On another bent to the topic, could I ask the board to pass a resolution
regarding replacement logos saying:
1. At least five of top ten contributing languages must agree the logo
should be changed.
2. If this is satisfied, the Board and/or Communications Committee
must agree in principal that a logo change would be timely, acceptable and
warranted.
3. Logo competitions must be structured from the beginning by
independent Wikimedians, as the board elections are.
While I agree that Wiktionary and Wikisource needed to be refreshed,
Wikibooks just seems to be riding the trend, and I'm worried that once these
competitions are over, there'll only be more. It would be nice to keep the
project identities steady.
Nick
Following the Incubator logo debacle, I thought it pertinent to make sure
that the new logo contests are given the best possible chance of being
noticed. Hence this notice that there are currently three (3) logo
competitions open to voting at Meta.
These are for Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikiversity. If you are an admin
there, please put up a sitenotice. If you are not, try to inform people in
those communities. If you are a member of the Foundation, please watch the
voting to make sure that inappropriate logos are not chosen.
Thank you!
-Dbmag9
I only suggest that Each Wikipedia, first of all, English Wikipedia needs to
have the administration of justice, this is, the board of inspectors to
investigate whether the behaviors of admins are appropriate or not.
This organization, of course, must be independent from all admins.
In mature democrratic countries, as you know, the prosecutors and the judges
are independent from each other.
In Wikipedias, however, all admins have been doing the role of prosecutors
and the role of the judges and the role of general editors at the same time.
I think, this system cannot help making almost admins unreliable dictators
and increasing various vandalisms including the admin's vandalism.
So I think each Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia, needs the board of
Inspectors independent from all admins as soon as possible
and the board of inspectors should remove inappropriate admins as soon as
possible.
This is the best way because it is the most possible and the most reasonable
method.
I think true Wikipedians are expected to make Wikipedias evolve to
respective Wikipedias.
Clearly English Wikipedia are holding terribly selfish admins because some
of them rejected this suggestion to be released, read, and talked on the
mailing list <WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org>.
Please don't be afraid if you are a good admin. In order to defend good
admins, there should be another court composed of the independent agents.
This court would be like "the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution".
Respect, and you are ordinarily respected among the mature democratic
people.
This principle, however, cannot be used to Chinese, Koreans, Russians, etc.
If you respect them, they get arrogant forever as if they are the absolute
authorities.
Even on English Wikipedia, the most important official policy
[[Wikipedia:NPOV]] is often ignored by the admins themselves
when the article is treating the problems that the admins want a victory on
their own belief.
The articles involving territorial problems, political problems, hystorical
problems, gender problems, etc. are quite dangerous for good admins and
neutral superior editors
because bad admins have been waiting to revert the articles and block their
"enemies" permanently.
Bad admins are supposed to become admins in order to get a virtual victory
on their belief in Wikipedia.
In other words we can know very easily whether a admin is a good admin or
not in such cases.
Even in the articles of English Wikipedia, if they are having international
territorial problems,
the invasive side wins and the invaded side loses
as if English Wikipedia recommends all the human beings(nations) to invade
other country
and make the regions under their administration.
See [[Kuril Islands dispute]], [[Dokdo]], etc. It's internationally unfair
and quite dangerous and terribly against the international peace and other
spirits of UN.
I have thought, "The admins of English Wikipedia hope WW3 and become the
enemy of the world?"
Such a bias by the admins and other editors put the peaceful Wikipedians who
respect [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] in an embarrassing position and make some of them
"enemies".
Since 1945 what merit is there to please the invasive peoples of invasive
nations like Russians, Koreans, Chinese, etc?
Clearly American, British, Australian,,,,, and Japanese Wikipedians have
only demerits
if they(we) are on invasive side
because their(our) mature democratic countries have already denied getting a
new territory by invasive selfish war.
I think there is few persons in the world who have thought Americans are
going to take Iraq as a new territory of US.
US, UK, Americans, British, and English(the language) are so respected in
the world!
If not, all nations in the world already attacked US, UK and Israel
completely.
English Wikipedia has the same problems.
The foresight of Jimmy Wales, the history of Wikipedia and English(language)
are so much respected, but how about admins of English Wikipedia?
They are respected?
The system and its policies they made are deemed reasonable and comfortable?
For example, the official policy of three times revert seems to be a wicked
trap made by the admins.
Admins can revert, revert, revert, revert, revert,..., permanently, but a
Wikipedian who is not a admin is blocked for a long time just because he
imitates the admins' behaviors only three times.
Why the admins of English Wikipedia are imitating the worst part of Bush's
America?
I think everyone including German admins knows that
English Wikipedia should show and prevail the comfortable and reasonable
model of Wikipedia
to other language's Wikipedians. But not yet. No sign.
Probably the admins of German Wikipedia could not wait the evolution of
English Wikipedia
and take the worst method that insists :
"We are (I am?) the God! We need not and cannot respect any editors any more
except ourselves.
We (can) know exactly all things in the world, so, we can release all the
articles correctly."
Probably they have been getting more and more contempt because of their
fascism and ignorance.
I have already seen this again and again in Japanese Wikipedia.
In Japanese Wikipedia almost real Japanese editors have given up
to make the administration of Japanese Wikipedia reasonable and comfortable
because the admins, including their sockpuppets, are terribly crazy
Korean(or Chinese) fascists
who are not able to use Japanese correctly and exactly and rejecting all
meaningful conversations
just because such meaningful conversations are disadvantage for them. They
call those meaningful conversations "personal attacks".
Please make a clear definition of "personal attack", or abandon the policy
of prohibiting "personal attack" because fascism admins and the admins who
are similar to fascists cannot understand the meaning of "personal attack"
and abuse "personal attack" in order to defend the selfish admins themselves
and block innocent Wikipedians.
So there is no "community", no "consensus", and no meaningful
"conversations" in Japanese Wikipedia including its mailing list,
though admins insist as if there are.
It is very clear that the admins always reject meaningful conversations
anywhere including the mailing list.
The admins of English Wikipedia have the same tendency.
The admins themselves make it impossible to occur real "conversation", real
"community" and real "consensus".
This is already famous truth in Japan, so, even Jimmy Wales .
I have to ask :
Who left the first important adminship of Japanese Wikipedia to
[[:ja:User:Suisui]](=[[:ja:User:KMT]], etc.),
[[:ja:User:Tietew]](=[[:ja:User:Aphaia]], [[:ja:User:µéÓ¡]], etc.), and
so on?
Please remove all of them from Japanese Wikipedia
and leave "the first important adminship of Japanese Wikipedia" to
responsible pure Japanese
who are born and have been living in Japan from his/her ancestors, whose
ancestors are not Koreans or Chinese.
And/Or, I hope English Wikipedia show the better model of Wikipedia as soon
as possible.
It's the easiest because it is obvious that English Wikipedia has good
admins and good Wikipedians more than any other Wikipedias.
So, I think :
First of all, English Wikipedia needs the board of inspectors to investigate
and remove inappropriate admins and right the wrong made by admins.
Second, English Wikipedia make the system where the inspector(judge) cannot
be the admin(prosecutor) forever and the admin cannot be the inspector
forever.
Third, let other Wikipedias imitate English Wikipedia.
The composition of "admins vs ordinary Wikipedians" is not good.
The composition of "ordinary Wikipedians vs admins vs inspectors" is much
better.
The admins investigate all the editors and all the articles and administrate
Wikipedia.
The inspectors investigate the behaviors of admins and receive all kind of
criticisms of the admins even if those criticism are called "personal
attack" by the admins themselves.
It is very clear that blocking made by a admin(admins) is the heaviest
"personal attack"
and reverting made by a admin(admins) is the second heaviest "personal
attack".
To insist "Those admins are wrong because xxxxxx" or "He is inappropriate
for adminship because xxxxx" is never "personal attack", just judgement or
criticism.
Therefore admins have no rights to accuse anyone by the term "personal
attack".
I hope wise Wikipedians create the independent organization to judge admins
in English Wikipedia.
That is needed by ordinary Wikipedians of other language's because they
can't or wouldn't become a admin.
Please show the American's and/or British superior humanity and excellent
wisdom.
It is because many articles of English Wikipedia, including Wikipedia's
policies, have been translated into other languages' .
Thank you. Thank you for my broken English.
Rocky7
_________________________________________________________________
Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl…
Well this is on one hand to inform you about what we are going to do/try
to do and on the other to tell people: if you want to do the same, just
do it.
Jeff has this wordlist he uses for the machine translation of the
Cherokee wikipedia. Well, since I want to try to do the same for
Neapolitan he told me to download it and substitute the Cherokee words
with Neapolitan words. Said and done :-) I downloaded the list. Talking
with GerardM about uploading it I sent him the list and he put it on
WiktionaryZ (thank you!):
http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_1http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_2http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_3http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_4
Jeff: could you please confirm that we may use the list in this way
under GFDL and CC-BY?
Well, what will happen now: I will start to create the needed entries in
English and add the Neapolitan translations to it. Probably also Italian
and as soon as we have Cherokee online I'll copy and paste these words
there as well (always if I get the OK for it).
Once that is done we can go on with teaching the translation engine the
grammar rules :-)
Now people will say and if it does not work ... well something tells me
it will work ... and besides creating a basis for Machine Translation in
this way also a dictionary is created. So one effort with double result.
Therefore I invite all that are interested in doing similar things to
follow us in our adventure ... well yes, that's how I consider it: a
huge adventure in the world of languages. Probably some that will start
after me to work on this list will be faster ... it would be great to
see that - there is always that time problem (at least for me).
Well this is the first time when we will see one of the WiktionaryZ
features in action: reusability for other projects - in this case for
our wikipedias.
Thank you Jeff for taking the time to work on our languages.
Ciao, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
FYI - silly headline for a self-serving (for The Observer) article.
Yes, Wikipedia is defying Chinese censors by... er... well... doing
nothing and being itself.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
----
Wikipedia defies China's censors
David Smith and Jo Revill
Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1869006,00.html
IMHO we have a lot of helps, guidelines and so on... it is a good
initiative but we should reduce them looking to integrate as soon as
possible.
The community should have a small number and clair rules.
No rules is anarchy, more rules is burocracy... the risk is to have
rules which try to solve the same problem but with contradictory
solution.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: dgerard(a)gmail.com
Data: 11.09.06 16.23
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales, Is there inspectors to
investigate admins?
On 11/09/06, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that forcing new customs or rules which comes from the
"top"
> might create a natural opposision. I think the best place to put
such
> a general "good customs" translations would be rather meta. Then
it
> might be a good starting point how to slowly apply it to the all
> projects after duscussion within project's communities which
should
> individally decide how to "customize" them to the nature and
current
> rules of their projects.
I'm working on an essay about process in my en: userspace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:
David_Gerard/Process_is_Dangerous
Process is there to help write an encyclopedia. Beyond that, it
must
stay completely malleable. Important considerations are NPOV,
verifiability and no original research. For community maintenance,
assume good faith and no personal attacks; and don't bite the
newbies,
since they seem to write most of the actual content, on en: at
least.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Greetings
I am [[User:Rocky7]].
Is there inspectors to investigate the behaviors of all admins in English
Wikipedia?
In Japanese Wikipedia there is no inspectors to investigate whether the
behaviors of admins are right or not, so almost Japanese Wikipedians cannot
trust admins at all. And it seems very clear that admins abuse sockpuppets
terribly unfairly. They have been blocking superior Wikipedians one after
another. They would have done out of jealousy, inferiority complex, and/or
anti-Japanese hate.
In Japanese Wikipedia all admins seemes to be anti-Japanese cruel Korean
fascists. They cannot be Japanese characteristically. It is the fact that in
Korea anti-Japanese cruel Korean fascists have been oppressing pro-Japanese
people since 2000.
Japanese are peaceful and generous, but Koreans are aggressive and sly (at
least since 1945).
Why have the server of Japanese Wikipedia been set on Korea? Very heavy and
terribly unfair!
Who have left the adminships of Japanese Wikipedia to sly anti-Japanese
Koreans who pretend to be Japanese?
The relation between Japanese and Koreans is the same as that between
Israeli Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs.
Is there the board of inspectors to investigate the behaviours of all admins
in English Wikipedia?
If not, please create it. Now!
As far as admin's vandalism abusing ordinary Wikipedians is left, it is
extremely obvious that there is no use preventing anons from creating new
pages. The prank like that of [[Siegenthaler Sr]] cannot be settled unless
admins be re-elected and trusted.
As long as general Wikipedians cannot respect admins, it's the worst method
to set a limit to releasing the newest version of the article. I don't know
why the admins of Deutche Wikipedia can take such a silly countermeasure.
After all, The Problem of Wikipedia is evidently the Problem of Admins.
Do you understand?
I hope that there would be wise admins here who can think and act logically
and help build the ideal of Jimmy Wales.
Thank you.
Rocky7
_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=…
Hi,
Two weeks ago I attended WikiSym 2006, the Second Symposium on Wikis, in
Odense, Denmark. Finally here is a short report on what was relevant to
me and maybe relevant for Wikimedia, Wikimedians, and Wikipedia research
(that's the reason for crossposting).
With me there were some (but little) Wikimedians, so Sj and
Brion Vibber. Participants (around 70) were scientist and community
leaders or very active community members from different wikis, for
instance Sunir (Meatball), Evan (Wikitravel), and Angela (Wikia).
Compared to Wikimania WikiSym is both more academic and more broad in
terms of wiki communities, while Wikimania is very centered to Wikipedia
(and other Wikimedia communities) and free content. To my impression
many people forget about the rich world of wikis beside Wikipedia or
even think Wiki=Wikipedia. Some argued at WikiSym that Wikipedia may
kill other Wikis because of that - there is no other Wiki of its size
anymore.
Anyway - there is a large overlap between Wikimedia world and Wiki world
in general. Sj and me agreed upon that the place for academic,
peer-reviewed Wikipedia research is better WikiSym and not Wikimania, so
both should collaborate, for instance asking academic Wikimedia
submission to better submit at WikiSym instead.
Max Völkel has also written a short report about WikiSym at the swikg
mailing list[1] for the Semantic Wiki community - he compared WikiSym
and and the first workshop on Semantic Wikis at the European Semantic
Web Conference - the latter is even more academic to his impression. But
WikiSym was a real place where science and practise meet.
There were a lot of "open space sessions" with many discussions, for
instance about the future of wikis in general, and interoperability
between wikis. Have a look at the proceedings at
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings
Some more reports are at
http://ws2006.wikisym.org/space/Symposium+Reports
in the symposium wiki[2] - many particpants took notes there to document
the sessions (yes, it's a wiki although it does not look like MediaWiki ;-)
The workshop on Wikipedia Research was very fruitful and I only got
positive feedback. If your interested in Wikipedia research you should
definitely have a look at the slides:
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007102/
I'm looking forward to WikiSym 2007 which will probably be in Montreal
(as far as I remember, no guarantee)!
Greetings,
Jakob
[1] http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/swikig
[2] http://ws2006.wikisym.org
Hi,
I'm curious why the import function is not currently
enabled from between these two projects.
en.wikipedia has a strictly enforced policy of
deleting articles with "how-to" materials, and/or
removing sections of articles containing this sort of
information. See, for example, this category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_containing_how-to_sections
I also remember seeing quite a few articles on the AfD
pages which were decided as "Delete/transwiki to
wikibooks", but don't seem to have shown up on the
transwiki log at wikibooks (though some are simply
copied directly to a main namespace location).
The current system just seems broken, for several
reasons:
1) Many articles that *are* transwikied end up being
moved without edit histories, and in one case I had to
get a WP admin to undelete a series of articles and
provide the histories.
2) We (as in the wikibooks admin staff) have no idea
if new modules (i.e., books or chapters) are
transwikied or not. We can often make a good guess if
a new module has a million red links in it, but even
so this doesn't necessarily tell us where it came
from.
3) The current copy/paste method is just unwieldy and
time consuming. Is there any real reason the import
function shouldn't be enabled (I've used it on
wikiversity, and it's quite graceful and easy to use).
4) Many of the articles that are marked as having
how-to sections contain only a slice of information
about a topic that might be part of a larger text, and
stubs just aren't very appropriate to the structure of
wikibooks. For example, I recently transwikied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery from
wikipedia, then placed it in an otherwise empty book
called Battery Power (
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Battery_Power ). To
provide structure for filling out the book, it would
be nice to be able to transwiki related articles (see
table of contents of the book), which may or may not
currently contain how-to information, in order to have
something to build from. (The book could be useful for
emergency preparedness, energy independence,
electronics, etc.). This would be much easier to do
using the import tool.
I'm curious whether there's any strong arguments
against doing this, or if not, perhaps it could be
enabled?
-Johnny
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Xanga just got hit with big fines for "repeatedly allowing children
under 13 to sign up for the service without getting their parent's
consent". How does COPPA affect Wikimedia projects?