Wikimedia-l September 2006

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

120 participants
168 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Logo Contests
by Nicholas Moreau 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

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

4 4

[Foundation-l] Logo Contests
by Daniel Bregman 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

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

6 10

[Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales, please estabish the board of inspectors to investigate admins.
by Peter Rocky7 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

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…

4 3

[Foundation-l] Machine translation, Wikipedia and WiktionaryZ
by Sabine Cretella 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

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_1 http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_2 http://www.wiktionaryz.org/index.php?title=MachineTranslation_preparation_3 http://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

2 3

[Foundation-l] Observer story on China and Wikipedia
by Andrew Lih 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

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

7 8

Re: [Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales, Is there inspectors to investigate admin
by valdelli＠bluemail.ch 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

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

3 2

[Foundation-l] Hi, Jimmy Wales, Is there inspectors to investigate admins?
by Peter Rocky7 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

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=…

14 18

[Foundation-l] WikiSym 2006 - short report
by Jakob Voss 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

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

2 1

[Foundation-l] Enabling import from en.wp to en.wb
by John McC 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

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

3 2

[Foundation-l] COPPA
by Anthony 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

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?

10 19

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l September 2006