It's simply crazy.
I know that the article [[:de:Wikimedia CH]] has been cancelled in
the past because we are working to have this chapter and it is not
established.
Now Wikimedia CH is alive, it's working, we have a lot of
references, documentation but... the article in german Wikipedia?
It's lost.
I repeat... crazy, absolutely crazy.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: eloquence(a)gmail.com
Data: 17.09.06 13.38
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?
On 9/17/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> But how do you define 'can be sourced'? The only way that you can
show
> that something can be sourced is by sourcing it. Does this mean
that
> we should remove all unsourced statements from all articles? If
so,
> there will be little Wikipedia left. If not, then what do we
accept
> without source and what not?
There is currently a poll on the German Wikipedia whether new
articles
that cite no sources should be deleted:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Meinungsbilder/Quellenpflicht_f%C3%BCr_neue_Artikel
The proposal, translated literally: "New articles may only be
created
if they cite sources.These citations should be listed in the edit
summary [*] and/or in the article itself. To cite the main sources
for
an article, the sections 'Literature' or 'Weblinks' should be
used.
(...) New articles without sources can be deleted without further
discussion through a speedy deletion request."
While we're weighing in, I'd like to support Erik Moeller's candidacy.
Though I don't agree with him on all specifics, I trust that he's
sincerely and idealistically committed to the core mission of the
Wikimedia Foundation. As importantly, he has a long track record of
getting important things done, being the primary mover behind getting
both the Wikimedia Commons and WikiNews up and running. Both involved
complex combinations of leadership, policy development, and community
support, and have turned out to be our two most successful recent projects.
From the point of view of relations with overlapping communities, he
has significant credibility with the broader open-content community.
He's been active for many years in a variety of forums (I first ran
across him at kuro5hin, and he ran a well-known copyright-reform blog
for years), and his work with the Wikimedia Commons in particular has
made him known in open-media circles. So having him on the board would
help cement our alliances with the wider group of people who have
similar aims.
There are a number of other candidates who I think would make good board
members, but Erik stands out as having a proven track record of getting
complex but important things done, along with a high level of
credibility in a wider community.
-Mark
Do You know that not all could be verified and for some points is it
unnecessary the verifiability?
IMHO only disputed article MUST have references and MUST be
supported by verifiability to limit personal opinions and to avoid
the article to become a "drawing room". For other article this choice
could be optional.
In scientific editions all MUST be checked and confirmed by the
authority of others books or researches, but there is a limit... also
the books and researches could make a mistake. If a researcher takes
care extremely on them, he has not chance.
And in any case not all could be found in references... after this
limit we cross in the research and this is this should be hoped
because without the research there is no progress.
The choice is here: Wikipedia looks to be a simple collector of
knowledge (verified and checked) or Wikipedia believes to be opened
also to the new researches?
At end one reflection, when Einstein was producing his new theories
all scientists judged him as a bizarre man also because there was
nothing to support his suppositions... now his suppositions are a
pillar in the Physic. This is a conclusion to display that references
don't assure the certitude and the truth.
There are men who need extreme verifiability and they like to call
themselves as "pragmatic", there are other men who need critic
verifiability to start a journey for new borders, to see over the
first ones.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: Christoph.Seydl(a)students.jku.at
Data: 17.09.06 10.52
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?
Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in
basic
principles, there is always discordance:
....
You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If
there
is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with
verifiability.
The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that
the
verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar.
/Chris
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Saying that we follow the principle of verifiability should be
enough.
> When you get too specific, we unfortunately have many people who
are
> determined to take it to extremes at either end of the scale.
Some will
> accept the most ephemeral of data as verification, while others
will
> insist that even the most broadly observed information must
'''always'''
> show references.
>
According to operators of FreeNode.net, Rob Levin, who was the
President of the Peer-Directer Projects Center which operates
irc.freenode.net, has passed away in an accident. Slashdot has a
summary here:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/16/2152243
I've only interacted with lilo (his IRC nickname) a few times, but I
have a long time connection to the FreeNode community. About 6 years
ago, when it was still known as openprojects.net, I created a channel
there for a website which I run. It grew very rapidly and then moved
to another network, but I stayed with OpenProjects/FreeNode, where we
started the #wikipedia IRC channel in December 2001.
Back then, it was often only 3 or 4 people who would hang out
occasionally, while I'm now counting 263 people on the channel. Since
then, the Wikimedia community has created countless other channels on
the FreeNode network, which are invaluable to our commmunity on so
many levels. Every now and then lilo would drop in and see how it
goes.
Rob Levin was very much part of the fabric of FreeNode, and he helped
turn it into a place that is generally pleasant and vibrant, a home
for many, many open source and free content projects.
Fortunately, FreeNode will continue to operate. Truly, this vast
international communication network is a powerful legacy. But lilo had
many more ideas, and the passion and intellect to pursue them. His
passing is a great blow to all who knew him and who worked with him,
and a fatal personal loss for his loved ones.
I will miss him. :.-(
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Due to longstanding concerns about lack of activity and abuse by spammers and
vandals, I've switched sep11.wikipedia.org to read-only so it can no longer be
edited.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
Wikipedia establish that if a group of persons has an opinion and
another has got its own opinion, Wikipedia should take care of both
(with different importance following the diffusione of the opinion).
Not all could be verified, but all could have a reason, if this
reason has got some references it's a good point.
In any case the original points of view are not accepted.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
Data: 16.09.06 0.11
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability
Christoph Seydl wrote:
>
> * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability
should be
> designed in different Wikipedias?
> * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a
basket is a
> cylindric vessel)?
> * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced?
> * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability?
When a point of view is "verified" by sources, it does not mean
that the
point of view is correct. There are sources that say that the
holocaust
is a lie. If this is true because of there being sources that say
that
this is true, then there is a problem with the sources. When you
then
say that a court of law proved that something is not true, than it
is a
known fact that the world is flat.
Thanks,
GerardM
I am very sorry, it seems this email never made it to the lists
yesterday. Gmail or mailman ate all my emails sent to lists yesterday.
I *did* send it yesterday.
Delphine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 15, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Translators
<translators-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Dear Wikimedians,
first an foremost, the jury would like to thank all the people who
have worked on putting together those bids. We all know it is a hard
task and that it takes both time and ressources that volunteers
already give for Wikimedia altogether.
We have chosen 4 cities for the shortlist:
Alexandria, London, Taipei, Torino
The bids of Orlando, Hong-Kong and Istanbul were unfortunately not
precise enough in what opportunities there are especially for
conference venues. Singapore's bid almost made it to the shortlist but
the lack of opportunities for common accommodation made it fall
through.
The jury will be asking questions on the talk pages of the chosen
bids, please do make sure that you answer them. And do not hesitate to
ask us questions too.
We also encourage the cities that have not made it to the shortlist,
and even those who have, to start thinking about opportunities for the
coming years and especially 2008. We expect to be chosing the city for
2008 within a couple of months, so for those who are already at it,
work your contacts and opportunities, for those who have not started
thinking, it's time to come up with fresh ideas!
Again, thanks to all of you who have worked hard on these bids, and as
we say in French, "que le meilleur gagne ! " (May the best win!).
We will have a public meeting with the bidding teams, the jury and and
whoever wants to join on IRC in the #wikimania channel on freenode on
Saturday 23rd September at 15.00 UTC.
Stay tuned for more and happy further bidding!
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. Merci to the translators in advance for forwarding this to the
appropriate lists.
--
~notafish
--
~notafish
Ahead of the formal press release on US1, I wanted to maket the
Foundation and Community aware of the following.
Dr. Dusty Delso has been appointed as the CEO of the Wolf Mountain Group
and the Wikimedia Foundation point of
contact for all business and funding issues.
Dr. Delso has left his position as the head of the Cherokee Nation
Culture and Education programs and accepted his new role
effective October 2, 2006. He remains the Dean of our School of
Information Technology and our University and higher education
programs and remains heavily engaged in Cherokee Nation and Federal
Programs for our people. I will still update the Machine Translation meta
project but have turned over all WMG and Wikipedia project issues to him
and Bryan Sparks, both of whom are now managing Wolf Mountain
Group. I remain however, the largest shareholder and chairman (though I
will be busy with another company which was just acquired
and I will be focued on this about 80% of the time from now on).
I doubt Dr. Delso will dialouge on this list much or become involved
heavily in community issues since he will be focused almost exclusively
on Federally funded programs for our Native American Languages programs
with the Federal Government involving Wikipedia and the
Native Tribal Leaders and Linguists. I will be available for any
projects involving machine translation for any languages and hadling all
technical matters with the WikiTrans program. The Foundation may
contact him directly if they wish to engage in discussions and joint
opportunities.
Our projects involving Wikipedia content are moving to the next phase
with the Federal Government and deployment to the various tribes
in North America.
Love you all,
Jeff
Hello all,
I think we all saw them. Clickable images. Very usefull, especially on
the main page etc, but there are some slight problems. You can not
access the license-information without digging in the sourcecode of
the page. And that might be in a template in a template etc. So that's
why I am wondering:
Should it be allowed at all to make images clickable, as people cannot
check the license-information?
Or should it maybe not be allowed to make images clickable when the
licence requires that attribution should be given to the author? (Like
GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA etc) So it should be allowed with PD?
This is not because I want to hurry this through, but would like to
share some thoughts on this behalf. Maybe it should be wise to make
this "global" policy when we could come to a clear result. I am no
lawyer myself, but I just have the feeling that we are very much
searching the border of what is allowed with these
clickimage-templates etc. (There is also some function in MediaWiki
that shows one image but links to another, btw, the discussion is the
same there)
Greetings, hoping for fruitfull discussion,
Lodewijk