On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 09:27 +0100 2/4/06, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have just "discovered" the "Simple English Wikipedia"
On the left, under "Navigation", I find
Newest changes
I am very surprised to find this phrase here, since it is very poor English!
Gordo
--
In fact, all menus have been "munged" (**) into dialect of English!
# My talk # My settings # My watched pages # Pages I worked on # Log out
# Show any page (which is really "Random Page")
Gordo
**
http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=munge
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com/// _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
New, Newer newest. What's wrong with that?
Mgm
Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something simpler?
--NSLE
On 4/2/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 09:27 +0100 2/4/06, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have just "discovered" the "Simple English Wikipedia"
On the left, under "Navigation", I find
Newest changes
I am very surprised to find this phrase here, since it is very poor
English!
Gordo
--
In fact, all menus have been "munged" (**) into dialect of English!
# My talk # My settings # My watched pages # Pages I worked on # Log out
# Show any page (which is really "Random Page")
Gordo
**
http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=munge
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com/// _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
New, Newer newest. What's wrong with that?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 17:05 +0800 2/4/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something simpler?
--NSLE
Newest changes
1) Most recent changes
2) Latest changes
3) Recent changes
4) Changes
5) Changelog
6) Latest updates
7) Updates
8) Recent updates
9) Edit log
Gordo
NSLE (Wikipedia) (nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com) [060402 19:05]:
Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something simpler?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Babel:Simple
Uncyclopedia for Americans!
- d.
use regular verb only use of <s>is</s> bees bad - verb bees to be so use no verb but regular then angle-ish tongue be simple and clear first get rid of not regular verbs then go to work on whacko spelling
"NSLE (Wikipedia)" nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote in message news:4e1121f80604020105s70052e00p1bed6c04cb19ace6@mail.gmail.com...
Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something simpler?
--NSLE
On 4/2/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 09:27 +0100 2/4/06, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have just "discovered" the "Simple English Wikipedia"
On the left, under "Navigation", I find
Newest changes
I am very surprised to find this phrase here, since it is very poor
English!
The most annoying thing about the "simple" interface (besides the not-always-very-obvious menu titles) is that "pages i worked on" with an uncapitalized "i" at the top of the page. Now I understand that they are going for aesthetics here, but using an uncapitalized "i" for the first-person pronoun is just wrong wrong wrong, whether for aesthetic purposes or not. Either it should be capitalized or the wording should be changed entirely.
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed uranium as a "highly radioactive" element) -- I think it is very easy for people to miss the fact that "simple" must still mean "correct" to some degree, even if it is not necessarily as "precise" as an entry on Wikipedia might be. I also fear that people who are not expert enough to edit entries on Wikipedia are creating entries on simple without consulting any sources than their own head (even consulting the Wikipedia article would be better than that). I of course try to correct it wherever I myself can, but I would encourage people to take a look at the "simple" version of their favorite articles if one exists and just make sure it has the basics right.
OK... I'm done ranting about this, got it out of my system. :-)
FF
On 4/2/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, it's supposed to be simple. Unless you can think of something simpler?
--NSLE
On 4/2/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/06, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 09:27 +0100 2/4/06, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have just "discovered" the "Simple English Wikipedia"
On the left, under "Navigation", I find
Newest changes
I am very surprised to find this phrase here, since it is very poor
English!
Gordo
--
In fact, all menus have been "munged" (**) into dialect of English!
# My talk # My settings # My watched pages # Pages I worked on # Log out
# Show any page (which is really "Random Page")
Gordo
**
http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=munge
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com/// _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
New, Newer newest. What's wrong with that?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Steve
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
On 4/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Typically though you can use a simple vocabulary to define words as you use them, though, which gives you a little room to work. "Nuclear fission" certainly isn't in the simple 1,000 but you can build up an explanation of an atom, a nucleus, a neutron, and so on.
Of course there's no real way to do justice to Heidegger that way, but one should be able to get the basic points across. "Heidegger believes that technology makes people see the world as only a resource to be used (which he calls 'standing-reserve'). He thinks this is bad, and that people will never be able to understand things as they really are." Not perfect, but it's close...
FF
On 4/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using only words of four letters or less.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 4/3/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using only words of four letters or less.
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
I found it linked from this great encyclopaedia site.
Steve
On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using only words of four letters or less.
That's admirable. Did they release it under GFDL? :P
Seriously though, physics is very strictly tied to reality so there's no temptation to multiply concepts beyond necessity the way there is in philosophy. Given that each of these concepts has to be defined, and that there are disputes over how to define these concepts, there's no point talking about it in Simple English because, while it's permissible to define and expand technical terms in Simple English, it would have to be done so much that it would be just as easy for the reader to learn full English.
At 11:00 -0800 3/4/06, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 4/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem with "simple" is that many of the articles I have seen on there are just plain *incorrect* (i.e. one which listed
It seems to me that whereas normally between wikipedias, we can't guarantee a one to one correspondance. Is there any reason that should be the case for SE? Perhaps by default every En page should contain a (red)link to its simple equivalent, and definitely vice versa. Perhaps even stubs should be created for every single en article on simple, saying "we don't have this version in simple english, in the meantime, click here" or something?
Simple English has one fatal flaw: sometimes there is no way to describe a subject without using big, confusing words. I would shudder at any presentation of any important topic in philosophy that's restricted to a 1,000 word vocabulary.
Someone did a reasonably good explanation of Special Relativity using only words of four letters or less.
That easy!
:-)
a) c is the same all over
b) time x y z all same over all ways
******
In big words:
(a) constancy of the speed of light
(b) principle of equivalence for inertial frames.
YMMV,
New, Newer newest. What's wrong with that?
Mgm
Newer - of two
Newest - of three or more
Or is the job of "Simple" to invent new grammar rules for English as she it wrote?
Gordo