Er, he doesn't like people saying unflattering things about France?
(In all seriousness, I'm as confused as Erik. Ant....whaaaaa?)
John
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_XqM42wRUYTXdToTQPPZo5g)"
--Boundary_(ID_XqM42wRUYTXdToTQPPZo5g)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?
RickK
Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Rick a �crit:
> Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the
> government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In
> the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.
>
> RickK
May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments
that might anger your peers RickK ?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
--Boundary_(ID_XqM42wRUYTXdToTQPPZo5g)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-comments: Conversion error: %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000
<DIV>I am seriously asking what is wrong with what I posted here. Please explain what I said that angered you, and what is libelous?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>Rick a �crit:<BR>> Where would you suggest? In France, it's illegal to criticize the <BR>> government. In Germany, it's illegal to display Nazi memorabilia. In <BR>> the UK there's the Official Secrets Act to deal with.<BR>> <BR>> RickK<BR><BR>May I *seriously* suggest that you consider avoiding libel and comments <BR>that might anger your peers RickK ?<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Get better spam protection with <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools">Yahoo! Mail</a>
--Boundary_(ID_XqM42wRUYTXdToTQPPZo5g)--
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just to lay out what *I* think are going to be the biggest hurdles to creating
a print Wikipedia
A) Articles in en.wikipedia must not be frozen (or this would kil the Wikipedia
project), but must be stable enough that they can be verified a print-ready.
B) Weblinks and interlinks have to be removed from our print articles, but not
from our regular database.
C) While Wikipedia is not paper, a printed version is. Wikipedia doesn't have to be
concise, but a printed version does. By the same token, electronic Wikipedia doesn't
have to define terms very precisely when interlinks can be used, but a paper
encyclopedia, to a larger degree, should. So we absolutely cannot just copy the
articles as they exist in the en database.
D) Forks, with the inevitable loss of effeciency that occurs from repeated efforts,
are always bad.
To summarize the ideas presented regarding the
print version:
1) Some people argue that we should create a print Wikipedia project (ala the
simple english project).
2) Others argue that we should do it behind the scenes, by changing our
markup language or using a hidden flag
3) My idea was to create a talk-page like "Print version" page
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I still think my idea is the best. Getting a
full, printed version of Wikipedia is going to require a LOT of effort. IMO,
those side projects fall short of it by orders of magnitude. Plus, it would mean
that users would have to keep track of two seperate Wikipedia namespaces - not
something that most people are going to do.
Meanwhile, the do-it-behind-the-scenes idea falls apart completely on point C, (and
point B to a lesser extent).
My idea of a talk-page like structure is distinct from the normal Wikipedia articles
that it doesn't require major changes to the markup langugage, but not too far
removed as to cause ineffeciency. Changes to the printed version would show up in the
watchlist, just like changes to talk pages do. The print-version page could, in many
cases, simply be the first paragraph of the main article.
--Mark Pellegrini
User:Raul654
On 02/28/04 14:11, Fred Bauder wrote:
>From: "David Speakman" <david(a)speakman.com>
>>2. Trade requires that the writer gets money or other tangible goods in
>>exchange for services. WP is one way.
> Following our editing the author can then publish for profit now that the
> article is improved. They must follow the GNUFDL rules, that is all.
Also - under US law, allowing the use of a copyright is itself equivalent
to money or tangible goods. (A wrinkle in the SCO v. IBM case, brought to
Groklaw's attention by Linus Torvalds.)
And never mind that the Treas. Dept law is gibberingly batshit insane ...
- d.
To compare Wikipedia to Columbia Encyclopedia...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/
has the full text of Columbia.
There are pages for alphabetic browsing.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/browse/browse-Aa.asp
>From these pages, it should be possible to get a list of all their
article titles.
These could be matched up against Wikipedia article titles.
Then we could ask the hypothetical: suppose Wikipedia just snagged the
same 55,000 topics as Columbia? How big would the resulting text be?
If the answer is in the ballpark of 6,500,000 words -- i.e. the same
size as Columbia - then we have an obvious strategy. If, as I would
imagine, the answer is that we're bigger, then we can start digging
into how many of our longer articles would have to be edited down in
order to hit the same "ballpark".
Note that we don't have an answer from a publisher as to how big we
can be. The guy I talked to expressed a desire to be "as big as
possible" but I warned him that that's a limitation that's going to
come from their end, not ours, because we're already bigger than
Britannica, so our issue is how to get *small enough*, not how to
produce *enough*.
--Jimbo
Jimbo wrote:
>I'm not yet convinced that there's any need
>for it, but we really need some wordcount
>statistics to have a grasp of what would be
>needed.
As of Feb 26, 2004 there were 66.7 million words in the English Wikipedia
(217,000 articles; 2214 characters/article).
Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm
Encyclop�dia Britannica's 2002 edition (a full general encyclopedia) has 55
million words (85,000 articles; 3882 characters/article).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (a concise encyclopedia) has a word count
of 6.5 million words (51,000 articles; 765 characters/article).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Jimbo wrote:
>He seems to think that somehow Disney is behind all this, among a
>number of other interesting theories about people using pre-arranged
>and encrypted signals, etc.
LOL...at least we got one halfway decent chuckle out of the guy...
--Sheldon Rampton
Your government does not matter. The servers are in the US, and the US Government thus matters.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:28 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trading with the Enemy
> Fred Bauder wrote
>
> > Editing material which originates in Iran, North Korea, Cuba and
> other> nations with which most trade is banned without a
> government license may
> be
> > illegal. It is interpreted as aiding the enemy.
>
> Perhaps by your government - I doubt it is by mine.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Some of these have been raised before, I've included them again. Others are new, and the list is in no particular order or implied importance.
1. Dates - when does a final 'first draft' need to be at the publishers? There are sub-points:
1.A. - If we miss that date but deliver a worthwhile product, do they still want to publish? Or do they want to wait to Holiday's 2005?
1.B - If they don't pursue do we (Wikimedia or a sub) have right to shop for another publisher?
1. C. - Penalty for non-performance?
2. For talking purposes: What is their view of final size and scope: Number of Articles, Pages, Words?
3. We will, of course, keep each finished article on-line. And may update them after publication.
4. Does Wikimedia keep rights to republish 2nd (3rd....) edition? On what terms do we extend the contract?
.5. How often may publisher reprint without updating? I don't think either party would want to see a January, 2005 reprint that still lacked 2004 election results.
6. Formatting of delivered material? PDF, MS-Word, etc.?
7. Tentative schedule and turnaround for proofs, galleys, etc.?
8. A Formal title (e.g. Wikipedia Concise Encyclopedia, Wikimedia C E, etc.). My suggestion is that the Wikipedia or Wikimedia name stays first, and we keep rights to any other names such as the Wikimedia Almanac.
9. Intended primary audience: U.S. or wider, what about Canada, U.K., Australia, etc.? To a certain extent this will influence the choice of articles.
Just a summary so far.
Lou Imholt (aka LouI)
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Timwi,
It's too hard to keep a running list with more than 100 links.
How about an invisible marker like {ready for print} near the top of the
article text?
Ed Poor
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
>The print-version page could, in many cases,
>simply be the first paragraph of the main article.
Then use it directly and IMPROVE Wikipedia articles that are not in news style
so that their lead sections could be used in a concise version. See my last
email talking about sifter.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools