Hello,
I know that the pros and cons of pronunciation guides have been discussed
before, but that was (AFAIR) before the Wiktionary project. I just had a
new discussion with Arpingstone (if you can call this a discussion) about
this topic:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone
It appears to me, that a guide how to pronounce a word would rather belong
to the Wiktionary project than to Wikipedia. In Wiktionary the
pronunciation appears to be a regular paragraph, while it is in Wikipedia
in one per thousand articles. What are your opinions about this?
In the above example Arpingstone added a sentence to the Bremen article:
"The 'Bre' of Bremen rhymes with 'clay'." I removed that sentence, mainly
because it is at most a rough approximation of the correct pronunciation.
Mirko (Cordyph)
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>May I change the layout of the
>homepage of the English Wikipedia
>to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia?
>I think that layout looks much better.
>I would ask this on [[Talk:Main Page]],
>but not many people look there that
>often, and this would be a huge change.
IMO that is HMTL madness -- WAY too many spurious colors that mean nothing and
whose only purpose is to look "purty" in the eyes of the designer. We have
already worked out a more conservative color scheme for the Main Page but
were waiting for some earth-shattering announcement to make to go with the
upgrade (such as "The Wikimedia Foundation is open for business and is now
accepting donations!" - not that we would say that on the Main Page but we
would have a link to a press release).
See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
Which is based on: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
We really should be very conservative with making big noticeably changes to
that page because so many people visit it every day. Making a big change is
going to make people think that something is different and then they will be
more likely to see the link to the press release (we did this for our last
press release and it worked very well).
Color rational: White is for articles (thus the background for the category
links is white/unchanged), Yellow is for community (since all our user, talk,
and wikipedia pages are yellow) and Blue is for hyperlinks. I guess red for
edit links would also be neat (indicating there is always something else to
cover) but that would be too many colors and red is also a bit heavy.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
| >Toby: (Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism
alert for
| > an edit war,
| > so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^)
| > -- Toby
Hehe.
|Anthere: I fear I could be expecting to be a "troll"
again very
| soon :-(
| I was apparently not offered the truce some
suggested.
| I think the the phrase "Gaia theory" does not refer
| exclusively to a scientific thoery.
| Thank you to those of you morally supporting me :-)
Well, it was nothing. Thank you for keeping your
composure, as it made
it easier for us to discern the smoke from the real
thing. The issue of
whether these articles are properly organized, as I
see it, are far less
important
than the issue of people treating others with distaste
and accusation.
So, regardless of that particular situation, ( I think
Robert had a point)
you should
never feel intimidated or forced into positions that
require you to
compromise your
dignity. Those who make attempts to cause you feel
that way are to be
looked upon with
some distaste, if not moderated by sanction.
Best.
-Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
HI all - Thanks, Toby for your suggestions on helping. I'm doing a lot
of the cleanup by myself since I can understand Erik's reluctance to do
a SQL search and replace. Out of curiosity, has my old name been
replaced in article histories? Anyway, if anyone feels like helping do
the changes by hand, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll keep going,
and perhaps if someone runs into my old name, he or she could just
change it to [[User:JHK|JHK]]? Thanks bunches!
Jules
I had email problems, so this wasnt posted earlier -=
like around 9am PST -- but .here it is anyway
Danny wrote
>"Wikipedia is a project with a stated
objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is
not to create an ideal >democratic >society a la
Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping
ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the
name of free speech. It is a place that works best by
consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt
decisions that this must be the policy, come hell or
high water. That is why I was opposed to making a
final decision on the date format and spelling
policies. ""
>""The end result of all this is that some of the
serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for
one, was one of the most ?>prolific Wikipedians and a
real defender of the project against vandalism. While
Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a
quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work
is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and
most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is
bound to flame the fires of dispute.""
How does having a democratic and responsive way of
dealing with issues conflict with making an
encyclopedia? -- Do not, Danny, fall victim to the
typical assumptions and presumptions of academics.
That said, your views on the usefulness of
formalization seem to be inline with mine -- in terms
of the nonsense details. In terms of process,
however, and conducting administrative affairs, it
seems the time is ripe to formalize under sunlight the
way things get voted on, etc.
>""What I would like to see are some solid
contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page
does not count---before >wasting our time with the
Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was
made a sysop whether it was to police it >over the
rest of us or to further the goal of creating an
encyclopedia.""
You are 'free to wonder, Danny, but not aloud.' Hehe.
Well... rather, if you make comments like the above,
the rest of us might be inclined to point out that
they are not in character for someone of your caliber,
and that they need not be addressed if they are made
as a slant, rather than as a formal complaint. In any
case, your worthy history entitles you to some
excusing.
As for Zoe (sob!) and others leaving, I might point
out that they by and large left under some stress.
The stress comes from the conflict that their personal
or institutionalized standards are not the absolute
measure here, rather it is consensus that is. If a
disagreement is met, it must be dealt with in ways
(like co-operation and respect) that some academics
seem to avoid learning. Aside from the fact that
academics need to find non-academic hobbies, anyone
who lets themselves get too stressed on the WP will
soon enough have to face a monster of their own
making, namely that same-said stress. This stress
comes via various factors: Severed attachment to areas
of concern, a negated sense of accomplishment when
something is changed, personality issues, and so on.
That academics eventually would call for higher
standards, to "cut out the deadwood," and "weed out
the weaklings," reflects only the fact that these
professionals failed to understand what was Wikipedias
founding spirit in the first place. Such people,
despite their vast areas of rote knowledge, tend to
have some fundamental inefficiencies that may make
them in the end, extinct. Its kind of like the
proverbial health-food junkie who dies if he eats bad
food. Compared to the beefy, eat-anything robustness
of a typically-poor diet, that health nut is an
accident waiting to happen. (In some situations).
The WP wont be obsolete, because it will be what it
is. If Jim decided, say, to rename the WP, "Nupedia"
-- saying "this henceforth a peer-reviewed thing," --
it will make no difference. It will still be the
stagnant and dying Nupedia, regardless of how many
articles it got via Wikipedic means.
Zoe, ironically, seemed to be non-academic enough to
qualify as being among the robust, but then she took
it upon herself to be the top-cop, the Ken Starr
chasing Clinton, and of course, like Starr, some of
the methods, words and tactics Zoe chose tended to
make some skeptical of her intent. And besides, how
do we know she's just not hanging out at the beach
more often? The WP is nice for stay at home dads and
IT dungeon keepers, but for others the appeal of a
topical argument stands short against the realization
that life in front of a screen is a bad habit at best.
So in short, I take issue with you, Danny, when you
confuse the issues you presented, with the altogether
different phenomenon of the changing guard.
Get well soon, all
-Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Hi folks.
Firstly, I would like to thank Danny. Despite your annoyance at my actions, and your
concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia, you were polite and calm in your criticism.
Criticism is often a bitter pill to swallow, but you were a perfect gentleman, and I
genuinely appreciate that.
Secondly, I have been informed that some may feel that I am accusing Jimbo
Wales, or Wikipedians generally, of hypocricy, regarding my comments on whether
these lists are "unmoderated". I did not mean to imply any such thing, and, for the
record I do not think that any of you are hypocritical. I *did* have a point behind my
post, but it is not important, so I am happy to completely retract it. I apologise for the
offence my careless choice of words has caused.
Thirdly, I should note that my sysop powers were the result of a fairly informal
decision by Ed Poor, rather than the general acclamation that has greeted recent
sysops. As such I feel somewhat lacking in democratic accountability! :) While I wish
to retain my deletion and undeletion powers solely for the purpose of merging page
histories or moving page titles, I would like to announce here that I will no longer
take any other sysop-restricted actions, until further notice. I hope you can all trust
me to keep my word on this matter.
Finally, I'm currently discussing this matter privately with Danny and other interested
parties. If you have any feedback, positive or negative (especially negative feedback
that is as polite and well-reasoned as Danny's), then I would be deleted to hear from
any of you. In particular, I would like to hear from Jtdirl, who I have much respect
for, despite our diametrically opposed views. My email adress is
wikipedia(a)myreddice.co.uk.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Brion writes:
> Evercat writes:
>
>> Question: did the proposed blocking of IP addresses occur over the
>> weekend,
>
> Yes.
>
>> and has it now been lifted?
>
> No.
>
>> I ask because things seemed quiet over the weekend, but a user in
>> the last hour has displayed suspicious DW-like behaviour.
>
> Er, more information?
User:Janet Dayton - continuation of the theme of treating every
sysop's every word as gospel, and proceeding upon their instructions
to harmful effect. Also the "I think you are DW" stuff... (to
Camembert)
Contributions here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&targ
et=Janet_Dayton
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Let me say this one more time. Wikipedia has simple
coventions for disambiguation: We have Disambiguation
pages. We also have "See also" links at the bottom of most
articles. Further, this is the *English* Wikipedia, and we
need to us enaming conventions and spellings that most
English speakers are familiar with, and like to use. What
about this is so difficult to grasp?
For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, we all have had to
follow the same rules. For instance, Wikipedia does NOT
break apart every topic into topic-fragments by author. Let
me give you an example:
We DO NOT have
Evolution (Gould)
Evolution (Dawkins)
Evolution (Darwin)
Evolution (Mayr)
and...Evolution!
We DO NOT have:
Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg)
Quantum Mechanics (Schr�dinger)
Quantum Mechanics (Dirac)
and...Quantum Mechanics!
We DO NOT have:
Relativity (classical)
Relativity (Einstein)
Relativity (Superstring extension)
Relativity (Supersymmetry extension)
and...Relativity
So why do we now have:
Gaia theory
Gaia hypothesis
Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?!
Gaia theory (Biology)
Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on
the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading.
She also is using a naming terminology that English
speakers DO NOT use. Jimbo Wales and others have already
made clear that our primary purpose here is to make this
project accessible and clear to an English speaking
audience. The terms we use are extremely imporant,
otherwise people looking for one topic could very well miss
much of what we have to offer on it.
Chopping up articles like Anthere does is confusing to the
reader. Someone will read one article, and think that they
have read what they need to on the subject...all the while
mising the other critical information on the other pages.
(And let's be real, most people DO NOT follow most links.
They follow a few links, that's all.)
Anthere's method prevents future edits from being useful.
Someone new will come along, and find one or two of her
Gaia articles; they might want to contribute, and make an
addition or an edit. Sounds good...but they probably will
only make the edit to one part of the whole; what about all
the other articles on the same topic?
And it gets worse. Many scientists have written on the Gaia
theory, not just the two that Anthere is dwelling on. Will
she create even more, such as [[Gaia theory (Dawkins)]]?
If not, why? She already is doing so now...if we follow
her convention, we will have to do so for many more
articles. And why is her naming convention being defended
for this one topic only, but rejected for other topics?
Again, this is not about content or NPOV. Anthere should
not be jamming tiny bits of an entire subject into four
separate articles.
Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very
misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia
theory here! Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia theory
theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics!
She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into
sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college
is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia
theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.
We English speakers to use the phrase "Gaia theory" to
refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al.
Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer
to anything else. Anthere's demands for namin conventions
are totally backwards. It is the [[Gaia theory]] article
which should be about the Gaia biological theories by
Lovelock, Margulis. If someone wants to read about
Anthere's other interests, such as quasi-Gaian mystial
theories of other people from previous decades and
centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia
theory (precedents)". If someone wants to read about
radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here
either, but rather in another article.
This article should be about biology, because most English
speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this
name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking
is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere
else.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Question: did the proposed blocking of IP addresses occur over the
weekend, and has it now been lifted?
I ask because things seemed quiet over the weekend, but a user in the
last hour has displayed suspicious DW-like behaviour.
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthere wrote:
>>Danny wrote:
>>[a long letter about some of his concerns]
>
>Have you understood the principles upon which
>Wikipedia is built ?
Do you? We are here to build an encyclopedia. The
community aspect is a means to an end, not an end in
itself (and I think that was the underlying message
that Danny was writing about). And please consider how
insulting it appears to put in quotes the word
"Wikipedian" when referring to another contributor; in
English this implies that you believe the other person
is not a real Wikipedian. That isn't nice and I hope
you will do the right thing and apologize to Danny -
who /is/ a damn good and very real Wikipedian.
See also:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com