> NPOV disputes would probably kill the peper version.
> If an article
> seems to be heading for that, it might be better to
> omit it entirely in
> the first edition.
It's going to look kind of weird when we produce a
first edition containing no mention of Israel ;)
Kiss Me I'm Irish!
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
=== PART ONE ===
==== Definitions ====
Rookie : A logged in user who has fewer than 10 editing days. An "editing day" is a calendar day when the user makes one or more edits.
Frequently Edited Article : An article in the main encyclopedia namespace that has been edited more than 5 times in the last 48 hours.
==== Policy ====
On the English Wikipedia, neither Rookies nor IP users are permitted to edit Frequently Edited Articles.
=== PART TWO ===
To aid in enforcement of hard bans, Wikipedians may list any user on [[Wikipedia:Petitions for users of concern]], thus starting a petition. Criteria for listing a user are: controversial edits and a belief that the user may have been banned previously. These are subjective criteria and Wikipedians are to use their best judgment. When there are eight or more Wikipedians in support of the petition (regardless of how many may be opposed), the user must demonstrate their real-world identity to the Wikipedia Bureaucracy within 10 days; if they do not do so, their editing privileges are suspended until they do.
The Wikipedia Bureaucracy will validate identities using sensible but effective methods, such as requiring a $1 donation via paypal or personal check, or returning a form sent to the user's postal address. The identity check will be used to determine whether the user is previously banned, and will be used to enforce a future ban if one should become necessary. Otherwise, it will remain confidential.
To discourage misuse, we may want to exempt Wikipedians who have been editing for, say, more than six months from the process.
As of 29 of feb 2004, I indicate that mediation between Mav and 168 is
over. No peaceful solution could be reached per discussion, and I do not
think it is resolvable amicably.
168 is requesting arbitration upon the conflict he has with Mav.
I just have to say, that I would love to follow all en-discussions, but
I (and many others) are working in many other languages as well and can
therefore not follow everything going on here.
But: I (or we) would nevertheless like to know what "important" is going
on here. We want to be part of Wikipedia en.
So, please, help me/us by adding important postings to this page:
It's just an Idea, but I think it's worth trying,
I'm not exactly sure what the meaning of this is. I am neither a
supporter nor detractor from Magen David Adom. I barely even knew the
name before this. I'm not sure why he thinks that I "expect people to
believe" a story that I've never heard before, much less written
----- Forwarded message from Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca> -----
From: Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:55:42 +0000
Subject: Magen David Adom and thee
Why are you such a strong supporter of Magen David Adom?
You do realize that gentleman who had his head blown off was framed, do you
not? Can you honestly expect people to believe this story that another
customer who happened to have a cocked, loaded pistol saved the day by firing
seven or eight rounds into the head and neck of another nearby shopper?
Apparently you can. You've managed to convince the wikisuckers that wikipedia
is an open project. Convincing the world to believe any other nonsense is
trivial by comparison to that feat.
----- End forwarded message -----
>I think we need to split out versions somewhere else,
>because we're looking for concise articles, not full
>encyclopedia articles. Simply marking [[World War II]]
>as "ready for print" doesn't do anything towards
>getting us a good one-to-two-paragraph summary of
>World War II.
Ideal Wikipedia news style would be to have the first section of an article be
a concise article in its own right. Then the process of creating a concise
version would be as simple as extracting the first section of each article
(excluding tables and images).
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
> There are pages for alphabetic browsing.
> Auppose [the Wikipedia print edition] snagged the
> same 55,000 topics as Columbia? How big would the resulting
> text be?
Wouldn't selecting the exact same 55,000 topics as Colombia be a possible
copyright infringement? Choosing an appropriate selection of topics for a
concise encyclopedia is a creative act...
I will follow with great interest the print version project. I would
never have expected Wikipedia itself to work as well as it does so I
hope to be pleasantly surprised and that the negativism I am about to
spew will turn out to be utterly misguided. However...
I suspect that producing a print version will magnify many of
Wikipedia's weak points and minimize many of its strong points. One
point about web Wikipedia is that there is no overview, and
consequently the variation in style, quality, and depth of coverage is
not directly obvious. Flipping through a print book will make this much
Another problem is that producing a respectable-looking print version
will, I think, require a high degree of selectivity and quality control
and a fairly rigid approval process by editors who in turn will have to
be approved... and articles frozen after approval. That is, exactly the
opposite of the Wikipedia creation process.
Another problem is that I think that to come up to peoples' expectation
in print versions, a large fraction of the output will have to be
actively edited (for tyops, repeated words words, and to fully
complying with grammatical and language standards). Will people stand
for a mixture of British and American spelling? How many minutes per
article will it take to copyedit to print-Wikipedia standards.
And despite the perfectly clear disclaimer on the every edit page that
explains that you are donating your work, I suspect that some people
who see the work they did for free appear in a bookstore with a price
tag on it will be upset. And I think copyright violations could be a
minefield. Do you think every single one will be caught? Whatever the
theory, I expect that in practice the consequences of a copyright
violation in a print version will be more serious than on the Web. What
if some print encyclopedia company were to act like SCO and assert that
they have found tens of thousands of individual sentences lifted from
their print version by hundreds of contributors (and that they won't
tell anyone which they are?) Even assuming their case is no stronger
than SCOs it could be a substantial nuisance.
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate:
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
--- On Fri 02/27, David Gerard < fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au > wrote:
>It needs to be a separate branch, taking stuff from the trunk as it
>sees fit. Tag it "Wikipedia Concise Print" or something.
Why not make it equivalent to a language Wikipedia? We already have the 'Simple English' Wikipedia. The other language type link on an article could tell you the page had been selected (or moved).
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!