files
long time, so sometimes is better to depend on a few committed persons than
a big but ephemeral crowd.
Regards,
emijrp
2011/6/26 Richard Farmbrough <richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk>
> **
> It would be useful to have an archive of archives. I have to delete my
> old data dumps as time passes, for space reasons, however a team could,
> between them, maintain multiple copies of every data dump. This would make a
> nice distributed project.
>
> On 26/06/2011 13:53, emijrp wrote:
>
> Hi all;
>
> Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1]
>
> WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps
> (and her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders
> and checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget).
>
> You will need about 100GB to download all the 7z files.
>
> Save our memory.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_libraries
> [2]
> http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/source/browse/trunk/wikipediadownloader.py
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xmldatadumps-l mailing listXmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/xmldatadumps-l
>
>
>