Sj+,
Based on a number of e-mails of yours, like the one below, when I emailed the copyeditors and proofreaders, I sent them to:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/3/Draft
Now, I see that any content submitted is on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/3
or the "retro" page. Do I re-email them, or will the content be moved to:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/3/Draft
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
> Hello all,
>
> The third Wikimedia Quarto is coming out next month, and we need your
> input. Please submit ideas and short (1 paragraph) abstracts to
> newsletter--at--wikimedia.org over the coming week. Or you can start
> writing your submission on the draft page on meta:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/Draft
>
> Translators: Please distribute this note to your local projects. See also
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WQ/2/Release_message
>
>
> When you submit an abstract, you will get feedback about how long to
> make the piece, and for what deadline. General timeline:
> * Short abstracts of submissions : by Friday, April 1
> * Draft submissions : by Friday, April 8
> * Translations start : April 18
>
> Don't forget to submit memories of Wikipedias past for the special Retro report!
> You can see the first two editions of the Quarto on the foundation site:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto
>
> As always, feedback and design ideas are welcome. If you're
> interested in working on production of this and future Quartos, see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/Team
>
> +sj+
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>That was a point that I have no known! Thanks for the information!
>I don't know much about the Wikipeadia away from the German is there a
>place where is it easy to ask people if they wanna help or is the German
>Wikipedia the right place?
>
You can ask anything here, though most people are already firmly into
Wikipedia when they joing the list. But you can try
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum as well, which has the
advantage that you're answered in your native tongue.
_________________________________________________________________
Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.nl/
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 15.04.05 18:04:26:
>
>
> >I have understand the term of the simpel English Wikipedia so that they
> >want to create a Wikipedia with a easy English (language), I think this is
> >very good for non English people with a not so good English. My term is it
> >to create a Wikipedia that use a easy German and discribe it easy that mean
> >that there should be no words, beside it is impossibel, they are not for
> >the whole people (particularly kids and teenagers) not easy understand. And
> >if we must use one of this words we should discribe it. It should be of a
> >layer for kids between 10 to 16!
> >
> >The discribtion is not good but I hope ii is enough for the moment!
> >
> >pentiumforever
>
> One of the Simple English Wikipedia's main target groups /are/ children,
> pentiumforever. Check it out at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_language . Children speakers of
> English face exactly the same problem as you discribe. So your proposal is
> indeed very analogous to the existing Simple English wikipedia. By the way,
> you should post your proposal on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages. I suggest the
> domain einfach.wikipedia.org.
>
> Wouter
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
That was a point that I have no known! Thanks for the information!
I don't know much about the Wikipeadia away from the German is there a place where is it easy to ask people if they wanna help or is the German Wikipedia the right place?
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 15.04.05 17:44:29:
>
> > >From: <pentiumforever(a)email.de>
> > >Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Idea for a new Wikipedia
> > >Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:40:05 +0200
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >at first sorry for my bad english i'm just a (german) student ;)
> > >
> > >If I read/write somethings in the German wikipedia I have seen that much
> of
> > >the articles are to havy for kids and teenager with no special skills in
> > >the subjekt. So I get the idea for a special Wikipedia for kids and
> > >teenager! Its is like a Wikijunior Magazin but with the different that
> the
> > >Wiki I mean is a complete encyclopedia and not only one special topic! I
> > >would be managed a Wiki for this in German.
> > >
> > >What do you think about the idea? It is possibel to realise it under the
> > >roof of the Wikimedia? If yes anyone here that would be help me?
> > >
> > >pentiumforever
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> Would make more sense if you proposed a Simple German Wikipedia, although
> judging by the performance of the Simple English one, I can't see there
> being many good contributors.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I have understand the term of the simpel English Wikipedia so that they want to create a Wikipedia with a easy English (language), I think this is very good for non English people with a not so good English. My term is it to create a Wikipedia that use a easy German and discribe it easy that mean that there should be no words, beside it is impossibel, they are not for the whole people (particularly kids and teenagers) not easy understand. And if we must use one of this words we should discribe it. It should be of a layer for kids between 10 to 16!
The discribtion is not good but I hope ii is enough for the moment!
pentiumforever
In a discussion back in 2002 (starting about here
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia/2002-August/021718.html
)
It was decided that the acknowledgment for the use of
FOLDOC material would be on the same page. I have seen
that said mentions still exist, with the use of a
template. Now the questions.
*Is this a legal requirement that comes from some
interpretation of our venerable GFDL or just courtesy?
*In either case, do the rights to modify our material
include the right of moving that notice to a less
prominent place, or removing it altogether?
*In [[Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission]],
such mention is offered
''If you do agree to grant permission for use, we will
credit you for your work in the resulting article's
references section by stating it was based on your
work and is used with your permission, and by
providing a link back to your website.
''
Is this is still valid? Can we assure that our
re-users would keep that?
Sorry if this was already discussed somewhere else,
and long ago, but some recent issues in the Spanish
Wikipedia demand that we have a clearer understanding
of this.
Thank you,
AstroNomer
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
I apologise for just having sent the same silly message twice.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________
Direct antwoord op je vragen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
Mark, you said:
"But I think that the majority of users of
mo.wikipedia will, no matter
what, always be primarily users of Cyrillic, and I
think that it
should be dominant there until such time as there are
more Moldovan
users there who use Latin, if that is ever the case."
I think that is not at all right. I mean, Cyrillic is
a minority script in _all_ circumstances. Only 10% of
speakers of Moldo-Romanian in Moldova use it, and only
around 33% of people who say they speak Moldovan use
it. So those who say they speak Moldovan, will be
looking actually mostly for Latin content, especially
since many of the Cyrillic speakers are also used to
Latin content because that's the script they use in
public institutions, at work, etc.
Also, "since we already have two separate
Wikipedias, we can use ro.wiki for /all/ Latin-script
content, and
mo.wiki for /all/ Cyrillic-script content"
I've kept on saying that this is a practical solution,
but it isn't really a correct solution - While the
interesting context of the Moldo-Romanian language
would state that a mo.wiki in Cyrillic only would be
the most practical solution, it would basically be
very biased, despite the prominent link. The prominent
link is just a redirect, the interface would still be
in Cyrillic, the interwiki links would still go to
Cyrillic articles. We can't nominate a Wikipedia for
Cyrillic content, even though the case of
Moldo-Romanian would say that perhaps logically it is
a way to go, simply because we can't nominate a
language subdomain for a certain script when that
script is a minority script.
That's what needs to be understood here - Cyrillic is
a minority script in all cases - for Moldo-Romanian
speakers worldwide, for Moldo-Romanian speakers in
Moldova and for Moldovan speakers in Moldova. So we
need content to first cater for the majority, which
could be either at mo.wiki or ro.wiki, but I think
ro.wiki would be the more practical solution, unless
some Moldovans would actually have a problem with
being redirected to a Romanian Wikipedia, which they
might have. We need to hear their side of the story
too, but there are as of yet barely any Moldovan Latin
users. There should be a very prominent link on the
mo.wiki page redirecting Cyrillic users to their
subdomain. Interwiki links would then go to mo-cyr:
and be put in the form of "Moldoveanească
(Chirilic)" in the Cyrillic alphabet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
On 4/14/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that this is OK.
>
> But I think that the majority of users of mo.wikipedia will, no matter
> what, always be primarily users of Cyrillic, and I think that it
> should be dominant there until such time as there are more Moldovan
> users there who use Latin, if that is ever the case.
> ...
> And as I noted earlier, conversion between Latin Moldovan and Cyrillic
> Moldovan by computer is not possible or at least not practical (it
> would require neural networking or AI or something)
If the situation is that Moldovans which call their language Romanian
use Latin and Moldovans which call their language Molodvan use
Cyrillic -- then I don't see any problem :) mo: should be Cyrillic and
Moldavian, ro: should be Latin and Romanian.
What are the differences between Latin and Cyrillic Moldovan? I am not
sure that it is not possible to make some kind of not so complicated
program for transliteration.
> By the way, why exactly is it that there are separate Wikipedias for
> Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian? If everybody worked together, you
> could have a much larger Wikipedia by now - Serbian has over 10k, but
> Croatian is quite large too and Bosnian has over 1000 - imagine if you
> worked together to make one Wikipedia.
Hmmm... Imagine that: When Hungarian say on Hungarian Wikipedia that
Romanian occupied Transilvania and Romaians say on Romanian Wikipedia
that Romanians liberated Transilvania -- there are no a lot of people
who would care about it.
Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks have a lot of such (explicite or potential)
conflicts. A lot of such conflits exist on English Wikipedia. I think
that we would have a lot of troubles if there is one Wikipedia, such
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia was.
When I finish some work for Serbian Wikipedia, I'll implement it on
Croatian (they agree with that) and Bosnian (I'll ask when I finish
work for sr:). Also, it is possible to make some kind of inteligent
program for "translating" articles in the way
Serbian<->Croatian<->Bosnian. And I'll do that in the future.
Hi all,
I think it should be made internationally known (in the Wiki
community, that is - currently it's restricted to people who know
Romanian) that there is currently a problem between the Moldovan (mo:)
and Romanian (ro:) Wikipedias.
According to the Academy of Sciences in Moldova, the two languages are
identical. The Moldovan government says the languages are separate,
and about 1/3rd of the Moldovan population claimed on the last census
that they speak "Moldovan" rather than "Romanian".
For a long time there had been a possible pending addition of a redirect to mo:.
But there is another issue here: 10% of Moldovan people, and 1% of
Moldovan and Romanian people combined, use the Cyrillic alphabet to
write their language.
Cyrillic was the official alphabet in Moldova during the USSR, but
after independence the official script was changed to be identical to
Romanian with a few notable differences, mostly in spelling (the most
important one is that â and î in Romania are both î in Moldova).
To add to the confusion, Cyrillic is still the official script for the
language in the de-facto independent nation of Transnistria, where
Moldovans are a minority. However, Transnistria is not recognised as a
sovreign nation by the UN or any of its members (and the government of
Taiwan), so it isn't generally considered on the same level in such
problems since it doesn't have de jure independence.
Cyrillic was in fact the first script ever used to transcribe the
Romanian language, and only in the past couple of centuries has that
changed mostly to Latin for largely political regions, and now
Cyrillic is seen by many Romanians and Moldovans as a "communist"
alphabet.
000---------------->The conflict is:
mo: has existed for a really long time, but until recently it had no
content whatsoever except a message in the Latin alphabet directing
users to ro:. I added the Cyrillic version of the message, but then
there was a small controversy between myself, OldakQuill, and Danutz
(from ro.wiki) over the situation and the message was first changed
and then deleted, as actual content was added to the Wiki in both
scripts.
However, after the joining of a second Cyrillic-capable user, it was
decided at mo: to get rid of all Latin-alphabet content since it was
identical to the same articles at ro:. The mainpage was moved to a
Cyrillic title, and a language list and welcome message in Cyrillic
were added. Existing Latin articles were changed to interwiki
redirects.
A few months later, I got a private message from Ronline (from
ro.wiki), who seemed to me much more logical and reasonable than
Danutz. I thought we would soon achieve consensus but there is one
sticking point.
Since the official alphabet of the "Moldovan language" is Latin, and
the majority of Moldovans use that alphabet, Ronline says that either
mo.wiki should be bi-scriptal, or a separate domain entirely should be
created like "mo-cyr:" or "mo-cyrillic:" for the minority Cyrillic
script.
My position was that since the Moldovan and Romanian languages are
identical, the Moldovan Wikipedia should only have Cyrillic content
since all Latin content would be a duplication of ro.wiki content.
A prominent message on the mo.wiki mainpage, in the Latin alphabet,
states "If you prefer to view content in the Latin alphabet, please
click here" (with a link to ro.wiki). Ronline says this is
unacceptable as it implies that Latin is a second-choice or minority
script for the language, while I say that a great deal of people
desiring separate "Moldovan" content would be searching for Cyrillic.
It is my belief that a seperate subdomain is not only inconvenient,
but also unnessecary because the current solution provides for all
visitors to mo.wiki - if they want to read content in Cyrillic, they
continue, and if they don't, they click a link.
There was some discussion of a biscriptal solution.
I am in favor of a biscriptal solution, if it is implemented on ro:.
At the same time as many of his Romanian compatriots insist that
Romanian and Moldovan are the same language (which I must say, I
largely agree with), he suggests that mo: host entire articles in the
"Moldovan language" written in the Latin alphabet. I suggest that, due
to the near-identicality of "Moldovan" and "Romanian", a biscriptal
solution should only be on ro: (remember, 1% of speakers of the
Moldovan/Romanian language[s] use Cyrillic, and some of them call the
language "Romanian") to avoid duplication of content. However,
according to Ronline this is unacceptable because "Nobody writes
Romanian in the Cyrillic script". Most of the other people at ro: will
agree: many will say (although Ronline has not, Danutz did) at the
same time that Moldovan and Romanian are one language called Romanian,
that some people write "Moldovan" in Cyrillic, but that nobody writes
Romanian in Cyrillic. Also, anti-Russian/anti-Communist feelings would
make it hard for Cyrillic to coexist on ro:, and there is some chance
that the existance of a Cyrillic version would drive potential
Wikipedians away.
As it is now, only myself and two others have made significant content
contributions to mo:, most of it has been in Cyrillic, and what was in
Latin was just identical to the article text on ro.wiki.
Mark