Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it. This came as a result of massive amounts of discussion that ended up in this change from blocking all non-Latin usernames. Now enwiki contributors are trying to move back towards blocking good faith contributors with non-Latin usernames, which will very likely create problems once Single User Login comes into effect. Will we block people who are honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia just because they haven't changed their signature to a Latin script?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username#Latin_character_transli...
--rory096
Hoi, According to the definition on the English Wikipedia, this is discrimination pure and simple. It is an horrible idea. I am disgusted by it. Thanks, GerardM
On 1/29/07, Rory Stolzenberg < rory096@gmail.com> wrote:
Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it. This came as a result of massive amounts of discussion that ended up in this change from blocking all non-Latin usernames. Now enwiki contributors are trying to move back towards blocking good faith contributors with non-Latin usernames, which will very likely create problems once Single User Login comes into effect. Will we block people who are honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia just because they haven't changed their signature to a Latin script?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username#Latin_character_transli...
--rory096 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
According to the definition on the English Wikipedia, this is discrimination pure and simple. It is an horrible idea. I am disgusted by it.
Did you read the definition on the English Wikipedia? A requirement that people on the Chinese encyclopedia use Chinese characters is not "discrimination", but a requirement perfectly germane to the topic, much like it is not "discrimination" to allow only people with MDs to practice medicine.
-Mark
Delirium schreef:
GerardM wrote:
According to the definition on the English Wikipedia, this is discrimination pure and simple. It is an horrible idea. I am disgusted by it.
Did you read the definition on the English Wikipedia? A requirement that people on the Chinese encyclopedia use Chinese characters is not "discrimination", but a requirement perfectly germane to the topic, much like it is not "discrimination" to allow only people with MDs to practice medicine.
-Mark
Hoi, What the article on discrimination says is quite brief and does not include the rationalisation that you refer to. The type of discrimination that only has MDs practice medicine is one that I would suggest is one that saves lives. Not all discrimination is bad. This proposal however is. Thanks, GerardM
Language discrimination
People are sometimes subjected to different treatment because their preferred language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language is associated with a particular group, class or category. Commonly, the preferred language is just another attribute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute of separate ethnic groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group.
Did you read the definition on the English Wikipedia? A requirement that people on the Chinese encyclopedia use Chinese characters is not "discrimination", but a requirement perfectly germane to the topic, much like it is not "discrimination" to allow only people with MDs to practice medicine.
Sorry but where do I need to use my user name in Chinese characters on zh.wikipedia?
If you look at the recent changes there are so many users that edit with latin script user names. I am subscribed like anywhere and I never received a note that I had to convert to Chinese script. I could not even do that since I don't know a word of Chinese. Now you will ask why I then have an account there: well sometimes it was necessary to search for a Chinese speaker.
So really I don't see a reason why people should use this or that script for the user name. The only thing that should be a requirement is not to use "mixed" scripts to create a user name - that means a user name that is half Chinese and half Latin script ... well I can understand if those are not accepted. Or do you change your name in writing in your passport when you go to a country that uses another script?
Hmmmm .... ah ... and no, I did not read the definition on en.wikipedia ... no time right now :-)
Ciao, Sabine Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
On 1/29/07, Rory Stolzenberg < rory096@gmail.com> wrote:
Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it.
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
According to the definition on the English Wikipedia, this is discrimination pure and simple. It is an horrible idea. I am disgusted by it.
This needs to be handled with some common sense.
Wikipedia editing is collaborative and done in the context of a community. Accordingly, anyone who contributes to the English Wikipedia in such a way that non-trivial interaction with other editors is required should be configured so that there's:
1) Some way to track that user using a Latin name (or even number) through page histories and such. 2) a Latin component to their signature.
It doesn't matter how this is implemented, but this should be a stipulation in en policy. Otherwise it's infeasible for your average en Wikipedian to recognise and distinguish amongst non-Latin users.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Hoi, If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world. There are always ways to rationalise away what is not convenient to consider.
I do not need to tell you how I abhor your POV. Thanks, GerardM
Matt R schreef:
On 1/29/07, Rory Stolzenberg < rory096@gmail.com> wrote:
Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it.
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
According to the definition on the English Wikipedia, this is discrimination pure and simple. It is an horrible idea. I am disgusted by it.
This needs to be handled with some common sense.
Wikipedia editing is collaborative and done in the context of a community. Accordingly, anyone who contributes to the English Wikipedia in such a way that non-trivial interaction with other editors is required should be configured so that there's:
- Some way to track that user using a Latin name (or even number) through page
histories and such. 2) a Latin component to their signature.
It doesn't matter how this is implemented, but this should be a stipulation in en policy. Otherwise it's infeasible for your average en Wikipedian to recognise and distinguish amongst non-Latin users.
-- Matt
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world.
Sheesh, let's cut back on the melodrama a notch, eh? I'm not suggesting banning white people. I'm not demanding that female users must identify themselves by writing in a pink font. What I am saying is that editors who enter into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have a handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html
Hoi, And I disagree utterly with your pov. Do try and suggest to ban white people. The organisation of Wikimania 2005 and 2006 would have been so much easier; every body could have been meetings in a pub on a Friday night. I would even suggest that there would not have been much of a Wikipedia without white people. As to women, there is a present need for a safer environment for women this was shouted down by males who felt insulted by the suggestion. You have correctly indicated three areas where we could do better; language, race and gender. Thanks, GerardM
Matt R schreef:
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world.
Sheesh, let's cut back on the melodrama a notch, eh? I'm not suggesting banning white people. I'm not demanding that female users must identify themselves by writing in a pink font. What I am saying is that editors who enter into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have a handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
-- Matt
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
And I disagree utterly with your pov.
Yes, you've told me that already. Has it really not occurred to you that the English language Wikipedia should treat the English language differently to other languages? And that when it does so, it's not wrongful discrimination?
Do try and suggest to ban white people.
Why would I want to do that? Why are you encouraging the banning of people based on their skin colour?
The organisation of Wikimania 2005 and 2006 would have been so much easier; every body could have been meetings in a pub on a Friday night. I would even suggest that there would not have been much of a Wikipedia without white people.
What are you going on about? Please attempt to be coherent.
You have correctly indicated three areas where we could do better; language, race and gender.
Again, you are indulging yourself in melodrama. Please stop, not least because you are trivialising genuine issues of wrongful discrimination. "A black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world"? I believe the phrase starts with "get" and ends with "a grip".
-- Matt
Matt R schreef:
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world.
Sheesh, let's cut back on the melodrama a notch, eh? I'm not suggesting
banning
white people. I'm not demanding that female users must identify themselves
by
writing in a pink font. What I am saying is that editors who enter into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have
a
handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
-- Matt
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html
Hoi, When people are treated differently based on their language, it is most definitely wrongful discrimination. And it does not occur to me that the English language Wikipedia has a right to discriminate people because of their name not being English, what does occur to me is that this is a fine example of discrimination.
When it is fine for you to try your hand at humour, you apparently can not handle it when your witty repartees are used as if in earnest. But seriously, Wikipedia is pre-dominantly white, women have a problem with the attitude of some. Thanks, GerardM
Matt R schreef:
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
And I disagree utterly with your pov.
Yes, you've told me that already. Has it really not occurred to you that the English language Wikipedia should treat the English language differently to other languages? And that when it does so, it's not wrongful discrimination?
Do try and suggest to ban white people.
Why would I want to do that? Why are you encouraging the banning of people based on their skin colour?
The organisation of Wikimania 2005 and 2006 would have been so much easier; every body could have been meetings in a pub on a Friday night. I would even suggest that there would not have been much of a Wikipedia without white people.
What are you going on about? Please attempt to be coherent.
You have correctly indicated three areas where we could do better; language, race and gender.
Again, you are indulging yourself in melodrama. Please stop, not least because you are trivialising genuine issues of wrongful discrimination. "A black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world"? I believe the phrase starts with "get" and ends with "a grip".
-- Matt
Matt R schreef:
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world.
Sheesh, let's cut back on the melodrama a notch, eh? I'm not suggesting
banning
white people. I'm not demanding that female users must identify themselves
by
writing in a pink font. What I am saying is that editors who enter into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have
a
handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
-- Matt
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When people are treated differently based on their language, it is most definitely wrongful discrimination.
No, it's not. If I started replying to you in Swahili, you'd answer, if you answered at all, quite differently to if I had used English. (Making the assumption that you don't speak Swahili, of course). So you'd treat me differently based on my language. Would that be wrongful discrimination? No -- it's that you don't understand what I'm saying. This is the issue with non-Latin usernames: they can't be "understood" by all English speakers in the ways that usernames need to be "understood" for Wikipedia to function.
And it does not occur to me that the English language Wikipedia has a right to discriminate people because of their name not being English
We can rightfully require that they choose a Latin transliteration of their name and use that (or something else) if they are going to be doing stuff that requires interacting with an English-speaking community working on an English-language project.
But seriously, Wikipedia is pre-dominantly white, women have a problem with the attitude of some.
These are serious issues, but I don't think a policy about what character sets can be used in handles is really comparable.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When people are treated differently based on their language, it is most definitely wrongful discrimination. And it does not occur to me that the English language Wikipedia has a right to discriminate people because of their name not being English, what does occur to me is that this is a fine example of discrimination.
Do you even read your own posts? It's wrongful discrimination for the English Wikipedia to be in English?
-Mark
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
writing in a pink font. What I am saying is that editors who enter into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have a handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
The problem is that "speakers of the english language" seem to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. We are writing an encyclopedia for Petes sake! Editors are supposedly in command of a skillset that's beyond burger flipping 101. If not, they have no place writing an encyclopedia anyway.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes: What I am saying is that editors who enter
into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have a handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
The problem is that "speakers of the english language" seem to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. We are writing an encyclopedia for Petes sake! Editors are supposedly in command of a skillset that's beyond burger flipping 101. If not, they have no place writing an encyclopedia anyway.
Yes...but what skillset are you thinking editors should have? No editor has the ability to be able to easily recognise and distinguish every script a Wikipedia editor might express a username in.
A lot Wikipedia thinking rests on associating knowledge of users with their name: "ah, User:Foobar, I remember working with him on an article last year; I don't need to check the minor edit he just made" etc. Such recognition -- the basis of community, in fact -- is made much more difficult if "User:Foobar" was "User:?????" or User:<something_that_looks_remarkably_like_a_squiggle_to_the_uninitiated>.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
Come on, that's a one of them strawman thingybobs: nobody's demanding this, and there's no reason to thing anyone would. There are few Wikipedia interactions that are affected by the ability to read non-Latin-1 interwiki targets.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Matt R schreef:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes: What I am saying is that editors who enter
into non-trivial interactions on the English Wikipedia should be obliged to have a handle that can be grokked by speakers of the English language.
The problem is that "speakers of the english language" seem to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. We are writing an encyclopedia for Petes sake! Editors are supposedly in command of a skillset that's beyond burger flipping 101. If not, they have no place writing an encyclopedia anyway.
Yes...but what skillset are you thinking editors should have? No editor has the ability to be able to easily recognise and distinguish every script a Wikipedia editor might express a username in.
A lot Wikipedia thinking rests on associating knowledge of users with their name: "ah, User:Foobar, I remember working with him on an article last year; I don't need to check the minor edit he just made" etc. Such recognition -- the basis of community, in fact -- is made much more difficult if "User:Foobar" was "User:?????" or User:<something_that_looks_remarkably_like_a_squiggle_to_the_uninitiated>.
Do you really believe that people remember who they worked with last year on an article? Given the sheer multitude of people only a tiny core of people are known. They are the "power users" of a project.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
Come on, that's a one of them strawman thingybobs: nobody's demanding this, and there's no reason to thing anyone would. There are few Wikipedia interactions that are affected by the ability to read non-Latin-1 interwiki targets.
Come on, so you can call them thingybobs, the right name for this attitude is discrimination. People are demanding things; they want to be known by their own user ID. The one that they use on their own project as well. You on the other hand deny them that they can. You may recall that this is a flare up of something that was discussed last month. You may want to read back what an impact it had on the Japanese Wikipedia. You may want to read how much one of our most valuable Wikimedians was distressed by this attitude. Thanks, Gerard
--- Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Matt R schreef:
A lot Wikipedia thinking rests on associating knowledge of users with their name <snip>
Do you really believe that people remember who they worked with last year on an article? Given the sheer multitude of people only a tiny core of people are known. They are the "power users" of a project.
I recognise plenty of users by name, even people who aren't "power users", and yes, even people I haven't worked with for a while. I'll say it again: a lot of Wikipedia thinking rests on associating knowledge of users with their username. Names are part of the framework of how a community interacts.
Because of this, whether by technical means or by policy, we need to ensure that usernames on a single-language wiki are going to be widely comprehensible to speakers of that wiki's language.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 29/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really believe that people remember who they worked with last year on an article? Given the sheer multitude of people only a tiny core of people are known. They are the "power users" of a project.
Actually, to a large extent they do. Remember that most articles in en:wp have been shown (Greg Maxwell ran the numbers in January 2006) to be largely written by only a few users.
Come on, so you can call them thingybobs, the right name for this attitude is discrimination. People are demanding things; they want to be known by their own user ID.
I remember that you were the sole voice against having them identifiable to other users who did not happen to be able to read that script.
It is not realistic to require of all editors on the English Wikipedia to be able to read every script in all of Unicode to be able to work with others on a project written in a Latin script language.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 29/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Do you really believe that people remember who they worked with last year on an article? Given the sheer multitude of people only a tiny core of people are known. They are the "power users" of a project.
Actually, to a large extent they do. Remember that most articles in en:wp have been shown (Greg Maxwell ran the numbers in January 2006) to be largely written by only a few users.
Come on, so you can call them thingybobs, the right name for this attitude is discrimination. People are demanding things; they want to be known by their own user ID.
I remember that you were the sole voice against having them identifiable to other users who did not happen to be able to read that script.
It is not realistic to require of all editors on the English Wikipedia to be able to read every script in all of Unicode to be able to work with others on a project written in a Latin script language.
- d.
Hoi, I do not have a problem to be a lonely voice that identifies discrimination where I see it. I prefer to be seen as someone who does make himself heard than someone who mutters in the background.
What you call unrealistic is basically something that is something that people do not do anyway. People on the English Wikipedia can read my name easily enough, they cannot pronounce it properly, they do not know if there is a meaning to my name. The only thing they need to do is register that the characters in my name exist. That is all that is required. Thanks, GerardM
On 30/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What you call unrealistic is basically something that is something that people do not do anyway. People on the English Wikipedia can read my name easily enough, they cannot pronounce it properly, they do not know if there is a meaning to my name. The only thing they need to do is register that the characters in my name exist. That is all that is required.
Yes, but that's easy for users of Latin characters because your name is written in Latin characters. That's not an example of the problem.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 30/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What you call unrealistic is basically something that is something that people do not do anyway. People on the English Wikipedia can read my name easily enough, they cannot pronounce it properly, they do not know if there is a meaning to my name. The only thing they need to do is register that the characters in my name exist. That is all that is required.
Yes, but that's easy for users of Latin characters because your name is written in Latin characters. That's not an example of the problem.
- d.
Hoi, Indeed I can not make people see what is in front of there eyes. Even in Latin script people do not perceive what is actually written. It is not a matter of seeing it is a matter of perceiving. When people are unwilling to do so, it does not follow that their argument is a just one. Thanks, GerardM
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What you call unrealistic is basically something that is something that people do not do anyway. People on the English Wikipedia can read my name easily enough, they cannot pronounce it properly, they do not know if there is a meaning to my name. The only thing they need to do is register that the characters in my name exist. That is all that is required.
Yes, but that's easy for users of Latin characters because your name is written in Latin characters. That's not an example of the problem.
- d.
Let's make some practical examples of users with bona fide non-latin usernames (choosing a different script only to look cool may be another issue):
Some (maybe most) will practically only add interwikis - they may or may not speak English, they won't care about the community, maybe in the past they would have put the interwikis anonimously and with SUL they find a reason to edit with a username. Basically they just help, they don't cause trouble and pretty much who cares if you don't recognise them. If they add at a vaguely fast rate, patrollers will easily realise that it's always the same guy. If you use CDVF you may just whitelist them so you won't be bothered in future.
A few (very few, hopefully) are vandals, they will just vandalise pages like any other vandal. You block them indefinitely, there's nothing racist in it.
Some of them will occasionally contribute a bit more substantially, they may occasionally put a signature on some talk pages. You may ask them to do something to be recognisable, they may or may not do it.
Finally, some of them will be really active contributors. I would find rather fair that these people are asked to put something that makes them recognisable in their signature. If they're active users, the request would probably seem quite reasonable.
Now, I guess it would be more useful to have something that makes usernames recognisable from the Recentchanges or Histories, rather than signatures. If you want to appear as someone else, you would make your signature very similar - and with non-Latin characters it's even easier. ID Numbers are pretty ugly, it would still be quite hard to recognise 12345678 from 12354678. Automatic transliteration is not really an option AFAIK, and ask the user to provide a version of the username in another script is unrealistic (I wouldn't have a clue on how to write my username in Arabic or Chinese - nor I would actually see a reason to do so, although I occasionally have added a couple of interwikis on these projects). Personally, as soon as they don't choose the local equivalent of User:F**k, I don't really care how they call my username in a funny script.
Marco (Cruccone)
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I do not have a problem to be a lonely voice that identifies discrimination where I see it. I prefer to be seen as someone who does make himself heard than someone who mutters in the background.
You mean you don't have a problem with poisoning debate by attacking good-faith Wikipedia contributors as bigots. Welcome to the killfile.
-Mark
Delirium schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I do not have a problem to be a lonely voice that identifies discrimination where I see it. I prefer to be seen as someone who does make himself heard than someone who mutters in the background.
You mean you don't have a problem with poisoning debate by attacking good-faith Wikipedia contributors as bigots. Welcome to the killfile.
-Mark
Hoi, Even when people propose thing with the best of intentions, it does not make that what they propose is right. It is exactly when you do not listen to arguments any more that bigotry is shown. The problem for me is that the very basis of what is proposed is wrong. At issue is that people want a policy that insists on people renaming themselves for their convenience. You can ASK people to do this, but you can not INSIST on this. This is the fine line that we walk.
Given how bigot is defined: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. " I might qualify because I am prejudiced because to me this /is /discrimination pure and simple and I do have little tolerance for that. Given that you apparently use use a killfile, you may indeed nominate yourself as well. Then again, when you indeed do use a killfile, you may never learn that you do.
Thanks, GerardM
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
The problem is that "speakers of the english language" seem to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. We are writing an encyclopedia for Petes sake! Editors are supposedly in command of a skillset that's beyond burger flipping 101. If not, they have no place writing an encyclopedia anyway.
Yes...but what skillset are you thinking editors should have? No editor has the ability to be able to easily recognise and distinguish every script a Wikipedia editor might express a username in.
"squiggle Toad Worm Bird" Yup, I recognise the visuals.
A lot Wikipedia thinking rests on associating knowledge of users with their name: "ah, User:Foobar, I remember working with him on an article last year; I don't need to check the minor edit he just made" etc. Such recognition -- the basis of community, in fact -- is made much more difficult if "User:Foobar" was "User:?????" or User:<something_that_looks_remarkably_like_a_squiggle_to_the_uninitiated>.
Learn to discern between squiggles then. If you claim that the average editor is able to remeber User:JoeBloggs from way back, then any claim of not beeing able to discern between squiggles revolve around being unable (or unwilling) to install the proper font needed to make sense out of User:Æøå.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
Come on, that's a one of them strawman thingybobs: nobody's demanding this, and there's no reason to thing anyone would. There are few Wikipedia interactions that are affected by the ability to read non-Latin-1 interwiki targets.
You are free to call that argument a strawman, as long as you accept that your basic premise (that latin-1 is the bee's knees) are a strawman as well.
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Learn to discern between squiggles then. If you claim that the average editor is able to remeber User:JoeBloggs from way back, then any claim of not beeing able to discern between squiggles revolve around being unable (or unwilling) to install the proper font needed to make sense out of User:Æøå.
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
How many different fonts do I have to install to cover all possible squiggles? On all OSes on all my computers? Can I install these fonts on my old Unix terminal? (Yes, I do use it for Wikipedia...) Can I install fonts on the computers at my local library and Internet cafe? (Answer: No.) Do you expect people less familiar with technology to know how to do this, or even that there exists some way to resolve those question marks? Which will someone remember longer: "User:JoeBloggs" or "User:some_weird_glyph"?
The inconvenience to en: Wikipedians is quite out of proportion to the convenience of not having to spend the thirty seconds creating a Latin-1 username.
I'm not going to spend any more of my dwindling Wikipedia time on this, fun as it is being put in the same moral category as racists and misogynists and sneered at for lacking a universal knowledge of the world's writing systems.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
Come on, that's a one of them strawman thingybobs: nobody's demanding this, and there's no reason to thing anyone would. There are few Wikipedia interactions that are affected by the ability to read non-Latin-1 interwiki targets.
You are free to call that argument a strawman, as long as you accept that your basic premise (that latin-1 is the bee's knees) are a strawman as well.
Actually, I'm just free to call a strawman a strawman. Watch carefully and I'll do it again!
How to win an argument:
1. Make an obvious strawman argument. 2. Wait for someone to call you on it. 3. Agree to concede that it's a strawman only if the person you're arguing with concedes your main point. 4. ???? 5. Profit!
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Learn to discern between squiggles then. If you claim that the average editor is able to remeber User:JoeBloggs from way back, then any claim of not beeing able to discern between squiggles revolve around being unable (or unwilling) to install the proper font needed to make sense out of User:Æøå.
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
How many different fonts do I have to install to cover all possible squiggles? On all OSes on all my computers? Can I install these fonts on my old Unix terminal? (Yes, I do use it for Wikipedia...) Can I install fonts on the computers at my local library and Internet cafe? (Answer: No.) Do you expect people less familiar with technology to know how to do this, or even that there exists some way to resolve those question marks? Which will someone remember longer: "User:JoeBloggs" or "User:some_weird_glyph"?
Personally I remeber the entire IP-range of the danish educational network. So ...
The inconvenience to en: Wikipedians is quite out of proportion to the convenience of not having to spend the thirty seconds creating a Latin-1 username.
Sure ... Then go ahead and transliterate your name into chinese. After all, it's just 30 seconds og effort on your part :-)
I'm not going to spend any more of my dwindling Wikipedia time on this, fun as it is being put in the same moral category as racists and misogynists and sneered at for lacking a universal knowledge of the world's writing systems.
I'm putting you in [[Category:Idiot]] you have failed to demonstrate the intelligence needed to be called bigot, much less racist. Tough shit.
...
You are free to call that argument a strawman, as long as you accept that your basic premise (that latin-1 is the bee's knees) are a strawman as well.
Actually, I'm just free to call a strawman a strawman. Watch carefully and I'll do it again!
Sure. I've already seen that it's the only thing you can.
How to win an argument:
- Make an obvious strawman argument.
- Wait for someone to call you on it.
- Agree to concede that it's a strawman only if the person you're arguing with
concedes your main point. 4. ???? 5. Profit!
6. A fork of non-en wikipedias, ignoring the WMF.
All thanks to you.
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
Sure ... Then go ahead and transliterate your name into chinese. After all, it's just 30 seconds og effort on your part :-)
We can presume that this would not normally be particularly difficult if I was going to be having non-trivial interactions with other editors on the Chinese Wikipedia -- the context under discussion if you have been following the thread.
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world. I'm putting you in [[Category:Idiot]] you have failed to demonstrate the intelligence needed to be called bigot, much less racist. Tough shit.
I'm sad that you feel abuse is an acceptable method of arguing your point. I presume it's because your rational arguments are exhausted. In any case, this conversation is over.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world. I'm putting you in [[Category:Idiot]] you have failed to demonstrate the intelligence needed to be called bigot, much less racist. Tough shit.
I'm sad that you feel abuse is an acceptable method of arguing your point. I presume it's because your rational arguments are exhausted. In any case, this conversation is over.
Whatever. Earlier you claimed you could call a strawman at any time you wanted. I, on the othert hand, can tell the truth any time I want to.
On 30 Jan 2007 01:32:52 +0100, Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Learn to discern between squiggles then. If you claim that the average editor is able to remeber User:JoeBloggs from way back, then any claim of not beeing able to discern between squiggles revolve around being unable (or unwilling) to install the proper font needed to make sense out of User:Æøå.
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
The gloabalized world speaks english. However in this case we will accept pretty much anything in the English alphabet. At random I don't think Bjankuloski06en is english we tend not to include numbers withint words.
Sure ... Then go ahead and transliterate your name into chinese. After all, it's just 30 seconds og effort on your part :-)
Tricky since it doesn't have a defined pronouceation in english. either
的复数
or perhaps
名 移动式起重机;纺织机;雌驴等
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
But this is directly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to give everyone knowledge in *their own language*. A user of [language x] should only have to be familiar with [language x] in order to contribute to their local Wikipedia, not also familiar with all other languages. Usually English is the worst offender in this regard (people should *not* have to know English, or even necessarily be familiar with Latin script, in order to contribute to a non-English Wikipedia), but it's no better when it goes the other way either.
-Mark
Delirium schreef:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
But this is directly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to give everyone knowledge in *their own language*. A user of [language x] should only have to be familiar with [language x] in order to contribute to their local Wikipedia, not also familiar with all other languages. Usually English is the worst offender in this regard (people should *not* have to know English, or even necessarily be familiar with Latin script, in order to contribute to a non-English Wikipedia), but it's no better when it goes the other way either.
-Mark
Hoi, With people using their own script for their user name, it does not detract a thing from the information being in English on the English language Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Delirium schreef:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
But this is directly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to give everyone knowledge in *their own language*. A user of [language x] should only have to be familiar with [language x] in order to contribute to their local Wikipedia, not also familiar with all other languages. Usually English is the worst offender in this regard (people should *not* have to know English, or even necessarily be familiar with Latin script, in order to contribute to a non-English Wikipedia), but it's no better when it goes the other way either.
-Mark
Hoi, With people using their own script for their user name, it does not detract a thing from the information being in English on the English language Wikipedia.
No, but it detracts from people who only speak English being able to productively work on the English-language Wikipedia.
I see this as pretty much common courtesy. I currently use a Latin-alphabet name on the Greek Wikipedia, because I wasn't really thinking much when I chose it. In retrospect, I should have chosen a Greek-alphabet name. I'll probably keep my current name via inertia if nobody complains, but if it did cause problems for a significant portion of the community, and they asked me to change it to a Greek-alphabet name, I would of course do so. Why wouldn't I? What possible justification would there be for forcing a foreign script upon them? Would it really be defensible to be a jackass and tell them, "Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world."?
-Mark
Delirium schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Delirium schreef:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world.
But this is directly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to give everyone knowledge in *their own language*. A user of [language x] should only have to be familiar with [language x] in order to contribute to their local Wikipedia, not also familiar with all other languages. Usually English is the worst offender in this regard (people should *not* have to know English, or even necessarily be familiar with Latin script, in order to contribute to a non-English Wikipedia), but it's no better when it goes the other way either.
-Mark
Hoi, With people using their own script for their user name, it does not detract a thing from the information being in English on the English language Wikipedia.
No, but it detracts from people who only speak English being able to productively work on the English-language Wikipedia.
I see this as pretty much common courtesy. I currently use a Latin-alphabet name on the Greek Wikipedia, because I wasn't really thinking much when I chose it. In retrospect, I should have chosen a Greek-alphabet name. I'll probably keep my current name via inertia if nobody complains, but if it did cause problems for a significant portion of the community, and they asked me to change it to a Greek-alphabet name, I would of course do so. Why wouldn't I? What possible justification would there be for forcing a foreign script upon them? Would it really be defensible to be a jackass and tell them, "Tough for you then. Grow up and learn coping with the globalized world."?
-Mark
Hoi, Using words like jackass in this contexts implies calling those who do not agree with you being a jackass. Thanks, GerardM
I prefer to being called a jackass by you than considering my behaviour to be discriminatory by myself.
Hoi, When people are told to transliterate their name, they will do just that and that way you cannot require them to be uniquely known. Your suggestion is not even feasible. I repeat this proposed practice is highly discriminatory, it does not fit in with the Single User Login that is to be implemented.
Your basic assumption, that it is up to the English language Wikipedia to be discriminatory may be something that can pulled off. It will be a disgrace for the project when it is reinstated, it is already a disgrace for the people who propose it.
Thanks, GerardM
Matt R schreef:
--- Anders Wegge Jakobsen wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Learn to discern between squiggles then. If you claim that the average editor is able to remeber User:JoeBloggs from way back, then any claim of not beeing able to discern between squiggles revolve around being unable (or unwilling) to install the proper font needed to make sense out of User:Æøå.
Non-Latin usernames make distinguishing and recognising users *much* harder.
How many different fonts do I have to install to cover all possible squiggles? On all OSes on all my computers? Can I install these fonts on my old Unix terminal? (Yes, I do use it for Wikipedia...) Can I install fonts on the computers at my local library and Internet cafe? (Answer: No.) Do you expect people less familiar with technology to know how to do this, or even that there exists some way to resolve those question marks? Which will someone remember longer: "User:JoeBloggs" or "User:some_weird_glyph"?
The inconvenience to en: Wikipedians is quite out of proportion to the convenience of not having to spend the thirty seconds creating a Latin-1 username.
I'm not going to spend any more of my dwindling Wikipedia time on this, fun as it is being put in the same moral category as racists and misogynists and sneered at for lacking a universal knowledge of the world's writing systems.
Will the next demand be that interwiki targets must only be named with latin-1 characters?
Come on, that's a one of them strawman thingybobs: nobody's demanding this, and there's no reason to thing anyone would. There are few Wikipedia interactions that are affected by the ability to read non-Latin-1 interwiki targets.
You are free to call that argument a strawman, as long as you accept that your basic premise (that latin-1 is the bee's knees) are a strawman as well.
Actually, I'm just free to call a strawman a strawman. Watch carefully and I'll do it again!
How to win an argument:
- Make an obvious strawman argument.
- Wait for someone to call you on it.
- Agree to concede that it's a strawman only if the person you're arguing with
concedes your main point. 4. ???? 5. Profit!
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
If "common sense" means that discrimination is permitted than I do agree. When discrimination is permitted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a black veil darkens what used to be a more bright promise of a world. There are always ways to rationalise away what is not convenient to consider.
I do not need to tell you how I abhor your POV.
I don't think ridiculous and intellectually dishonest hyperbole are necessary. In particular, to use your terminology, you are darkening the world with discrimination as well. The choice is whether to discriminate against users who would prefer to work in an environment where they recognize the scripts, or against users who would prefer to use a script different than the local Wikipedia. Obviously one of them must be done, and this is a matter of pragmatics and which policy we think is best, not of "discrimination" to use your ridiculous and frankly idiotic terminology.
-Mark
On 1/28/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it. This came as a result of massive amounts of discussion that ended up in this change from blocking all non-Latin usernames. Now enwiki contributors are trying to move back towards blocking good faith contributors with non-Latin usernames, which will very likely create problems once Single User Login comes into effect. Will we block people who are honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia just because they haven't changed their signature to a Latin script?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username#Latin_character_transli...
--rory096
Note that pschemp, the user who created the proposal, has now proposed a compromise, where the section is changed to "strongly urge" users to provide a transliteration in their signature, but it is not required, so nobody will be blocked.
Single User Login is enabled on Wikia... hum... I think that this policy from English Wikipedia is one of the reasons for this don't get enabled so quick on Wikimedia
/me hides
On 1/28/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Enwiki users are now trying to change policy so users with non-Latin usernames that don't provide transliterations in their signatures when they're told to can be blocked. Currently, the policy requests that users consider providing a transliteration, but does not require it. This came as a result of massive amounts of discussion that ended up in this change from blocking all non-Latin usernames. Now enwiki contributors are trying to move back towards blocking good faith contributors with non-Latin usernames, which will very likely create problems once Single User Login comes into effect. Will we block people who are honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia just because they haven't changed their signature to a Latin script?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username#Latin_character_transli...
--rory096 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30/01/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
Single User Login is enabled on Wikia... hum... I think that this policy from English Wikipedia is one of the reasons for this don't get enabled so quick on Wikimedia
There is no requirement, of course, that SUL means "have the username display the same way everywhere". Even if any given username only has one person behind it, it doesn't stop us declaring the "real user" to be an arbitrary database code and hanging a dozen visible usernames off that... ;-)
[I would utterly love a hack which allowed you to ask for any non-Latin username - or perhaps any username - to have an arbitrary User-ID appended to the back of it - "foobar" or "foobar (123456)" - whenever it showed up in logs. Those who find it useful can flip a switch and on it comes; those who don't, well, it'd be off by default)
But looking back over the thread, there is an awful lot of stupidity and - not to put too fine a point on it - desire To Make A Fuss being demonstrated here. Tthe proposal is not some grand racist conspiracy to prevent contributions from non-Anglophones. The proposal is to ask them, *when they sign things on discussion pages*, to use a transliteration. It's a proposal to solve a problem that doesn't yet significantly exist - we'd do much better to BAN PEOPLE WITH GIANT COLOURED FOUR-LINE SIGNATURES, if you ask me - so not a desperately helpful one, but it really doesn't deserve this much screaming. We have bigger problems to worry about.
Please, people, cool off a little...
Andrew Gray schreef:
On 30/01/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
Single User Login is enabled on Wikia... hum... I think that this policy from English Wikipedia is one of the reasons for this don't get enabled so quick on Wikimedia
There is no requirement, of course, that SUL means "have the username display the same way everywhere". Even if any given username only has one person behind it, it doesn't stop us declaring the "real user" to be an arbitrary database code and hanging a dozen visible usernames off that... ;-)
[I would utterly love a hack which allowed you to ask for any non-Latin username - or perhaps any username - to have an arbitrary User-ID appended to the back of it - "foobar" or "foobar (123456)" - whenever it showed up in logs. Those who find it useful can flip a switch and on it comes; those who don't, well, it'd be off by default)
But looking back over the thread, there is an awful lot of stupidity and - not to put too fine a point on it - desire To Make A Fuss being demonstrated here. Tthe proposal is not some grand racist conspiracy to prevent contributions from non-Anglophones. The proposal is to ask them, *when they sign things on discussion pages*, to use a transliteration. It's a proposal to solve a problem that doesn't yet significantly exist - we'd do much better to BAN PEOPLE WITH GIANT COLOURED FOUR-LINE SIGNATURES, if you ask me - so not a desperately helpful one, but it really doesn't deserve this much screaming. We have bigger problems to worry about.
Please, people, cool off a little...
Hoi, You have your terminology wrong. Nobody said anything about this being racist, it is discriminatory. Compulsory transliteration will not work either because it will not satisfy the uniqueness criterion. The notion that this problem does not significantly exist is wrong as well. See what Aphaia wrote about it when this subject was raised last time.
Feel free to ban people with giant four line signatures. Nothing wrong with that imho.
Thanks, GerardM
On 30/01/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is no requirement, of course, that SUL means "have the username display the same way everywhere". Even if any given username only has one person behind it, it doesn't stop us declaring the "real user" to be an arbitrary database code and hanging a dozen visible usernames off that... ;-) [I would utterly love a hack which allowed you to ask for any non-Latin username - or perhaps any username - to have an arbitrary User-ID appended to the back of it - "foobar" or "foobar (123456)" - whenever it showed up in logs. Those who find it useful can flip a switch and on it comes; those who don't, well, it'd be off by default)
Remember that in the previous thread, it was CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that even giving the option to hang the database UID number off a handle makes you indistinguishable from a NAZI!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/026128.html
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 30/01/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is no requirement, of course, that SUL means "have the username display the same way everywhere". Even if any given username only has one person behind it, it doesn't stop us declaring the "real user" to be an arbitrary database code and hanging a dozen visible usernames off that... ;-) [I would utterly love a hack which allowed you to ask for any non-Latin username - or perhaps any username - to have an arbitrary User-ID appended to the back of it - "foobar" or "foobar (123456)" - whenever it showed up in logs. Those who find it useful can flip a switch and on it comes; those who don't, well, it'd be off by default)
Remember that in the previous thread, it was CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that even giving the option to hang the database UID number off a handle makes you indistinguishable from a NAZI!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/026128.html
- d.
Hoi, So you lost this argument by referring to Nazis for the first time. Thanks, GerardM
On 30/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Remember that in the previous thread, it was CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that even giving the option to hang the database UID number off a handle makes you indistinguishable from a NAZI! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/026128.html
Hoi, So you lost this argument by referring to Nazis for the first time.
Of course! I should just have said "In the Netherlands in the second world war" as you did, and thus just *imply* it.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 30/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Remember that in the previous thread, it was CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that even giving the option to hang the database UID number off a handle makes you indistinguishable from a NAZI! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/026128.html
Hoi, So you lost this argument by referring to Nazis for the first time.
Of course! I should just have said "In the Netherlands in the second world war" as you did, and thus just *imply* it.
- d.
Hoi, Actually that is a misinterpretation; what was asked and what I explained there was why there is such an aversion to using numbers to deal with people. Now let us forget about this as it is not productive and I think we both want to do good. We do not agree on what is good but this does not make either of us a Nazi. Thanks, GerarM
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org