Jake Nelson wrote:
>Even if we don't use this plan, we definitely want to
>keep them separate from normal articles. The print
>versions should be different, and we shouldn't freeze
>or delete normal articles for this. I'm not keen on a
>en-print.wikipedia.org type fork as was suggested,
>but it's at least an option.
Why the hell does the print version have to be so different as to warrent a
fork in the content? All forks do is divide the workforce and multiply work to
update and extent articles - edits would have to be duplicated.
How is that a good thing? I'm sorry but I won't shut up on this point:
NO FORKS!
Call me a curmudgeon on this point if you like.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>And who is going to have the time to verify that all the
>chosen articles are written in "news style"?
And who is going to have time to create tens of thousands of forked articles?
Who is going to have time to keep the print fork and the live fork in content
sync? Some human is going to have to reformat existing Wikipedia content to do
that under the ill-advised fork idea. Best to encourage the natural development
of articles toward news style so that the lead sections can be concise
articles. Then all a human has to do is mark a specific version as ready for
print - no additional work is required so long as that version is already in
news style. This in fact is already the case for many, if not most, of our most
well-developed articles.
We should encourage that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Mark Pellegrini (Raul654) on Feb. 28 described four hurdles to the Concise Print Wikipedia. To address them one at a time:
>A) Articles in en.wikipedia must not be frozen (or this would kill >the Wikipedia project), but must be stable enough that they can be >verified a print-ready.
Agreed, and so far no one has disagreed.
>B) Weblinks and interlinks have to be removed from our print >articles, but not from our regular database.
This has to be addressed in two parts. Weblinks could be retained in a printed Wikipedia. our current 'Printable Version' option does this, keeping any Wikipedia description and following it with the Web address. I have a number of books that include Web addresses. This doesn't decide if Web addresses are desirable in the Wikipedia Concise Encyclopedia (WCE). Even if kept, it would have some standard about ephemeral web pages compared to those that are fairly static and reliable.
Interlinks need only be removed if the article linked is not included in the WCE. I have seen Encyclopedia's where other articles are indicated by highlighted text, besides the more traditional 'q.v.' entry. Points previously raised about 'piped' links and redirects remain valid.
> 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.
Yes, the Concise (or WCE) version must in some cases differ from Wikipedia. And I agree we can't just copy articles (never without inspection and consideration, but some might make it without change). As to definition of terms, an Encyclopedia, even a WCE, is not a dictionary.
>D) Forks, with the inevitable loss of efficiency that occurs from >repeated efforts, are always bad.
Yes,,,, BUT .. This becomes part of the decision as to whether to proceed, and if affirmative, whether the project succeeds or fails. I would expect a successful project to make some scope and manpower estimates, recruit (and/or authorize) volunteers, develop and adhere to a schedule. In some cases activities, (e.g. supply missing articles) would also benefit the normal 'en:Wikipedia'. But, in some cases volunteers will be giving up some of their normal Wikipedia time. With 5,000 users (abut 500 fairly active), the question becomes: 'Is the benefit of a printed CWE greater than the value of the lost contributions'? I suggest that each volunteer will need to come up with their own answer.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
>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).
No offense, but this is a horrendously bad idea. We should instead focus on
adding a good category system and on writing articles in news style so that the
first section of each article is a concise article in its own right (I call
this the 'lead section').
I also think that Simple was a bad idea as well since the lead section can and
should be written in language that can be understood by an average person - no
special knowledge of the subject area should be required to understand the lead
section.
In addition, it would be nice to have the ability to mark particular versions
of articles as "ready for print" (via a sifter-like mechanism). Then when the
Concise Wikipedia script parses the database it would create concise articles
out of the lead sections of every article version that was marked 'ready for
print'. That would prevent any vandalism from entering the print edition.
Thus we have no forks and no freezing of Wikipedia articles. We could also
create an updated version of Wikipedia Concise with each database backup. Such
a thing would be great to have in a format that could be used by PDAs and palm
top PCs. Hm. MediaWiki Lite...
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>The vote on moderation was:
>
>Support: RickK, Fred Bauder, Brian (Bcorr)
>
>Oppose: Eclecticology, Gareth
>
>The result was: Plautus was unsubscribed from the mailing list, not just
>"moderated". He's name is off the subscriber list.
>
>Plautus cannot post here. He can only read the public archives on the
>web.
>
>
Isn't an informal 3-2 vote kind of a slim margin to kick someone off the
list by?
-Mark
Several discussion points have been made for or against the concept of a fork. But, regardless of method or desires, the proposed 'pedia will be a fork when it goes to print. The project being discussed can't alter this, the question is simply when and how to create the fork.
Daniel Mayer (Mav) hopes to use a 'print ready' condition or flag to allow the first section of an article to be picked up in the Concise version. This might be ideal, but I have serious doubts about doing it this way.
One example of the difference is in internal references (or q.v. entries). Even if the 'news style' first section approach is used, the first section of the full Wikipedia article would contain links to articles that don't exist in the concise version.
Another difference was raised by Mav himself, when he asked that 'we have no forks and no freezing of Wikipedia articles.' I give firm support to the idea that we should never freeze a Wikipedia article in the process of creating the Concise Print version. But the urgency of creating the print ready version imposes two areas of discipline. The first is (IMHO) that we will need to freeze an article as ready. The second was raised by Ray Saintonge (Ec), and that is that the project will probably need to restrict editing rights, something that we'd never want in Wikipedia.
When I wrote the first note about using the 'Language Wiki' method of creating a fork, I just assumed that the fork was going to happen. I think we ought to reach a clear consensus on that point before addressing the mechanics or the pro and con arguments about any given technique.
Lou Imholt (aka LouI)
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
I guess that one needs to experience Plautus firsthand, in order to really appreciate him, as Jimbo's found out for himself.
Actually, I cannot refrain from adding that Plautus'es contributions on this list reminded me of Hal from 2001:A Space Odyssey, and the output it gave out just before Hal pulled out those computer chips. All that was missing from Plautus before Jimbo pulled the plug on him was a recital of "Daisy, Daisy...." .
"I'm not sure what Ed's talking about, vis-a-vis the vote, but to be
clear, I kicked Plautus off the list on my own initiative because I'm
sick of his nonsense.
Please know that this guy is sending me many many many emails that I
can only charitably describe as perplexing.
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.
I can't make heads nor tails of it, to tell you the truth. I just
wanted to stop flooding all the subscribers with it."
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Alpha Eagle, meet me at Aleph Echelon, the bird has landed, I repeat,
the bird has landed.
:-)
----- Forwarded message from Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca> -----
From: Plautus Satire <plautus(a)shaw.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:17:03 +0000
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Subject: been doing some thinking
This is what I've got so far, in no particular order:
o - At least some if not all sysops have an alternate ID. These ID's are
known to the sysop community but not advertised.
o - No attempts are made to proactively involve the community at large in
metadiscussion.
o - All sysops can communicate with each other using a back channel
consisting of an unrelated web page and encrypted, predefined signals.
Can you let me know how I'm doing so far? I'm just curious, if I'm close it
may impress my girlfriend.
----- End forwarded message -----
I support Uninvited's "Part Two" as a good thing. The donation or
returned form would work well. There are plenty of other reasonable
methods of demonstrating one's identity, so I'd expect everyone
could find one that was acceptable.
-Martin
A little draconian, anyone? This goes_way_too far,
IMO.
1. Any non-rookie, engaged in an edit war, can simply
freeze out any rookie/anon in an edit war by making 5
quick edits.
2. We don't know how many of our articles would fall
under "frequently edited".
3. This is offputting to newbies, and we need_more_of
them, not fewer--without growth, our vitality is gone.
4. The "reveal your real ID" provision is extremely
onerous.
5. Facilitates the irritation of ANY unpopular user,
and increases the odds of factionalization and etc.
6. Is generally unwikilike.
TINC my ass.
Meelar
> === 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.
>
> ---
> UninvitedCompany
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Hardbanned user HJ has returned under IP address 66.47.62.78
Has this person been unbanned? Should we be blocking/reverting them?
Caroline/Secretlondon