WikiEN-l November 2002

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

30 participants
96 discussions

A concept from Buckminster Fuller
by Jimmy Wales 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

(I confess: I don't understand what should go to wikien-l and what should go to wikipedia-l.) -------------------------- When a wasp is in the house, most people try to shoo it out a window with a newspaper. They open a window wide, and then take a newspaper or magazine and launch repeated attacks on the wasp to try to convince it to fly out the window. This is a frustrating and usually impossible procedure. It is contrary to the nature of the wasp. It's exhausting and usually ends in the death of the wasp. I would imagine that some people get stung in the process. Buckminster Fuller found a better way, a way that works with virtual certainty, with comparatively little effort. Here's what to do: close the curtains and/or shades and/or blinds on all the windows except the open window. Turn off the light in the room. Make the room as dark as possible, except for the window where you wish the wasp to go. The wasp will fly out quickly and voluntarily. There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps. In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we shooing a wasp? Is there a better way? --Jimbo p.s. Through a quick web search, I have been unable to confirm that this actually should be attributed to Buckminster Fuller. But that's how I heard it.

4 10

*sigh* it's sunday and the nuts are here
by Daniel Mayer 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

tarquin wrote: >But seriously, I'd like to propose a new "What Wikipedia is not" item: > >* a compendium of *all* human knowledge, no matter how trivial > >this means we don't have the nine million digits of pi; or the Helsinki >telephone book, or my shopping list from last week. This isn't anything new. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is our third most important policy. That means that we don't include the entire gene sequences of organisms, source code for entire free-software programs and yes pi to one billion places (or anything above 40 places for that matter). These things have and should continue to be deleted right away and without any apology. I am surprised that the pi to x places entries weren't deleted right away. There are plenty of other places to mirror this information but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Focus people! We are building an encyclopedia. Granted a huge one, but an encyclopedia nonetheless. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

3 2

Re: Shouldn't we change BC->BCE?
by Daniel Mayer 25 Nov '02

25 Nov '02

On Sunday 24 November 2002 04:00 am, Eclecticology wrote: > I prefer BC because it's shorter than BCE. > > As much as I know the origins of "BC" and its relationship to the life > of Jesus, my atheistic sensitivities are not offended by its use. "BCE" > has always struck me as affectatiously hyper-correct. I agree. I'm also an atheist (or at least a highly skeptical agnostic) and am more offended by efforts to do away for BC than with the fact that BC stands for "Before Christ". The whole effort is stupid and silly IMO - it is like trying to reform a criminal by only changing their name. Rubbish. What is really needed is a better system that has some meaningful starting point such as the establishment of the first human agricultural society. But since we can't possibly pin down an exact year for such a thing I don't think it is at all possible (and if it were there would invariably be later research that finds an even earlier society). So that leaves us with the Christan calendar. IMO pretending it isn't is just pure delusion (that doesn't mean we should use AD - AD is overtly POV and not needed to distinguish from BC dates). > Nevertheless, if the author of an article wants to use "BCE" or "CE" in > his own article, I would be inclined to treat it as an option in the > same way that we deal with American/British spellings. Where a person > does use "AD", however, I would treat it as wrong to put it after the > year number. I haven't seen many cases of the use of BCE or CE in Wikipedia. BC is still comfortably the dominant usage and since there aren't any pressing POV issues with it we should stay with it. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) payment for this post http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hatchett

3 2

Shouldn't we change BC->BCE?
by Alexander Stephen Bradbury 24 Nov '02

24 Nov '02

Shouldn't the English Wikipedia chaqnge the BC dates, to BCE. As I'm sure you all know, BC==Before Christ and BCE=Before Common Era. Now, surely BCE is a better term, as it doesn't force anyone to conform to this christian naming convention. Maybe you've already considered tihs, are there any reasons not to make the change? ASB [[User:Smelialichu]] -- <signature> There are only 10 types of people in this world; Those that know binary...and those that don't </signature>

5 5

Re: wikipedia evangelism: mail article
by Daniel Mayer 24 Nov '02

24 Nov '02

On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:39 pm, Tom Parmenter wrote: > I'm resurrecting this feature request from [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] > where it is discussed under "Wikipedia Evangelism". > > The point raised was the desirability of an easy way to ask a friend > to comment on the accuracy of an article, or simply to point out an > interesting article to someone. > > How about doing what a lot of news pages do? Add a box at the bottom > of each article > > [] Send this article to a friend > > along with a java mailer to fire the message off and a text box to add > a note. Having a linked mailer would eliminate the necessity of > firing up a mail program. This would be a most cool feature. Of course, it would only be available to logged-in users that have valid email addresses set-up in their preferences. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) Opps! I forgot to add a diff to a list response to JHK to wikiEN-L. Here are a couple of substantial edits to pay for this mailing list post and the JHK one; http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Niobium/Temp&diff=0&oldid=440062 http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jimmy_Doolittle&diff=0&oldid=44…

1 0

Re: This whole Lir and Americanization thing
by Daniel Mayer 24 Nov '02

24 Nov '02

On Saturday 23 November 2002 12:39 pm, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote: >.... > Some while back, those of us most interested and most learned in these > things worked together to come up with a nomenclature policy. We agreed > that it made the most sense to use the most common English-language > version of a name (different forms of English notwithstanding) for the > title BUT, because we all felt it very important to let people know that > other cultures and language-speakers had different names for the same > thing, so we listed alternate names in the article itself. This means > that English-speakers, arguably the largest audience, could search for > articles in the way most natural to them, but the articles would still > appear in searches by speakers of other languages searching in those > languages. I can't see that Lir's political beliefs are valid reasons > to change this policy >.... I is wonderful to hear from you again Julie. :-) I also most wholeheartedly agree with your entire message, especially the above text about our central naming convention. What is most commonly known and used by English speakers is the foundation for all our naming conventions and the current attack against Anglicization would seriously undermine that foundation and lead to confusion and more work. In fact Anglicization is really a red herring and not at all needed when we already have "what is most commonly used by English speakers." I suggest we merge Anglicization with common English useage because the name of the convention itself may give the incorrect impression that we /prefer/ Anglicization and translation even in cases where the native form is more widely used by modern English speakers than an Anglicized or translated version. But we should also be careful to not make-up our own Anglicized terms for subjects that are not widely known and used by English speakers and don't have widely recognized English language forms. This is where our central naming convention breaks down and we are left with the confusing choice of alternate native transliterations. So long as Mein Kampf, Les Miserables, Charlemagne etc are used and recognized by a majority of English speakers then by all means lets use them so long as POV or naming conflicts don't get in the way (We can't use Charles the Great because that is a POV title). What is most widely known and used by English speakers is all that really matters. Secondary spellings, translations, transliterations, native forms or Anglicizations should be redirected (at least eventually) to what most English speakers would recognize and expect. The article itself should eventually explain just when and where the other forms are used (but Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary, so these explanations need to be brief in most cases). If we don't stick with most common usage by English speakers then our naming conventions would be confusing mess that will lead to needlessly complex and foreign names. That isn't at all useful to either readers or writers. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

Re: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Clean up our mess! (was: A concept from Buckminster
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

I wrote: >yowza. "what a sports nut, huh?" etc. I should not have done that--especially if I want to talk about the need for diplomacy & civility. Something about glass houses, I don't know.... kq http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Mauritania&diff=4401… http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Politics_of_Mauritania&diff=0&o… (cut and paste jobs, but contributions nonetheless) (ARGH, this crossposting is killing me. what list are people on?)

1 0

Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Clean up our mess! (was: A concept from Buckminster
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

Larry (writing about cleaning up uncivil talk, etc.) >http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Cunctator/Bias_Talk yowza. "what a sports nut, huh?" That page really doesn't seem conducive to civility either, though, really? Cunctator gets knocked around quite a bit. Decide for yourself if you think he deserves it--and Larry, you don't have to tell me what you think; but really he does. Which hatchet needs burying? Oh, there are two? kq

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Clean up our mess!
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

Larry, why so bitter? Haven't I always shown you respect and spoken to you with civility? And people like kq and April and Zoe and elian and Brion and many, many more are so unfailing polite and courteous and helpful, too. I have more hope than ever for the success of Wikipedia. Your sifter idea is a great adjunct, by the way. (Magnus said he's going to make me an admin on that project, after the nice things I said about his 0.01 and 0.02 versions of the software.) Everyone will by trying like the dickens to get the coveted "Larry Award" -- the encyclopedic equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize!! A little refactoring, a little civility -- why, I think we can even get Julie to come back! Take some time off, smell the flowers, and then jump in again: the water's fine!!! Ed Poor

2 1

Criteria for banning
by Jimmy Wales 23 Nov '02

23 Nov '02

(As a warning to others, wikien-l(a)nupedia.com goes into a black hole. The old lists work at both @nupedia.com and @wikipedia.org. Jason, can you fix this?) Ultimately, I would say that it is perfectly o.k. to ban people if, after a reasonable period of time, they appear to be unwilling or unable to work together with others in a collegial spirit of mutual respect. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It is not the right place for people to attempt to put forward particular ideological positions. It is important for all ideological positions to be put forward in a fair manner, and it is therefore valid for people with a particular ideology to work on Wikipedia to ensure that their viewpoint is fairly represented. But the essential here is that people from all viewpoints should be working towards NPOV. To fail to do so is to fail to work together with others in a collegial spirit of mutual respect. Wikipedia is not a joke book. User names like Throbbing Monster Cock are inappropriate. TMC's contributions have been perfectly o.k., as far as I know, but his name is clearly chosen in an attempt to be funny or (likely) to deliberately annoy people. TMC has argued that changing his name is tantamount to the use of force against him. This argument is stupid, because he has no property interest in his username, but if he wishes to press it, he should write to me personally about it, as this was my decision. We should take great care to ensure a diversity of contributors. We should take great care that people are not banned for making policy proposals that are annoying to us. We should take great care that people are not banned too soon, even for breaking the rules. For ip addresses, anonymous contributions, we should continue our policy of banning them for simple vandalism at the slightest provocation. For usernames, we should be more forgiving, but only because the fact that someone has taken the effort to login suggests that there is some hope of sincerity. Even so, simple vandlism is ample grounds for a ban. The more difficult cases are cases like Lir, or TMC. TMC has committed only one violation -- the selection of a deliberately annoying username. His contributions are, apparently and to date, not bad. Lir, on the other hand, has been uncollegial and rude to others on multiple occassions, and has received ample warning. --Jimbo

4 4

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l November 2002