On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article. The word may be used by
quite some people, but I really think that it was invented by racist groups
and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't and can't justify
anything.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme anti-blanc" and "racisme à
l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think such articles should be in
Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the quality and reputation of
Wikipedia.
But if a great number of people think I am wrong, then put back these
articles.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles.
It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them
the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few
and we can correct their articles.
Regards,
Yann
PS: I didn't subscribed to this list. So cc: me if necessary.
> Anthere, do you read my mails ?????
> I don't say racialism don't exist because there are not in the dictionnary.
> I said this word is not french, so we have to think about how to handle this
> kind of case.
> And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be
> add in an encyclopedie or not ?
> I'm not the one that put the poor definition of racialism yesterday and I'm
> not the one who have removed [racisme antiblanc] and [racisme inverse].
> Please stop firing in the whole.
< Aoineko
- --
http://www.forget-me.net
Alternatives sur le Net
http://keys.indymedia.org/showkey.py?key=0A34CBDA
gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-key 0A34CBDA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+OnJcm4KYjQo0y9oRAryFAKCQ1xsg8enBe8ozEjE6E6mmcXPyGACfd0l6
k4iLwVzFCwVKb8+VS26HqY8=
=QoDP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
I did remove philippe's article far before Yann for two reasons :
- first it was not neutral, as a french who is aware of political
science and history letting him write this article was the same as
letting KKK write an article on white power. It does not means he is
racist, it only means he is lacking of objectivity (or "recul"),
- secondly, is considered racist anythings that gets in contradiction
with the first article of the Déclaration universelle des Droits de
l'Homme, saying that any people are born equal in dignity and in regard
to the law, and therefore (article 2) no difference can be made
regarding the the people. And that is illegal in France.
Europe is not america, we do not have the 1st Amendment (liberty of
speech) we have la liberté d'expression (which is bounded to the respect
of the ground of democracy), and since the 2nd WW it is considered as a
delictuous to justify or state theory that are either xenophobic,
racist, or revisionist (like saying shoah never existed). You may say
that wikipedia is in the US. Fine, Yahoo also was but had problems with
french justice for selling nazis items, because regarding internet,
France -as the US- consider their justice is "extra-terriorial". As long
as a speech is seen from France, it can be prosecuted wherever the
server is.
If we accept definition that are an implicit legitimation of racism
(racialism) (wich made nazi legitimate too in killing tzigan) :
- should we also made article saying that it is legitimate to think
shoah never was? If so no matter what my opinions are, I will write it.
- Do you assume the legal responsabilities if we are prosecuted ?
And least, but not last, we may suffer indymedia far right infiltration
: french indymedia is down since they let antisemitic articles being
written. It was not their fault, they just did not see them arrive.
Infiltrated far rightists begun to write articles that were border line
first and their expresses their full expanded ideas afterwards.
Sometimes we may have to think in long term.
Infiltration is classic for french far rightist and leftist movement.
They consider the "noyeautage" as one way to convince people of the
(far) rightness of their ideas. If you are not firm at the very
beginning, fr.wikipedia.org will have the same problem as indymedia =>
shutdown -f now.
Take your responsabilities, but don't close your eyes, please.
Friendly yours,
PS words do not grow in dictionnary, they result from a consensus. Just
ask yourself, knowing that words in "ism" are the same in french and
english : do I know any words like racialism ? Maybe it proves nothing
few knows priapism, or botulism, but still ask yourself.
--
Julien Tayon aka Jul on fr.wikipedia.orghttp://www.tayon.net/http://libroscope.org/
Si la vérité est une femme, essayons de la séduire avant de la saisir.
Hello, everyone
I am not interested in the policy of wikipedia at all. While
it can be better still, I think the current policy (NPOV,
for instance) and the syntax (wiki-markup language) are
adequate and have no intention to discuss them.
My concern is about the administration of wikipedia, or the
server, database stuff and the development of wikipedia. It
seems there is a lot of problems and they are goind to be
even worse.
In theory, yes, CVS of wikipedia code is open for anyone who
is willing to contribute and should be work just like wiki.
Alas! the reality is different, if not totally. As we know,
quite a few of people are actually coding, compared with the
number and diversity of wikipedians. Unlike the article in
wikipedia,
I posted this for responding to the advice by Jimbo.
However, if here is not appreciate place to submit this kind
of mail, please let me know and I will seek another place to
conduct the discussion.
Therefore,
I would like to proposal:
1. Disclose more information
While none of details are hidden, surely strangers have
almost no information to hack. ("How to become a wikipedia
hacker" in meta-wikipedia has a lack of critical information
and is heavliy underused.)
2. Organize the development system
See UseMod. It has a far better developer community then
wikipedia software.
We should stop immediately relying on the individual
efforts. For example, many people simply post a bug to
Brion, knowing he is responsible for the wikipedia software.
Even he encourages people to report a bug to *him*. I don't
blame him as well as others like him but really appreciate
them. But such a case is not ought to be in wikipedia.
3. Make wikipedia software more visible and independent
Maybe we need a nice name for wikipedia software to make it
more recognizable.
-- Therefore, --
the practical solution (I think but should not be limited
to) is probably:
set up hacker.wikipedia.org or sister project dedicated to
development software tools for wikipedia. In additon to the
server software hosting wikipedia, the software programs may
include another useful tools for wikipedians (maybe chat
tools, if someone would like to persuite )
The site can embrace services for the sites hosting
wikipedia software other than wikipedia.org (actually I am
planning to switch the wiki program of my wiki to wikipedia
software).
If you know UseMod and meatball, my proposal is akin to the
relationship among UseMod and meatball.
Yes, there is a meat-wikipedia. But as we know, meta-
wikipedia doesn't work well. There are plenty of dead stuff,
which look weird and make strangers difficult to
participate. There are even non-English stuff. Meta-wiki may
be good place to put a draft, submit a proposal but it is
not suitable for developers.
What do you think?
Best wishes,
Takuya Murata
takusi(a)manjiro.net
Hello
Here's the texte I posted today for racialisme
"Le '''racialisme''' est relatif � la conviction qu'�
une personne de l'existence de [[race]]s. Le terme est
utilis� dans les sciences humaines et en particulier
par [[Pierre-Andr� Taguieff]].
Le racialisme est le fait de d�signer une personne
comme �tant d'une race ou d'une autre, plut�t que par
exemple d'une couleur ou d'une autre. Par exemple, un
article reportant un accident dans un journal, et
indiquant qu'un conducteur est blanc est du
racialisme."
------------
Here's the comment I had on the discussion page (of
course, my definition was deleted)
''Rigoles pas des genoux � part toi personne ne
connais ce mot. Consid�res que par d�faut ce que dit
Aoineko est vrai ton mot c'est pipot i.e. dans aucun
dico ! C'est une encyclop�die pas un d�pliant du FN.
En attendant laisse b�ton. Merde, je suis peut �tre
que ma�tre es science, mais mes notions scientifiques
sont suffisantes pour savoir que tes th�ories sont
aussi scientifiques que celle sur les aliens. Jul''
Is it a proper way to talk to people ?
---------
There are hits on google about racialisme. Some are
from the french embassy, some on antiracist
associations
people like Taguieff and Poliakov, and Barthes are
talking about this
But french people consider the word don't exist, they
insult me, and delete my article
They replaced my article with
"Terme invent� par des groupes racistes dans le but de
nier le racisme.
Ce mot n'existe officiellement pas."
--------
Do you think that definition is correcte ??? I don't
think so; and I think many people would disagree with
it, not only me.
But, it is the definition that is on Wikip�dia now.
I don't know if people other then french speak french
here. But, if they do, can they give their advice
please ?
I think it is totally untrue that wikipedia is
neutral. It is not. Unless you do something, and tell
them not to delete what I write.
I tried to merge my texte and their texte, but they
deleted mine again.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Bonjour,
Anthere gave you only very soft links... why ???
Here is the sentence that the majority of french wikipedians don't want to
see in wikipedia.
All was wrote by Philippe :
In Racisme, jan 15, 2003 :
"Il semble que certaines races soient superieures aux autres races pour
certains aspects; par exemple, les noirs courent plus vite que les blancs."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"It seems that certain races are higher than the other races for certain
aspects; for example, the blacks run more quickly than the white."
In Antisemitisme, jan 27, 2003 :
"Historiquement, il existe de nombreux motifs pour justifier
l'antisemitisme, incluant des facteurs sociaux, economiques, nationaux,
politiques, raciaux et religieux.."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"Historically, there are many reasons to justify the anti-semitism,
including factors social, economic, national, political, racial and
religious."
In Antisemitisme, jan 27, 2003 :
"Les juifs sont des personnes d'une race distinctement differente des autres
personnes. La discrimination basee sur une telle distinction est donc
valide."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"The Jews are people of a race distinctly different from the other people.
The discrimination based on such a distinction is thus valid"
Comment ?
Aoineko
Hello,
we begin to face massive anonymous / non-anonymous contributions on
topics related to one another such as nationalism, racism, racialism in
a clearly oriented direction.
example new definition :
Le nationalisme est une politique dont les objectifs sont
essentiellement l'indépendance, l'unité et la prospérité de sa propre
nation et de son peuple.
Nationalism is a policy whitch goals are essentialy the independance,
the unity and the prosperity of its own nation and people.
(sic but not the problem) No mistakes in translation "own nation" refers
to policy.
We have many "anonymous" rewriting of sensible topics such as
racialism, and racism
For instance, now, we explain why racism is totally understandable and
acceptable especialy on a scientific point of view. The definition had
had its change totally re-oriented without any discussions.
These people don't intend to respect the moral contract of wikipedia.
Wake-up if you just let it happen, you will face quite a problem. Now
it is easy to face 3 people with a current team of ~20 active
contributors, but when it will be twice as the original contributors you
might be quite annoyed.
I know I'll get the blame for being alarmist and «paranoid», but please
if you are not convinced just wonder what if it was true ? True, that
we get these people trashing all the wikipedia project's spirit and part
of the content, wouldn't it worth a try to imagine the solution we can
consider to face that problem ?
PS: Sorry for not respecting the netiquette and posting so much so soon.
--
Julien Tayon
http://www.tayon.net/http://libroscope.org/
Si la vérité est une femme, essayons de la séduire avant de la saisir.
>> Perhaps the most important thing of all would be license
compatibility. They say that they will have a "free license" -- it it
is GNU FDL, that's great. If it's something else, well, things can
get very complicated as far as reuse goes. <<
In the month of February we will finalize the license issues, probably GNU FDL
will be chosed.
>> When it comes to copyright, the real problem is not going to be with
people who put copyrighted material into an on-line encyclopedia.
That's easily removed as soon as it's recognized. It's going to be
with people who try to claim personal copyrights on openly licensed or
even public domain material. <<
Public domain material is by definition uncopyrighted. People can not, by
definition, claim personal copyrights on public domain materials. At best,
they can argue whether a certain material is in public domain or not.
Personal copyrights on openly licensed material is not something new. If I
create a material and publish it under the GNU FDL license, I still have
copyright on it and I'm free to distribute it under any other license that I
choose to. People will be able to use my material according to the GNU FDL,
or select the alternative licenses that I offer to them.
This is the way the Mozilla project ( http://mozilla.org ) works, by allowing
their code to be distributed both under GPL and MPL licenses.
>> There is a copyright notice on the bottom of each page. <<
That will be debated in the month of February, like specified above. Right
now, it means that anybody contributing to the Open-site project agrees to
its distribution license, while still retaining the copyright of their
submissions. The words "Open-site" refer in that particular instance to the
Open-site contributors.
The Internet community can use content in the Open-site project according to
its license (probably GNU GPL), but authors of the original content can still
use the material at their discretion.
>> They are younger project, and I see nothing in there about how they
would handle such issues as NPOV and vandalism. <<
Senior editors at the project have discretion regarding editorial account
removal.
Thanks,
Vlad.
Je crois que la question de la loi française n'est qu'une distraction.
Primo, pas tous les Wikipédiens francophones sont français, et la Wikipédia
n'est destiné non plus à un public spécifiquement français de France;
secundo, je ne vois pas pourquoi un article vraiment encyclopédique
(factuel, neutre de point de vue, etc) serait banni par la loi française.
Canada a aussi des lois contre le discours haineux mais tout m'indique qu'un
article d'encyclopédie n'y serait pas visé. (Il y a des articles sur le
racisme dans les encyclopédies en papier françaises!)
Donc faisons les articles vraiment encyclopédiques et il n'y aura aucun
problème!
------
I think that the question of French law is just a distraction. First, not
all of the francophone wikipedians are French, nor is French Wiki intended
just for a public from France; secondly, I don't see why a truly
encyclopedic (factual and NPOV) would be prohibited by French law. Canada
also has laws against hate speech but I have no reason to believe that an
encyclopedia article would be prohibited. (There are articles on racism in
French paper encyclopedias!)
So let's make the articles really encyclopedic and there won't be a problem!
Matt McLauchlin
Montreal
Good evening,
I have a very difficult problem on the french
wikip�dia. I got here maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago. I read
all the information provided, that explain what
wikipedia is, and especally, the fact it is respecting
neutrality, and that everypoint of view should be
there.
I am rather biaised it is true, but I think the other
people are also biaised. I have been very strongly
insulted, many times. It is true that at first my
texts were not very neutral. But I have made efforts
and I am still insulted. What I write is deleted, and
I am call a vandal.
This evening, I wrote several things about racisme and
racialisme, and race.
All my texts were deleted several times. Racialisme
because Aoineko said it do not exist. Race because it
is not true it exist human races. But I know that some
people agree that humans are made of several races.
The definition of race I gave is:
Une race est un terme d�finissant un groupe humain
qui serait distinct des autres par des
caract�ristiques biologiques particuli�res. On a
baptis� racialisme, la croyance persistante en
l'existence de races.
This text is deleted and Aoineko said it was un "tas
de merde". Just because they say race do not exist, so
this article should not exist
I think it must exist. What do you think ?
Regards
Philippe
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com