Sorry, since it was the only logo I saw on the two pages, I incorrectly presumed that Gattonero was referring to it.
He was speaking about the similarity between the two headers with "Wikimania2007Torino" and "Wikimania2007Taipei".
Roberto (Snowdog)
> I wish to let you know that the logo is the official logo of Wikimania,
> which you can find in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimania_(blue-red).svg
>
> H.T.
>
------------------------------------------------------
Mutuo da 200.000? Spread scontati da +0.69%. Solo per richieste online. www.mutuionline.ithttp://click.libero.it/mutuionline
A little inspiration for this week.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of
little consequence. The only consequence is what we do. - John Ruskin
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Ruskin
David Gerard wrote:
> On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
>> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
>> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
>> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
>> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
>> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
>> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
>> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
>> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.
>
> Yes.
>
> Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
> time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.
Which is why neither Danny nor Brad made up a new special rule, nor did
either of them advocate it. They advocated strengthening and/or changing
our attitudes and culture. An admittedly difficult task, but one we need
to work on.
Part of the problem is the many people who sort of get the message, but
immediately translate these calls into the "new special rule" that will
"solve everything for all time". I understand a new speedy deletion
criterion has already been proposed. With my tongue in my cheek, I'm
somewhat inclined to take a page from Ed Poor's book and speedily delete
the speedy deletion criteria.
Erik's message cautions about how we shouldn't misuse the tools we have
in achieving this cultural change. That's a perceptive observation as
well. He went on to advocate working on a better annotation feature,
which might be of some help with this problem. (Though it must be noted
that new features lend themselves particularly well to this problem of
"new special rules".) But the thing is, we can't really wait around for
all these promised, or merely even conceived-of, features. We need to
address problems when they come to our attention, not simply say we'll
get around to dealing with them later.
--Michael Snow
IMHo it's very difficult to have.
Some criteria are still present (NPOV), but some others are not
impartial (encyclopedic).
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: wikilegal(a)inbox.org
Data: 01.10.06 4.06
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
<bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com>
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Six criteria for Wikipedia inclusion
On 9/30/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a
verifiable
> > > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> > >
> >
> > True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia,
Anthony. I disagree.
> >
> In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I
suppose, but
> I don't believe we live in such a perfect world. Please don't
> misrepresent my position.
>
I thought I'd expand a little bit on what my position is. I can
think
of six criteria off the top of my head for Wikipedia articles.
They
must be:
1) based on verifiable sources - anything which can not be written
about using verifiable sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia - this
criterion includes the concept of "no original research" - this is
a
big part of what I mean by "in a perfect world...", as in a
perfect
world we'd be able to verify anything.
2) NPOV - if an article is not written from a neutral point of view
it
should generally be rewritten - however, in some cases perhaps it
makes more sense to simply remove the article - this criterion
includes the concept of barring autobiographies.
3) encyclopedic - this is perhaps the fuzziest criterion, but it
would
exclude things like essays, lists of quotes, articles about words,
fiction, etc.
4) legal - due to various laws, including but not limited to
privacy
laws and so called "intellectual property" laws, there are some
things
we can't legally have free articles about
5) of a decent size - articles which are too short and will likely
never be expanded should generally be merged with other articles
and
redirected.
6) in line with human dignity - this would prohibit disclosure of
certain types of private information, even in cases where it's
probably legal under US law to include the information - I also
think
we should give the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases to
people
who ask that private information, especially biographies, not be
included - however, I only think we should take this so far, and
in
the case of legally disclosable and already widely available
public
information I think the NPOV principle overrides any concerns
about
disclosing negative information.
One criterion that I explicitly do not include is how popular
something is. In fact, I think the less popular something is the
*more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 01/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Whether we are talking about companies or fictitious islands, I do not
> believe "block, nuke, and salt the Earth more aggressively!" is the
> answer. That's partially because blocking is a very, very flawed tool
> (it's very easy to circumvent), and "hard" security measures in a
> fundamentally open environment tend to only inspire people to find
> clever ways to circumvent them and to make themselves even more of a
> PITA than they already are. Of course we should block individuals
> where appropriate, but I'm not convinced that increasing the amount of
> blocking and nuking is going to help us much right now.
Yes.
Danny, Brad: please understand that making up a new special rule every
time there's a new problem is a *really bad* thing to do.
Ad hoc rules are where instruction creep comes from. This leads to a
confusing and incoherent thicket of rules that no-one can make sense
of. Special cases make bad law.
I had a press interview with the Daily Telegraph on Friday. A large
chunk of that was him telling me how confusing our bureaucracy already
was to newcomers. Please don't make it even worse.
(Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO )
- d.
Hoi,
For some of the newly created wikipedias there are reasons why I would not
create them as languages in WiktionaryZ in this manner
They are:
http://roa-tara.wikipedia.org/ Tarantino
http://cbk-zam.wikipedia.org/ Zamboanga Chavacano
http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/ Classical Chinese
http://cu.wikipedia.org/ Old Church Slavonic
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/ Siberian/Nort Russian
- Tarantino is supposed to use the roa code. This code does not
signify anything but that it is a Romance language. The code does specify
what is included in the code and Tarantino is not one of them.
- In ISO-639-3 cbk is the code for Chavacano. Zamboangueño is an
alternative name..
- For Classical Chinese there is no specificity as what is meant by
this. This is also easy to explain as the zh (zho) code itself is
depreciated in the ISO-639-3 because there are some 10 languages that are
included in this code.
- I might include the Old Church Slavonic as chu. It is used as
liturgical language of various Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches. It
is considered extinct.
- The ru-sib is a created language. It is a bad idea to create a code
as if it is a dialect of the Russian language when it is not.
Thanks,
GerardM
In a message dated 10/1/2006 10:09:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wikilegal(a)inbox.org writes:
If there really is a tension between accuracy and openness, then it's
quite clear which side we want to be on. Openness, after all, is
merely a means to an end. With that in mind, in what ways do you
suggest making the Wikimedia projects less open?
To quote you in your response to Brad. "Please don't
misrepresent my position."
Danny
On 9/30/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch. Create a verifiable
> > > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> > >
> >
> > True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony. I disagree.
> >
> In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
> I don't believe we live in such a perfect world. Please don't
> misrepresent my position.
>
I thought I'd expand a little bit on what my position is. I can think
of six criteria off the top of my head for Wikipedia articles. They
must be:
1) based on verifiable sources - anything which can not be written
about using verifiable sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia - this
criterion includes the concept of "no original research" - this is a
big part of what I mean by "in a perfect world...", as in a perfect
world we'd be able to verify anything.
2) NPOV - if an article is not written from a neutral point of view it
should generally be rewritten - however, in some cases perhaps it
makes more sense to simply remove the article - this criterion
includes the concept of barring autobiographies.
3) encyclopedic - this is perhaps the fuzziest criterion, but it would
exclude things like essays, lists of quotes, articles about words,
fiction, etc.
4) legal - due to various laws, including but not limited to privacy
laws and so called "intellectual property" laws, there are some things
we can't legally have free articles about
5) of a decent size - articles which are too short and will likely
never be expanded should generally be merged with other articles and
redirected.
6) in line with human dignity - this would prohibit disclosure of
certain types of private information, even in cases where it's
probably legal under US law to include the information - I also think
we should give the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases to people
who ask that private information, especially biographies, not be
included - however, I only think we should take this so far, and in
the case of legally disclosable and already widely available public
information I think the NPOV principle overrides any concerns about
disclosing negative information.
One criterion that I explicitly do not include is how popular
something is. In fact, I think the less popular something is the
*more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia.
2006/9/25, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>:
>
>
> It was almost certain that a decent bid from Asia would be successful.
>
> We look forward to Wikimania 2007 and hope that Wikimania will swing
> back to Europe in 2008!
>
> Gordo
Then why did they open a WorldWide Contest?
They knew they were going to choose a city in Asia, then why
shortlisting 3 city out of Asia (and only one in it)?
That's ridicolous.
If "turnation" was that important, they would have told in a very
clear way by the begin: "We are gonna choose Asia, cities from Asia
can make a bid. Others not".
Gatto Nero
(that's what I talk about when I use the verb "be fooled")
> It was almost certain that a decent bid from Asia would be successful.
No it wasn't and I wish people didn't have this misconception.
All of the bids were considered against a range of criteria, not only
location. Amongst many other factors, Taipei offered the venue and
accommodation on a single site, and their organizing team had prior
experience from running the Chinese Wikimania this year. It's unfair
to them to suggest they only won because they're in Asia.
If Asia was a sure winner from the start, we wouldn't have needed a
meeting lasting more than 4 hours on Saturday to determine which city
would be successful. A few people seem to think that the others were
rejected purely for being in Europe, but that was not the case, and we
would have said from the start if we were only accepting bids from
other continents so as not to waste people's time.
Angela.
.svg){kind=link}