Let's not assume that the US is "condescending" to its poor and
immigrant communities by providing other-than-english media. The
mayor of Los Angeles is Antonio Villaraigosa, and Los Angeles, with
3.6 million people (2000) eclipses Paris France's 2.1 million (1999).
The greater Los Angeles metropolitan area is the second largest
hispanic metropolis in the world after Mexico City.
Heck, the building over from ours houses the Univision Music group
(plenty of fine-looking people walking in that parking lot at lunch
time, let me assure you)
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Come to Los Angeles,
You'll see newspapers in dozens of languages. My wife gets the Rafu
Shimpo, a japanese newspaper in Japanese made in Los Angeles, based
in Los Angeles, with Los Angeles editors, writers. On the radio,
106.5 FM (I think, is a vietnamese station...)
You'll also notice that governmental notices (public hearings,
regulatory announcements, official city web sites) offer many
languages, such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Armenian, Arabic, Japanese,
Spanish, Portugese, Thai... the list goes on.
You'll see the EU translating for other EU languages, but unless
things have changes, I would be surprised to see arabic, thai, or
farsi on official notices.
--- David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)ens.fr> wrote:
>
> > Not true. We (the USA) lack an *official* national language.
> Depending
> > on the state, 1-5 languages are used. Compare to the EU.
>
> Come on. All official sites, all political debates, all major news
> etc.
> are in English. Can a latino legislator do a speech in Spanish in
> the
> Capitol US? I doubt so; at least, I doubt it could happen in
> practice.
>
> Compare to multilingual European countries like Belgium or
> Switzerland.
>
> I mean, radios, newspapers etc. for immigrant communities also
> exist in
> Europe. Go to Paris, you'll see Chinese and Arabic newspapers,
> Arabic
> radios.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
(also sent to wikien-l)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topicshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/De_Validierungsthemen
The article rating feature is going live in 1.5.
SUMMARY: Articles will be rateable on various attributes. All ratings
are public and attributed, just like edits are. We'll be taking
ratings from anons as well as logged-in users, since our readers
vastly outnumber our editors. We're explicitly not doing anything with
the data, so if 10,000 anons rate [[Image:Autofellatio.jpg]] the best
article ever then it doesn't matter. For further detail, see recent
extensive thread on wikipedia-l, and go to http://test.leuksman.com/
using the Monobook skin and click on the 'Validate' tab.
Now, the point of the link at the top of this message is that we
haven't decided what attributes we'll be rating on. We need a good
selection and discussion of them. And we need it soon - 1.5 is
supposed to be rolled out early June. Presumably there will be a vote,
or maybe Magnus will just pick the ones he likes. Or I will. Or
something.
I particularly want to hear from academic researchers interested in
Wikipedia - you folk will LOVE this data. What things would you
particularly like to see reader/editor ratings of?
Also read about the feature and anticipated possible problems:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_featurehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_possible_problems
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----- End forwarded message -----
Anthere wrote:
> The issue is more that english is our lingua franca, and that any
> report in "english" is beneficial to ALL of us. The best proof of this
> is that David posted this here. Not on wikien-l...
>
> French, Germans etc... rarely mention their own interviews HERE on
> wikipedia-l... in short, an article, a show, in english and especially
> when Jimbo is in, will have a much larger audience.
I would very much welcome it if our French, German, Chinese, Portuguese
(etc.) editors posted more often to this list about media coverage, even
if it's only in or about their language. No knowledge of English
required. Keeping the day-to-day discussions about each language
Wikipedia segregated on its own mailing list is generally a good thing,
but when you have something special to share, share it. I think David
posted this to the right place.
--Michael Snow
Hi
Just checking
Nl contributors are reporting a problem in the Izynews website (which is
a mirror of Wikipedia in nl, de and fr).
In short, Izynews has strangely replaced nearly everywhere "wikipedia"
by "encyclopedia", which result in rather strange articles such as "
Encyclopédie est une encyclopédie libre , gratuite, universelle et
multilingue, écrite par des volontaires et basée sur un site Web
(http://fr.wikipedia.org en français ) utilisant la technologie wiki .
Encyclopédie est financée et gérée par la Fondation Wikimedia . Ce nom
se rapporte aussi au projet visant à construire l'encyclopédie.
Unfortunately, that also means that at least for images, the credit is
given to "encyclopedia" rather than "wikipedia".
Besides, in nl, images display by default a gfdl licence, even when they
are not.
In de, license seem to be fine.
In fr, images seem to be missing.
I feel that a mail could be enough to fix this, but I can't help
thinking I already know that name, and suspect we already had issues
with them. However, I could not find someone who would remember. Have we
already warned them about lack of compliance or not ?
Anthere
I already heard
Hi all,
Personally I give no importance to articles' quality average rating but
I think this rating system may be useful for an other purpose. My
principal concern is to offer to *those who want* a list of article
version reviewed by persons in whom they trust. Here is a concrete
example of what I would like to be able to do:
For the Egyptology project, I would like to create an (informal)
reviewers committee where each member gives information about his
expertise level (professional, professor, autodidact, etc.). Members of
this committee review all articles version they want like any other
users. Then I would like to allow the readers to obtain the list of
articles' versions corresponding to the criteria of their choice. For
example, the list of versions that was rated more than 7/10 by Miss Foo
and Mister Bar. A default search criterion may be versions that was
rated more than 5/10 by any member of the committee.
What do you think about that? Will the new rating system allow that?
Aoineko
--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It is much more productive to show where to go next.
>
> The crux is that the mentioning of sources make a Wikipedia article
>
> credible. It does not point where to go for further research or
> information. To me this is distinctly different and it is much more
>
> important that we encourage people to learn more.
>
Amen.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
It has long been nagging me about the policy of HMSO with respect to
Crown copyright material outside of the UK. Inside the UK the position
is clear: published material from 1954 or earlier is out of copyright
as it was published over 50 years ago. Outside the UK the position of
Crown copyright material has long been ambiguous.
I therefore sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Office
for Public Sector Information (what HMSO has changed its name to)
requesting clarification of the length of copyright for published
Crown copyright material outside the UK. I received the following
reply from their Information Policy Adviser:
"Dear David,
Thank you for your email enquiry dated May 23rd, 2005. Crown
copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from
the end of the year in which the material was first published.
Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any
Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out
of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world.
I hope this information will be helpful to you, but if you have any
further questions please feel free to get in touch with me again."
So, it appears that Crown copyright material that has been published
in 1954 or earlier is considered public domain worldwide by OPSI and
is thus fair game for the Wikipedia to use.
David Newton
I can see from all the email threads that this is a hot topic, and I don't mean to add to it. But I am wondering if there is any effort put in to verifying the accuracy of public-submitted articles.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
As far as I can tell many highly educated Wikipedia authors tend to write
articles outside their field of formally established expertise.
That is part of the fun of being a wikipedian, being able to show that
you're not a one-dimensional person.
I might be inclined to trust an article about pharao Ramses II slightly more
when it was written by a professor in chemistry rather than by a 13 year old
schoolboy, just because the chemist has learned some general methodological
skills, one would hope, during his/hers university years, that extend beyond
the particular subspecialism of chemistry for which the degree was awarded.
He or she might have picked up some general notions, like trying to
establish the authority of a source, comparing sources in the first place
instead of relying solely on third hand quotes, knowing the difference
between a hypothesis and a scientific prove.
Then again there are very bright and knowledgeable 13 year olds, and many
mediocre people with a university degree whose general knowledge and outlook
on the world outside their profession is shamefully inadequate (of course as
an adult they learned to hide these weak spots and became adept in changing
the subject of a conversation). So being awarded a university degree does
not tell me much. In fact I'm often quite irritated when professor so and so
is invited at a news show to comment on recent developments and only
paraphrases yesterdays newspaper articles, often which authoritative
phrasology and intonation that conceals this fact that he or she has not
much to contribute really.
I don't think many mediocre people with a barely justified college degree
will be attracted to Wikipedia. They probably are not inquisitive and
curious enough to even bother. Neither do I distrust experts in general. I
do distrust official diploms as sole evidence of someones credibility,
beyond the very small subfield of todays overspecialized institutions for
higher learning for which the certificate was issued. Universities produce
admirably knowledgeable and accomplished experts, but not only those.
Erik Zachte