I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but our team are
developing a free search software called Cleeki where Wikipedia client is
one of the functions we have. With Cleeki you can:
1. Search Wikipedia with one click,
2. Read multiple most relevelant Wikipedia articles instantly (even without
opening your browser)
You can visit http://www.cleeki.comhttp://www.cleeki.com for details and
downloading. Hope this is a helpful tool for you.
Thanks,
Jack
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Recommending-a-handy-Wikipedia-client-tf4645002.html#…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 17 Oct 2007 at 14:24:28 -0700, William Pietri
<william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
> I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being
> harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We
> fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would
> be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the
> fund.
I would be willing to contribute to this.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 17 Oct 2007 at 00:02:23 -0700, Will Beback
<will.beback.1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's even worse if folks are saying that it does exist but that we
> shouldn't do anything about it. Again, I think that having a clear
> policy with bright lines will help us reduce the disruption caused by
> people who are trying to cause disruption by engaging in inappropriate
> harassment.
I think a lot of what is wrong in the world in general is the result
of people (including legislatures) constantly feeling like they need
to "do something about" whatever issue or problem people are getting
into a big fuss about at the moment... even doing something
completely ridiculous, or counterproductive, or actively harmful, is
seen as better than doing nothing. A lot of braindead legislation
has resulted from this impulse.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 17 Oct 2007 at 14:38:25 -0400, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>
wrote:
> At the risk of inciting someone here to delete it, I note that we
> *do* have an external link from [[Ku Klux Klan]] to www.kkk.com.
Boy, they really *are* an abusive organization, to use a .com site
instead of the more proper .org for a noncommercial organization.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 17 Oct 2007 at 19:33:47 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> This appears in practice to work as "Please do not discuss personal attacks."
Or sites that contain personal attacks... or sites that are *accused*
of containing personal attacks, which are not only guilty until
proven innocent, but making any attempt to prove them innocent is
forbidden.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
It's similar to the pernicious harm to academia
caused by the Political Correctness movement, where students and
faculty are afraid to speak freely for fear of offending some
minority group.
== Dan ==
_______________________________________________
The question is not whether you offend, but whether you harm. just like it is at college.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu [mailto:joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 06:43 PM
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
Quoting fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info:
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If the link is to a personal attack, it should not be republished.
> Depends on what's on the other end.
>
> Fred
>
Um, where is this coming from? Is this from Fred as the great arbitrator, Fred
as interpreting community consensus, Fred discussing what he would
block for or
what?
Following that question, do you really think that applies in general?
This would
imply that a discussion on ANI can't link to a personal attack and say "hey,
this editor made the following personal attack. We should block them for it"
but will instead say "Hey an editor made a personal attack, but I can't
show it
to you, so you'll have to go through his contribution list until you
find it" That's unworkable and unproductive. If this isn't what you
mean, some
clarification would be nice.
_______________________________________________
Like I said, it depends. How hurtful is it? How much harm will it do? How sensitive is the person being attacked? How necessary is it for everyone to go look at it? The point is to act responsibily with respect to the situation which is presented to you.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene van der Pijll [mailto:eugene@vanderpijll.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 05:01 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com schreef:
> You can see in the real case that the precise wording was argued
> through 4 and 4.1. Lawyers hate commas, but read it as
>
> "Linking to external sites, which contain information harmful to
> another person, so as to harass them, is unacceptable."
That's the most paranoid phrasing of a BADSITES-like policy that I have
ever seen.
(The first comma turns the clause "which contain information..." into a
non-restrictive one, implying that *all* external sites are out to get
us...)
Eugene
_______________________________________________
I think you're making too much out of a punctuation error.
Fred
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_female.s…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_male.svg…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image1.svg&red…
(those are the HTTP links to the non-redirected versions, as the image
pages redirect to [[Wikipedia:Fromowner]])
The previous Village Pump discussion got bogged down in wording and
colouring discussions, but I think the one point everyone could agree
on was that the previous images were hideous and jarring. So for
these, I have:
1. changed the background from transparent to a soft blue (#E6E6FF)
2. made the text into a path.
I have not changed the actual image outlines and I have not changed
the text (except adding a comma to two of them).
The text issue was that the font was being rendered by MediaWiki's
servers as serif, even though the actual image specifies Bitstream
Vera Sans. (I don't have Futura here, or I'd have used that. Mind you,
Bitstream Vera Sans is Free™.) Making it into just another path makes
that not an issue, although it reduces editability. (We can always use
a previous version as a base if anyone can ever agree on a wording
change.)
Hopefully these look more inviting and less like a spork in the viewer's eye ...
As well as adding hundreds of placeholders, I have been busy on Flickr
looking for replacement images and have uploaded quite a lot of them
in the past week or so. So I'm trying to help things along in the
right direction ;-)
- d.
On 17 Oct 2007 at 16:58:02 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
> Please don't republish personal attacks on other users.
But you just did, not too long ago; you posted a screenshot of the
version of the Michael Moore site that included a personal attack on
a Wikipedian, a version that's no longer in place on the Moore site
itself. Like many people on all sides of the debates about so-called
"attack sites", you've run into the problem that it's difficult to
conduct a reasonable discussion of such sites without, at least
sometimes, getting specific about what is in them, giving links,
quotes, screenshots, and so on. Without this, you're left using
vague generalities and contrived fake examples, which don't work very
well to truly explain to people what is actually on the sites being
discussed and why people have such strong feelings about them. Thus,
even strong opponents of attack sites have sometimes linked to them;
I gave a few examples of this on the evidence page of the ArbCom
case. The idea that all links and references to those sites under
any circumstances are always wrong does not come naturally even to
many people whose main aim is to express how evil they think those
sites are.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
