She's cute, right? (Chickipedia is old news, but you just know this isn't the only wiki-style "pedia" of this type).
Nathan
On Feb 6, 2008 4:27 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Feel free to elaborate with links :)
Waerth
She's cute, right? (Chickipedia is old news, but you just know this isn't the only wiki-style "pedia" of this type).
Nathan
On Feb 6, 2008 4:27 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[[wikiboobs:]]?
-Chad
On Feb 6, 2008 4:36 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Feel free to elaborate with links :)
Waerth
She's cute, right? (Chickipedia is old news, but you just know this isn't the only wiki-style "pedia" of this type).
Nathan
On Feb 6, 2008 4:27 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/02/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
[[wikiboobs:]]?
-Chad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
I suppose hunkapedia is out of the question?
-------------------------------------------------- From: "geni" geniice@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:42 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hmmmmm
On 06/02/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
[[wikiboobs:]]?
-Chad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There is also at least one active wiki porn site.
The site I know about started as a fork from Wikipedia content when a certain contributor found out that pornstar stalking (i.e. posting personal details and contact info) was not acceptable on enwiki.
-Robert Rohde
On Feb 6, 2008 1:43 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
[[wikiboobs:]]?
-Chad
On Feb 6, 2008 4:36 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Feel free to elaborate with links :)
Waerth
She's cute, right? (Chickipedia is old news, but you just know this isn't the only wiki-style "pedia" of this type).
Nathan
On Feb 6, 2008 4:27 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I propose a new WMF project ;-)
-Chad
On Feb 6, 2008 4:33 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
She's cute, right? (Chickipedia is old news, but you just know this isn't the only wiki-style "pedia" of this type).
Nathan
On Feb 6, 2008 4:27 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Main_Page
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
Brianna
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
Brianna
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
I have been wondering if it was mediawiki. It feels like it, though it does not look like it. I looked for acknowledgements, and did not find them.
Ant
I have been wondering if it was mediawiki. It feels like it, though it does not look like it. I looked for acknowledgements, and did not find them.
If you look at the URLs for pages (in particular special pages), they match MediaWiki URLs, so I think it's just MediaWiki with a whole new skin.
2008/2/7, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
Brianna
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
I have been wondering if it was mediawiki. It feels like it, though it does not look like it. I looked for acknowledgements, and did not find them.
That's quite easy to check: http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Special:Version
Andre Engels wrote:
2008/2/7, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
Brianna
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
I have been wondering if it was mediawiki. It feels like it, though it does not look like it. I looked for acknowledgements, and did not find them.
That's quite easy to check: http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Special:Version
Ah, stupid me, I forgot that page... I was looking for a credit page.
Ant
Well, they removed the "Powered by MediaWiki" and removed "Special:Version" from the list of special pages (http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Special:Specialpages), so the average non-MediaWiki-savvy user wouldn't know it.
-Chad
On Feb 7, 2008 10:08 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
2008/2/7, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
Brianna
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
I have been wondering if it was mediawiki. It feels like it, though it does not look like it. I looked for acknowledgements, and did not find them.
That's quite easy to check: http://www.chickipedia.com/index.php/Special:Version
Ah, stupid me, I forgot that page... I was looking for a credit page.
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/02/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
I propose we refer to it henceforth as "creepypedia".
- d.
Hoi, Sticks and stones ...
Chickipedia provides a superior package. Their presentation is much less cluttered. For a reader it is clearly superior. Now if you can not look beyond the skin and perceive this, you miss what is in front of you. They have given more thought on how to present their material, they offer an attractive package. It is easy to argue that without it they will not do well, it is as easy to argue that with a cleaner/less cluttered skin we would do better.
It has been said in the past that a new skin would be a good thing. These arguments are as good as ever. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 7, 2008 2:08 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Their good integrated use of extensions and adaptions of MediaWiki is impressive, but beyond that - gross.
I propose we refer to it henceforth as "creepypedia".
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Feb 7, 2008 2:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
attractive package. It is easy to argue that without it they will not do well, it is as easy to argue that with a cleaner/less cluttered skin we would do better.
It has been said in the past that a new skin would be a good thing. These arguments are as good as ever. Thanks, GerardM
Have you looked at the modern skin? It is a nice clear skin.
Bryan
Hoi, The modern skin may be nice and clear, but it is not what we serve to our customers. When people test new functionality, it is tested against the ubiquitous monobook skin and I do know that some of the skins are broken with some of the later extensions. I do not have nor take the time for this.
I am used to monobook, it is functional for me, but the whole experience can be improved. I find it really funny that this is a website abour skin and that for me the best bit is its skin. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 7, 2008 4:48 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 2:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
attractive package. It is easy to argue that without it they will not do well, it is as easy to argue that with a cleaner/less cluttered skin we would do better.
It has been said in the past that a new skin would be a good thing.
These
arguments are as good as ever. Thanks, GerardM
Have you looked at the modern skin? It is a nice clear skin.
Bryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Related to this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee#Localisation
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals?
Both answers yes or no could actually have some implications.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Hello,
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". The preservation of cultural diversity and of minority languages are noble missions, but not those of the Wikimedia Foundation (which does not seek to fulfill every noble mission in the world).
< http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission >
I'd have to agree. While they are noble goals (and may come about as a result of the pursuit of our goals), they aren't our goals.
-Chad
On Feb 8, 2008 12:36 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". The preservation of cultural diversity and of minority languages are noble missions, but not those of the Wikimedia Foundation (which does not seek to fulfill every noble mission in the world).
< http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission >
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
On Feb 8, 2008 11:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Related to this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee#Localisation
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals?
Both answers yes or no could actually have some implications.
Cheers, Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
One of the immediate implications would be that artificial languages, as well as small European languages, are ineligible since all their speakers are also proficient in other languages (Example: All Lower Sorbian speakers are also German speakers).
Cheers Yaroslav
I'd have to agree. While they are noble goals (and may come about as a result of the pursuit of our goals), they aren't our goals.
-Chad
On Feb 8, 2008 12:36 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". The preservation of cultural diversity and of minority languages are noble missions, but not those of the Wikimedia Foundation (which does not seek to fulfill every noble mission in the world).
< http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission >
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
On Feb 8, 2008 11:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Related to this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee#Localisation
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community:
Are
the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages
(secondary)
Wikimedia goals?
Both answers yes or no could actually have some implications.
Cheers, Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We do not consider the preservation of endangered cultures and languages as goals, but nor do we prejudice against them. Any requesting community that meets all the requirements explained at < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP#Requisites > is eligible.
The eligibility of constructed languages is being discussed, but not in the context of preservation (that is a whole other topic, so please split any comments about constructed languages to a separate thread so we can stay on track).
I didn't say we couldn't have the smaller languages. I said having them /for the sole purpose of preservation/ isn't in our goals. Preserving them because we have projects in them is a side effect, not the actual end goal.
-Chad
On Feb 8, 2008 3:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
One of the immediate implications would be that artificial languages, as well as small European languages, are ineligible since all their speakers are also proficient in other languages (Example: All Lower Sorbian speakers are also German speakers).
Cheers Yaroslav
I'd have to agree. While they are noble goals (and may come about as a result of the pursuit of our goals), they aren't our goals.
-Chad
On Feb 8, 2008 12:36 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". The preservation of cultural diversity and of minority languages are noble missions, but not those of the Wikimedia Foundation (which does not seek to fulfill every noble mission in the world).
< http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission >
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
On Feb 8, 2008 11:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Related to this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee#Localisation
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community:
Are
the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages
(secondary)
Wikimedia goals?
Both answers yes or no could actually have some implications.
Cheers, Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 08/02/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Related to this discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee#Localisation
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals?
Both answers yes or no could actually have some implications.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Yes and no.
Yes in so far as in order to "collect and develop educational content" we need to be able to access the maximum amount of information meaning that for the time being we have an interest in seeing all written languages remaining readable and all information in unwritten languages being transfered to a fixed form. This also gives us an interest in the translation of Linear A and the like.
No in that "disseminate it effectively and globally" long term requires that the human race adopt a single language something which would be most effectively facilitated by the removal of all other languages as living languages.
Or to put it another way preservation as a dead language yes as a living language not so much
On Feb 8, 2008 11:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals?
The WMF really shouldn't get into this kind of thing because it's too much. As Pathoschild mentioned, the WMF cannot pursue every noble goal. However, if people are truly interested in preservation of language, a separate foundation could be set up for that purpose. Something like "Wiki Language Preservation Society". Likely, a deal could be brokered between such an organization and the WMF to share server resources, although the later group would be responsible for maintaining the preservation projects, the associated domain names, pay for the bandwidth, contribute to operating the servers, contribute to paying the technical staff, etc. Such a group could probably actively pursue grants to capture and preserve dieing languages, which means there wouldnt be a competition between WLPS and WMF for donations.
forgive me for brainstorming out loud. But, if people want to pursue goals which are tangent to the WMF's goals, they should really consider creating a new organization to pursue them, instead of trying to tack them on to the WMF's mission statement.
--Andrew Whitworth
Hoi, The costs you are talking about are peanuts. Small projects do not cost us much. What it will cost is a big blue eye for the Wikimedia Foundation because its relevance will be seen as reduced. Apparantly you do not see that by excluding languages you exclude the points of view that these languages and their associated cultures provide. It is not hard to argue that by starting to exclude these point of views, the WMF will no longer be able to produce a complete view and consequently the neutral point of view we aim for will be lost.
When the WMF does not want to host the less and least resourced languages anymore, there is no need for WMF hosting. There is no need to be treated like a beggar. There are other organisations happy to take over any community that does not feel at home anymore in the Wikimedia Foundation. The question will be, will these communities be granted the right of departure ??? How do you think the WMF will be perceived when communities start leaving because they do not want to be treated as second class citizens ???
Have you considered what a PR disaster this will be ? Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 8, 2008 11:40 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 11:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages
(secondary)
Wikimedia goals?
The WMF really shouldn't get into this kind of thing because it's too much. As Pathoschild mentioned, the WMF cannot pursue every noble goal. However, if people are truly interested in preservation of language, a separate foundation could be set up for that purpose. Something like "Wiki Language Preservation Society". Likely, a deal could be brokered between such an organization and the WMF to share server resources, although the later group would be responsible for maintaining the preservation projects, the associated domain names, pay for the bandwidth, contribute to operating the servers, contribute to paying the technical staff, etc. Such a group could probably actively pursue grants to capture and preserve dieing languages, which means there wouldnt be a competition between WLPS and WMF for donations.
forgive me for brainstorming out loud. But, if people want to pursue goals which are tangent to the WMF's goals, they should really consider creating a new organization to pursue them, instead of trying to tack them on to the WMF's mission statement.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello Gerard,
What are you talking about? Nobody has suggested excluding languages that meet the language proposal policy.
I must admit I am lost.
If the argument goes that every language is unique and that by keeping every language inside WMF (let us forget about extinct and artificial languages for the moment, they are not an issue here) actually helps establishing the neutral point of view, then the preservation of endangered languages IS a goal of WMF. Obviously, not a primary goal, but a secondary goal.
To me, if we say this is NOT a goal of WMF means WMF should not care whether the language is endangered or not. It only should care about the most efficient way to spread of the information. Just, you know, counting bytes per unit time. Then, indeed, a question can be raised why the languages with the purely bilingual support should be supported.
I can not really connect the two things. To me, they sound like mutually exclusive.
Btw, I do not see how asking questions can make feel somebody second sort. Answering questions and taking decisions can.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On 2/9/08, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I must admit I am lost.
If the argument goes that every language is unique and that by keeping every language inside WMF (let us forget about extinct and artificial languages for the moment, they are not an issue here) actually helps establishing the neutral point of view, then the preservation of endangered languages IS a goal of WMF. Obviously, not a primary goal, but a secondary goal.
To me, if we say this is NOT a goal of WMF means WMF should not care whether the language is endangered or not. It only should care about the most efficient way to spread of the information. Just, you know, counting bytes per unit time. Then, indeed, a question can be raised why the languages with the purely bilingual support should be supported.
I can not really connect the two things. To me, they sound like mutually exclusive.
I think you are eliding a telling comment that geni made. Namely that we are as much about collecting information, as we are about spreading it.
Please do understand that I for one am of the opinion that for reasons of comprehensivity, the english language wikipedia must remain a special concern, and for which reason the current swing away from an aspiration towards comprehensiveness on the english language wikipedia is to me a deeply regrettable developement.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hoi, Who is stopping anyone from working towards a comprehensive English Wikipedia ? What makes you say this is happening? If people are not contributing towards this goal, they are surely doing something that they feel is of value. Are they, as a result, stopping you from making your goal happen? Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 9, 2008 9:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/08, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I must admit I am lost.
If the argument goes that every language is unique and that by keeping every language inside WMF (let us forget about extinct and artificial languages for the moment, they are not an issue here) actually helps establishing the neutral point of view, then the preservation of endangered languages IS a goal of WMF. Obviously, not a primary goal,
but
a secondary goal.
To me, if we say this is NOT a goal of WMF means WMF should not care whether the language is endangered or not. It only should care about the most effcient way to spread of the information. Just, you know, counting bytes per unit time. Then, indeed, a question can be raised why the languages with the purely bilingual support should be supported.
I can not really connect the two things. To me, they sound like mutually exclusive.
I think you are eliding a telling comment that geni made. Namely that we are as much about collecting information, as we are about spreading it.
Please do understand that I for one am of the opinion that for reasons of comprehensivity, the english language wikipedia must remain a special concern, and for which reason the current swing away from an aspiration towards comprehensiveness on the english language wikipedia is to me a deeply regrettable developement.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
<REPAIRING TOP POSTING ERROR>
On Feb 9, 2008 9:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Please do understand that I for one am of the opinion that for reasons of comprehensivity, the english language wikipedia must remain a special concern, and for which reason the current swing away from an aspiration towards comprehensiveness on the english language wikipedia is to me a deeply regrettable developement.
On 2/9/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Who is stopping anyone from working towards a comprehensive English Wikipedia ? What makes you say this is happening? If people are not contributing towards this goal, they are surely doing something that they feel is of value. Are they, as a result, stopping you from making your goal happen? Thanks, GerardM
Well, let me first note that it is somewhat amusing to me to note how you managed to personalise this matter, having previously complained about the negative tone on this mailing list.
I was making a general point about the english wikipedia, without meaning to refer to any specific people on it.
Just to make sure I do not engage in personalizing the matter, let me use as an example an article created by a person I have myself clashed with in the past (some people will know better than others how deeply) to show how there is a palpable chilling effect for article creation on the english wikipedia. The creator of the page is a long time wikipedian, who nobody in their right mind would consider a bleeding heart inclusionist. Or more correctly, nobody in their right mind *would* have called him that, in a more gentle era.
Our article on the [[true Catholic Church]] (and yes, apparently the "true" in the name is not written with a capital "T"), which used to be a thoughtful and thorough analysis on the doctrines the church holds, is now a redirect to its leader, which is a bare biographical sketch.
If you are interested in what the "debate" for its deletion was like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Catholic_C...
Just to balance things out, wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Estonian led international movement to create a LaVeyan church explicitly disavowing all evil influences, known as The Order of the Black Venus.
Both deletions are things that affect me personally not at all, but for the chilling effect they have on my perception of what is welcomed at wikipedia. But that chilling effect is real.
If you want to know what article I personally have created, has been given the cold shoulder treatement, let me just say that I know fully well, that I could source an article on [[Karri Miettinen]] aka. [[Paleface]] right up the wazoo. He was a subject of a scholarly comparative article discussing artistic practises in movie subtitle translation, authored for a top level cultural European Union panel, and has had and will continue to have media exposure (just most lately landing a position as a regular on a television game show) and publish via a major label (EMI, who specifically - according to the scholarly article referenced above - gave great liberties to his translation of Eminems movie 8 Miles song lyrics in deference to his artistic credentials and standing). But you know, I prefer to work in areas where I *don't* have to fight over every articles existence and over every sentence. I prefer to work where I feel confident that my work will be naturally accepted as constructive.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of languages per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people that invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in African languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a practical value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking about Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These projects can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the WMF supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the language committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In the words of Steven Colbert "all the other wikipedia's should say learn english"
-Deni
_________________________________________________________________ What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2E...
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of languages per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people that invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in African languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a practical value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking about Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These projects can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the WMF supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the language committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages. Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like Wolof are also being worked on.
When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective. When language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done for all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect start for any needed project localisation.
It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has been done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This means that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to get a uniform terminology used.
We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from where we can honestly say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Please help !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
languages
per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
that
invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only
in
2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
African
languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
practical
value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking
about
Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
projects
can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the
WMF
supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
language
committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild@gmail.com>
wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"completed on Betawiki" does not measure all existing localization.
You said earlier: "It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised."
That's patently false - maybe it's only in 2008 that they have localisation on Betawiki, but Betawiki is not the world. I do think Betawiki is awesome, but I also think you tend to be focussed a little _too_ much on your pet projects - it used to be OmegaWiki, and now it's Betawiki. They're both great projects, but the world does not revolve around them.
Mark
On 12/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages. Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like Wolof are also being worked on.
When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective. When language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done for all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect start for any needed project localisation.
It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has been done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This means that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to get a uniform terminology used.
We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from where we can honestly say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Please help !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
languages
per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
that
invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only
in
2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
African
languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
practical
value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking
about
Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
projects
can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the
WMF
supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
language
committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild@gmail.com>
wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, We have the statistics to prove it.
As I indicated before, we have imported the localisations from Wikipedias, nothing was wasted. Our most precious resource are the people who help with the localisation and we do not ask them to do things that are not necessary.
As to focusing on projects, I spend my time on the things that are relevant to me. Betawiki is extremely relevant for all the MediaWiki projects I am involved in. The localisation of OmegaWiki is done at Betawiki as well. Betawiki is the best place to do localisation for MediaWiki. My time and effort is most effectively used by improving and promoting necessary infra structure. Yes, I see OmegaWiki as infra structure. Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 8:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
"completed on Betawiki" does not measure all existing localization.
You said earlier: "It is only in 2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised."
That's patently false - maybe it's only in 2008 that they have localisation on Betawiki, but Betawiki is not the world. I do think Betawiki is awesome, but I also think you tend to be focussed a little _too_ much on your pet projects - it used to be OmegaWiki, and now it's Betawiki. They're both great projects, but the world does not revolve around them.
Mark
On 12/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages. Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like Wolof are also being worked on.
When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective.
When
language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done
for
all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect
start
for any needed project localisation.
It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has
been
done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This
means
that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to
get a
uniform terminology used.
We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from where we can
honestly
say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Please help !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
languages
per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
that
invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is
only
in
2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the
most
relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
African
languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
practical
value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are
talking
about
Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
projects
can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and
has
sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages
the
WMF
supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
language
committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild@gmail.com>
wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from
the
topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation
mission.
If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights
or
prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those
causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Also, I recognize this is off-topic, but if you are using localisations from all comers, it is important to realize that not all people are what they claim. Jose77, in particular, has become a sysop at many Wikipedias and added localizations. What are the chances that he is fluent in not only Hawai'ian, but also Uyghur, Tongan, Samoan, as well as tens of hundreds of other languages?
When pressed, Joseph claims that he got these translations "from native speakers", but in the case of some of them, there have been complaints on-wiki about the translations. He also likes to push his religious agenda across many Wikis (if the main page of a Wikipedia is in a "directory" format, he will replace the different religions in the "Religion" category with topics related to Christianity; also, he has posted untranslated materials or poorly translated materials in many Wikis about his religion, the true Jesus Church).
He also has dozens of sockpuppets, for confirmation you may ask User:Kahuroa, a sysop at mi.wp, who has dealt with many of them trying to exert influence there.
In summary, I think it is important to check translations with a third party, and also to beware of people seeking to submit translations for more than about 3 languages (quadrilingualism is certainly possible, but in the case that somebody is doing this, their translations should be checked to confirm that they do in fact possess the skills they claim).
On 12/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A lot of work has been done on the localisation of African languages. Amharic, Swahili and Northern Sotho are the first African languages that have 100% of the most relevant messages translated. Other languages like Wolof are also being worked on.
When you suggest that we consider the work done on the projects a total waste, you are completely wrong. Recently the localisation of the Zulu Wikipedia has been imported into Betawiki and the numbers for Zulu are 24.49% 13.48% 0.97% 0.26%. Localisation in projects is not effective. When language localisation is done in one project, it still needs to be done for all other projects while the work done in Betawiki provides a perfect start for any needed project localisation.
It is only recently that the Amharic localisation for the most relevant messages was completed in Betawiki. The localisation for Swahili has been done by someone who has also standardised the terminology used. This means that messages in the Swahili wikipedia need to be deleted in order to get a uniform terminology used.
We do need more people to work on the localisation of so many more languages.. The numbers prove how far off we are from where we can honestly say that we support over 250 languages in Wikipedia.
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statistics
Please help !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 12, 2008 3:36 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
system messages on am.wp have been translated for a while now. I know you don't see a lot of value in project-level localizations, but please don't pretend the translations haven't been around in several African languages, including Amharic, Swahili. and I believe Zulu.
On 10/02/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend anything on the support of
languages
per se. What it supports is projects in many languages. It is people
that
invest in their language and culture.
In the last two Wikimanias it has been said that we, the Wikimedia Foundation, want to promote Wikipedia particularly in Africa. It is only
in
2008 that the first three exclusively African languages have the most relevant messages in MediaWiki localised. If the WMF has invested in
African
languages, there has not been much that can be observed that has a
practical
value. We are not talking about minority languages when we are talking
about
Swahili, Amharic, Igbo, Yoruba.....
The WMF is not investing in languages; it supports projects. These
projects
can be in whatever language. The WMF supports what comes along and has sufficient relevance. It is the board that decides what languages the
WMF
supports and as a consequence is given this relevance, the most the
language
committee does is recommend to allow for a particular project.
So in conclusion, it is *people *that invest in languages. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that provides them with a platform to make this
happen.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 12:45 PM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <
pathoschild@gmail.com>
wrote:
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Actually, I would not go as far as suggesting that some money should be spent for supporting languages, but, indeed, if the language support is a (secondary) goal of the Foundation, then a special care can be taken of the languages for instance where Wikipedias constitute the largest amount of texts available online in these languages. This special care can be creation of Wikicompendia as suggested earlier, or increased volunteer effort for such projects, showing participants how to edit, what to write and such things, or indeed some additional advertisement among target groups, or smth else I can not immediately think of. On the other hand, if this is not a goal, we can raise the bar and just watch who is going to make it. I am not talking now about artificial and extinct languages, and I am not talking about doomed languages with dozens of speakers, it is more about endangered languages (dozens of thousands, may be even hundreds of thousands speakers).
Cheers, Yaroslav
All these comments are very informative, but we're straying from the topic. The question is not whether we should deliberately exclude minority languages or cultures, but whether we should consider the preservation of cultures and languages part of the Foundation mission. If we don't consider something a goal, that does not mean we work *against* it. For example, our goal is not to promote human rights or prevent child soldiery, even though our work benefits those causes.
Should the Foundation be willing to allocate donated funds and resources to that purpose? What is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation itself (not of the individual users, who have their own causes and motives)?
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Top posting is not an error it is obvious that you do, when it is how mail is best supported in the tooling that you use... Having said that,
You do not answer the issue. You raised as a point the "swing away from comprehensiveness" in a thread about languages and a perceived need for concentration. I asked how and where this issue is applicable. I made it personal because I do not care for vague rants, I want to know how people are prevented from working on one Wikipedia as a consequence of what happens in other Wikipedias. This is not intended as a personal attack, it comes from a desire to have a practical understanding.
I do not get this understanding from your reply as it is completely concentrated on something that happened in one Wikipedia.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 10, 2008 11:30 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
<REPAIRING TOP POSTING ERROR>
On Feb 9, 2008 9:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Please do understand that I for one am of the opinion that for reasons of comprehensivity, the english language wikipedia must remain a special concern, and for which reason the current swing away from an aspiration towards comprehensiveness on the english language wikipedia is to me a deeply regrettable developement.
On 2/9/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Who is stopping anyone from working towards a comprehensive English Wikipedia ? What makes you say this is happening? If people are not contributing towards this goal, they are surely doing something that
they
feel is of value. Are they, as a result, stopping you from making your
goal
happen? Thanks, GerardM
Well, let me first note that it is somewhat amusing to me to note how you managed to personalise this matter, having previously complained about the negative tone on this mailing list.
I was making a general point about the english wikipedia, without meaning to refer to any specific people on it.
Just to make sure I do not engage in personalizing the matter, let me use as an example an article created by a person I have myself clashed with in the past (some people will know better than others how deeply) to show how there is a palpable chilling effect for article creation on the english wikipedia. The creator of the page is a long time wikipedian, who nobody in their right mind would consider a bleeding heart inclusionist. Or more correctly, nobody in their right mind *would* have called him that, in a more gentle era.
Our article on the [[true Catholic Church]] (and yes, apparently the "true" in the name is not written with a capital "T"), which used to be a thoughtful and thorough analysis on the doctrines the church holds, is now a redirect to its leader, which is a bare biographical sketch.
If you are interested in what the "debate" for its deletion was like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/True_Catholic_C...
Just to balance things out, wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Estonian led international movement to create a LaVeyan church explicitly disavowing all evil influences, known as The Order of the Black Venus.
Both deletions are things that affect me personally not at all, but for the chilling effect they have on my perception of what is welcomed at wikipedia. But that chilling effect is real.
If you want to know what article I personally have created, has been given the cold shoulder treatement, let me just say that I know fully well, that I could source an article on [[Karri Miettinen]] aka. [[Paleface]] right up the wazoo. He was a subject of a scholarly comparative article discussing artistic practises in movie subtitle translation, authored for a top level cultural European Union panel, and has had and will continue to have media exposure (just most lately landing a position as a regular on a television game show) and publish via a major label (EMI, who specifically - according to the scholarly article referenced above - gave great liberties to his translation of Eminems movie 8 Miles song lyrics in deference to his artistic credentials and standing). But you know, I prefer to work in areas where I *don't* have to fight over every articles existence and over every sentence. I prefer to work where I feel confident that my work will be naturally accepted as constructive.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/10/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Top posting is not an error it is obvious that you do, when it is how mail is best supported in the tooling that you use... Having said that,
I *have* been trolled, and am quite happy to acknowledge taht...
You do not answer the issue. You raised as a point the "swing away from comprehensiveness" in a thread about languages and a perceived need for concentration. I asked how and where this issue is applicable. I made it personal because I do not care for vague rants, I want to know how people are prevented from working on one Wikipedia as a consequence of what happens in other Wikipedias. This is not intended as a personal attack, it comes from a desire to have a practical understanding.
Please do understand that I for one am of the opinion that for reasons of comprehensivity, the english language wikipedia must remain a special concern, and for which reason the current swing away from an aspiration towards comprehensiveness on the english language wikipedia is to me a deeply regrettable developement.
To have a practical understanding of something, it is easier to have the comment after the thing commented upon...
But that would be only logical if one thought top posting was confusing...
I do not get this understanding from your reply as it is completely concentrated on something that happened in one Wikipedia.
My reply is in reference to one Wikipedia only because my point was about one wikipedia, namely the English language one. If there was a larger point about other communities, you might have been rightfully worried I was concentrating only on the english wikipedia, but as I wasn't you most certainly weren't.
However, to *repair* the affects of top posting, let me repeat your previous paragraph and go into it in more detail...
You do not answer the issue. You raised as a point the "swing away from comprehensiveness" in a thread about languages and a perceived need for concentration. I asked how and where this issue is applicable. I made it personal because I do not care for vague rants, I want to know how people are prevented from working on one Wikipedia as a consequence of what happens in other Wikipedias. This is not intended as a personal attack, it comes from a desire to have a practical understanding.
If you want to know why I think this issue is serious, I will say that we want to *collect* information,and we can do in many language regions so only if we are willing to do so with that language itself. You may not care for vague rants, but if you but had the giftie of a mirror, you would be pelted by at least one half more than you see yourself.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Feb 8, 2008 6:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The costs you are talking about are peanuts. Small projects do not cost us much.
It was a symbolic point. If other organizations want to share our servers, they can share in our costs. If people want the WMF to be pursuing all sorts of secondary goals, then they should be willing to pay, even if the price is only a pitance.
What it will cost is a big blue eye for the Wikimedia Foundation because its relevance will be seen as reduced. Apparantly you do not see that by excluding languages you exclude the points of view that these languages and their associated cultures provide.
And you do not see that the points of view of a culture can be expressed in any language. We can write about aboriginal POV in English, or Inuit POV in Spanish. We aren't restricted to "one language, one world view" per project. The true value of our projects is that we can communicate information about a culture in many languages.
When the WMF does not want to host the less and least resourced languages anymore, there is no need for WMF hosting. There is no need to be treated like a beggar. There are other organisations happy to take over any community that does not feel at home anymore in the Wikimedia Foundation. The question will be, will these communities be granted the right of departure ??? How do you think the WMF will be perceived when communities start leaving because they do not want to be treated as second class citizens ???
I have thought about this, and that's why I advocate that we do not create projects which are destined to become second class. A little bit of quality control at the beginning can prevent big PR disasters when those projects fail. In fact, if we are worrying about public perception of the WMF decreasing after a fork or a split, then we should increase our scrutiny and decrease the amount of new language projects we create in the first place.
Instead of creating new projects, having them fail, and then be absorbed by some other nameless organization, I'm saying we proactively create that second organization, and task it with putting these small languages in the forefront. Turn small languages into the first-class citizens by having a foundation that caters specifically to them.
--Andrew Whitworth
Got the money? I'd love to pursue such a goal.
-Chad
On Feb 8, 2008 7:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 6:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The costs you are talking about are peanuts. Small projects do not cost us much.
It was a symbolic point. If other organizations want to share our servers, they can share in our costs. If people want the WMF to be pursuing all sorts of secondary goals, then they should be willing to pay, even if the price is only a pitance.
What it will cost is a big blue eye for the Wikimedia Foundation because its relevance will be seen as reduced. Apparantly you do not see that by excluding languages you exclude the points of view that these languages and their associated cultures provide.
And you do not see that the points of view of a culture can be expressed in any language. We can write about aboriginal POV in English, or Inuit POV in Spanish. We aren't restricted to "one language, one world view" per project. The true value of our projects is that we can communicate information about a culture in many languages.
When the WMF does not want to host the less and least resourced languages anymore, there is no need for WMF hosting. There is no need to be treated like a beggar. There are other organisations happy to take over any community that does not feel at home anymore in the Wikimedia Foundation. The question will be, will these communities be granted the right of departure ??? How do you think the WMF will be perceived when communities start leaving because they do not want to be treated as second class citizens ???
I have thought about this, and that's why I advocate that we do not create projects which are destined to become second class. A little bit of quality control at the beginning can prevent big PR disasters when those projects fail. In fact, if we are worrying about public perception of the WMF decreasing after a fork or a split, then we should increase our scrutiny and decrease the amount of new language projects we create in the first place.
Instead of creating new projects, having them fail, and then be absorbed by some other nameless organization, I'm saying we proactively create that second organization, and task it with putting these small languages in the forefront. Turn small languages into the first-class citizens by having a foundation that caters specifically to them.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, When you consider that asking people who value, who treasure their language have to pay for the privilege of having a Wikipedia, Wikisource or whatever project "symbolic", then I do not care for your definition of symbolic. When living languages, living cultures are to pay their own way, it can be argued that they already do because they do not get much for free.
There are things that cannot be expressed in any language, languages do not have the same terminology. With different concepts it is not possible to express the same point of view in the same way, often it is not possible to express a particular point of view about a different language. The true value of our projects is not that we CAN but that we TRY to communicate information about different cultures. The true value of our projects is that we have so far not discriminated that much against other languages and cultures.
By exclusion of cultures and languages you lose valuable people and insights. This type of discrimination is the result of a lack of awareness and respect for the culture of others. If anything, it should be a goal of the Wikimedia Foundation to preserve cultural diversity and minority languages. It should not even be seen as a secondary goal; by making it a secondary goal it is implied that other things come first. The reality is that if a language is to prosper in the Wikimedia Foundation, it is for the people that care about their language to make it happen. They do this with a lot of energy, their energy. They do this without taking anything away from other languages or cultures or WMF projects. You cannot make them write in any other language because they are volunteers like you are. The only thing you can do is make them feel not welcome any more.
It is not trivial to start a new language, a new project in the Wikimedia Foundation. You have to really care, and you have to really make an effort for your language, your project. When you analyse the localisation efforts it is interesting to see that Upper Sorbian and Seeltersk do a better job then Japanese or Turkish. When you consider the improvements in the localisation, you will find that it is these "second class" cultures and languages that do well. When you consider the relative merit of our projects, the Bangla Wikipedia provides a more vital service then the English Wikipedia. It is more vital because the Bengali Wikipedia is the only resource that is encyclopaedic in nature; it has no peer while in English there is the Encyclopaedia Britannica among several others. There are "only" 170.million people that speak Bengali.
It is for these reasons that if the WMF is true to what some call the primary objective, it should spend more on languages other then English because the return on investment is not as good for English. When you then state that Wikipedia is a FREE resource, it can be safely argued that this is a secondary objective.
When you think that our new projects will fail, you must have missed that the bar to entry has been raised considerably. The bar has been raised to make it easier for people to *use *a project in a language. It is this raising of the bar that prevents the request for a Turkish and Japanese Wikiversity to be approved at this time. It is not that we expect these projects to fail, it is just that they have to comply with the same requirements as any other new project.
It is the language committee that has as one of its objectives to prevent new projects from failing. Any new project will start with a substantial level of localisation, it will have initial content and an initial community. It is for this reason that the Incubator is such a success; when an Incubator project does not reach sufficient maturity, it is allowed to wait until it does.
I prefer to have a Wikimedia Foundation that is welcoming to people of all cultures. If this is an organisation that does not feel good to you, I would invite you to stay within your own little project and not bother or care about these other cultures and languages. There is room enough for us all as we are all volunteers and we all do our own thing.
Thanks, GerardM
On Feb 9, 2008 1:20 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 6:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The costs you are talking about are peanuts. Small projects do not cost
us
much.
It was a symbolic point. If other organizations want to share our servers, they can share in our costs. If people want the WMF to be pursuing all sorts of secondary goals, then they should be willing to pay, even if the price is only a pitance.
What it will cost is a big blue eye for the Wikimedia Foundation because its relevance will be seen as reduced. Apparantly you do not see that by excluding languages you exclude the points of view that these languages and their associated cultures provide.
And you do not see that the points of view of a culture can be expressed in any language. We can write about aboriginal POV in English, or Inuit POV in Spanish. We aren't restricted to "one language, one world view" per project. The true value of our projects is that we can communicate information about a culture in many languages.
When the WMF does not want to host the less and least resourced
languages
anymore, there is no need for WMF hosting. There is no need to be
treated
like a beggar. There are other organisations happy to take over any community that does not feel at home anymore in the Wikimedia
Foundation.
The question will be, will these communities be granted the right of departure ??? How do you think the WMF will be perceived when
communities
start leaving because they do not want to be treated as second class citizens ???
I have thought about this, and that's why I advocate that we do not create projects which are destined to become second class. A little bit of quality control at the beginning can prevent big PR disasters when those projects fail. In fact, if we are worrying about public perception of the WMF decreasing after a fork or a split, then we should increase our scrutiny and decrease the amount of new language projects we create in the first place.
Instead of creating new projects, having them fail, and then be absorbed by some other nameless organization, I'm saying we proactively create that second organization, and task it with putting these small languages in the forefront. Turn small languages into the first-class citizens by having a foundation that caters specifically to them.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Feb 9, 2008 2:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is more vital because the Bengali Wikipedia is the only resource that is encyclopaedic in nature; it has no peer while in English there is the Encyclopaedia Britannica among several others. There are "only" 170.million people that speak Bengali.
First, I would hardly say that Bengali is a "small" language like what we have been discussing, so it's not on the chopping block anyway. I'm mostly talking about conlangs, ancient languages, and languages where speakers are measured in the dozens, not in the millions. Second, English doesn't have a comparable free resource either. I certainly can't afford to buy a copy of Brittanica. To measure true return on investment here, we have to ask there are english-speaking people who wouldn't have easy access to this kind of information for free in any other way. Remember that not all english-speaking people are upper-middle class suburban americans.
When you think that our new projects will fail, you must have missed that the bar to entry has been raised considerably. The bar has been raised to make it easier for people to *use *a project in a language. It is this raising of the bar that prevents the request for a Turkish and Japanese Wikiversity to be approved at this time.
Raising the bar is good because it prevents failure. I suggest that we raise it even higher. One dedicated translator, translating about 5 messages every day for a year could produce a full localization of MediaWiki. However, one such translator hardly represents a viable community in that language. We should demand not only localizations, but a viable reading community that would not access the information in any other way, and also a viable editing community able to create content. Just because some people want to contribute in a particular language doesnt mean that anybody wants to read the information in that language.
Maybe I want to contribute in klingon, binary, whale song, bee dance, public key cryptography, pig Latin, semaphore, Egyptian heiroglyphs or Morse code. Maybe I want to contribute in English, but I demand to write everything backwards. Maybe I can find 100 friends who want to do the same. That doesn't make us a viable community, and the WMF doesnt need to respect us or welcome us or give us all a project, even if we make a complete localization and get an ISO code.
Saying that Japanese or Turkish cannot get more projects because they have an incomplete localization, but that eastern wambosi should get a project because it does is foolish. You can't measure the size or the efficacy of a community based on the progress of their localization. Japanese and Turkish are "large" languages, with a stable native speaker population a modern vocabulary, and better-then-incidental internet access. All a localization effort does is measure the size and motivation of the population that speaks both Japanese/Turkish AND English, which is not really an important metric for starting a new project.
--Andrew Whitworth
I am so very thankful that you, Mr. Language Police, are not making decisions about new projects.
This has been hashed and rehashed, and the answer is always something along the lines of: focus resources on larger languages, but don't block smaller languages who can afford the effort that is necessary. It barely costs the foundation a thing! Basically,Don't Be A Dick.
On 09/02/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 2:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
It is more vital because the Bengali Wikipedia is the only resource that is encyclopaedic in nature; it has no peer while in English there is the Encyclopaedia Britannica among several others. There are "only" 170.million people that speak Bengali.
First, I would hardly say that Bengali is a "small" language like what we have been discussing, so it's not on the chopping block anyway. I'm mostly talking about conlangs, ancient languages, and languages where speakers are measured in the dozens, not in the millions. Second, English doesn't have a comparable free resource either. I certainly can't afford to buy a copy of Brittanica. To measure true return on investment here, we have to ask there are english-speaking people who wouldn't have easy access to this kind of information for free in any other way. Remember that not all english-speaking people are upper-middle class suburban americans.
When you think that our new projects will fail, you must have missed that the bar to entry has been raised considerably. The bar has been raised to make it easier for people to *use *a project in a language. It is this raising of the bar that prevents the request for a Turkish and Japanese Wikiversity to be approved at this time.
Raising the bar is good because it prevents failure. I suggest that we raise it even higher. One dedicated translator, translating about 5 messages every day for a year could produce a full localization of MediaWiki. However, one such translator hardly represents a viable community in that language. We should demand not only localizations, but a viable reading community that would not access the information in any other way, and also a viable editing community able to create content. Just because some people want to contribute in a particular language doesnt mean that anybody wants to read the information in that language.
Maybe I want to contribute in klingon, binary, whale song, bee dance, public key cryptography, pig Latin, semaphore, Egyptian heiroglyphs or Morse code. Maybe I want to contribute in English, but I demand to write everything backwards. Maybe I can find 100 friends who want to do the same. That doesn't make us a viable community, and the WMF doesnt need to respect us or welcome us or give us all a project, even if we make a complete localization and get an ISO code.
Saying that Japanese or Turkish cannot get more projects because they have an incomplete localization, but that eastern wambosi should get a project because it does is foolish. You can't measure the size or the efficacy of a community based on the progress of their localization. Japanese and Turkish are "large" languages, with a stable native speaker population a modern vocabulary, and better-then-incidental internet access. All a localization effort does is measure the size and motivation of the population that speaks both Japanese/Turkish AND English, which is not really an important metric for starting a new project.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Feb 12, 2008 9:25 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I am so very thankful that you, Mr. Language Police, are not making decisions about new projects.
This has been hashed and rehashed, and the answer is always something along the lines of: focus resources on larger languages, but don't block smaller languages who can afford the effort that is necessary. It barely costs the foundation a thing! Basically,Don't Be A Dick.
Well, I find this whole email pretty inappropriate.
--Andrew Whitworth
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
I'm not just being vulgar.
On 12/02/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008 9:25 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I am so very thankful that you, Mr. Language Police, are not making decisions about new projects.
This has been hashed and rehashed, and the answer is always something along the lines of: focus resources on larger languages, but don't block smaller languages who can afford the effort that is necessary. It barely costs the foundation a thing! Basically,Don't Be A Dick.
Well, I find this whole email pretty inappropriate.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Feb 12, 2008 2:33 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
I'm not just being vulgar.
Oh, of course you aren't being vulgar, you're just implying that I am a dick because I've expressed my opinions on the matter, and that I should stop being a dick by not expressing my opinions anymore.
Maybe nobody should have an opinion on the matter, so that we don't have to worry about you calling us dicks--in a non-vulgar manner, of course.
--Andrew Whitworth
No, you're expressing your opinions with an air of authority, and now one of sarcasm.
Every e-mail I have seen from you has made me want to link you to that page.
On 12/02/2008, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008 2:33 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
I'm not just being vulgar.
Oh, of course you aren't being vulgar, you're just implying that I am a dick because I've expressed my opinions on the matter, and that I should stop being a dick by not expressing my opinions anymore.
Maybe nobody should have an opinion on the matter, so that we don't have to worry about you calling us dicks--in a non-vulgar manner, of course.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Feb 9, 2008 3:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
After we have heard the opinions of two language subcommittee members (both of whom I highly respect), I would like to ask the community: Are the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages (secondary) Wikimedia goals?
I don't see that as distinct from our primary goals: preserving languages and cultures is a necessary consequence of creating content within the Wikimedia projects. If a community has created a reasonable amount of content in editions of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource and so forth, they have effectively preserved a reasonable slice of their language and culture.
I absolutely think that this fact should be acknowledged and cherished. The Wikimedia projects represent the first really viable avenue for this kind of activity on a large scale. Traditional reference works, and traditional efforts and linguistic and cultural preservation, cannot hope to achieve what the Wikimedia projects can in this regard.
I feel it would be verging on hyperbole to say that this is a once-in-humanity opportunity, but really it is. We happen to be the ones who are first in the game in terms of producing free content at a global level.
I also agree with what Danny has said. Giving people access to *the sum of all human knowledge* cannot possibly mean giving people access to knowledge in only a handful of widely-spoken languages.
Hey everyone!
I mentioned a while back how we should have a Wikimedia census so, we can know more about who edits WMF projects.
I have set up a mock survey at http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
_________________________________________________________________ New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&am...
Deni Symonds wrote:
Hey everyone!
I mentioned a while back how we should have a Wikimedia census so, we can know more about who edits WMF projects.
I have set up a mock survey at http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
Well. It should clarify whether it is a census operated by Wikimedia Foundation, by an editor, or by a group of editors. It is important to clarify this, in particular with regards to data mining (privacy policy etc...)
Ant
I think it would be wise for users to get it set up and running, then "hand the keys" over to the foundation to do what they see fit :)
- Deni
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: Anthere9@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:25:12 +0100 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
Deni Symonds wrote:
Hey everyone!
I mentioned a while back how we should have a Wikimedia census so, we can know more about who edits WMF projects.
I have set up a mock survey at http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
Well. It should clarify whether it is a census operated by Wikimedia Foundation, by an editor, or by a group of editors. It is important to clarify this, in particular with regards to data mining (privacy policy etc...)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Ea...
On 10/02/2008, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
I have set up a mock survey at >http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest >problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it >but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out >unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
I assume that those will not be the questions actually asked but
The age question is problematical. The lowest age selection should be <21. Not exactly sure how COPPA applies to the foundation. Non profit but no need to take any risks.
I disagree with <21 - I believe there will be a lot of wikimedians under 21 - it would be like having a 20-35 range - far too wide. Since this is an optional census and nothing will be identifiable and, there will be no further contact with the users.
-deni
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:25:19 +0000 From: geniice@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
On 10/02/2008, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
I have set up a mock survey at >http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest >problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it >but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out >unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
I assume that those will not be the questions actually asked but
The age question is problematical. The lowest age selection should be <21. Not exactly sure how COPPA applies to the foundation. Non profit but no need to take any risks.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2E...
The COPPA standard prohibits collecting personal information from individuals under age 13.
I would suggest, as a matter of prudence, that people under age 13 be excluded from the survey, even though the Foundation is probably a COPPA exempt entity.
-Robert Rohde
On Feb 11, 2008 12:24 AM, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
I disagree with <21 - I believe there will be a lot of wikimedians under 21 - it would be like having a 20-35 range - far too wide. Since this is an optional census and nothing will be identifiable and, there will be no further contact with the users.
-deni
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:25:19 +0000 From: geniice@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
On 10/02/2008, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
I have set up a mock survey at >
http://loopaustralia.com/survey/index.php?sid=54369&lang=en . One of the biggest >problem is how we could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer it >but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email addresses, we can send out >unique url's or, we could allow users to sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
-Deni
I assume that those will not be the questions actually asked but
The age question is problematical. The lowest age selection should be <21. Not exactly sure how COPPA applies to the foundation. Non profit but no need to take any risks.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2E... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/02/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
The COPPA standard prohibits collecting personal information from individuals under age 13.
Can we at least ask a few questions of under 13's? At least to find out how many there are - not knowing would greatly reduce the conclusions we can draw from the survey.
On Feb 11, 2008 5:41 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
The COPPA standard prohibits collecting personal information from individuals under age 13.
Can we at least ask a few questions of under 13's? At least to find out how many there are - not knowing would greatly reduce the conclusions we can draw from the survey.
From a practical standpoint, we can't be certain that anybody is or is
not 13. Even though we could state that you must be over 13 to participate, we can't possibly validate users who claim to be. While it doesnt work in all circumstances, a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might be in order here. At least then, if there was a COPPA-related problem, we could plead ignorance.
--Andrew Whitworth
From a practical standpoint, we can't be certain that anybody is or is not 13. Even though we could state that you must be over 13 to participate, we can't possibly validate users who claim to be. While it doesnt work in all circumstances, a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might be in order here. At least then, if there was a COPPA-related problem, we could plead ignorance.
Not asking for ages leaves a major hole in the survey - age is one of the key discriminators between different demographics.
On Feb 11, 2008 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
From a practical standpoint, we can't be certain that anybody is or is not 13. Even though we could state that you must be over 13 to participate, we can't possibly validate users who claim to be. While it doesnt work in all circumstances, a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might be in order here. At least then, if there was a COPPA-related problem, we could plead ignorance.
Not asking for ages leaves a major hole in the survey - age is one of the key discriminators between different demographics.
True, but telling people that you are going to discriminate against them (by collecting less information from them) if they fall into certain age ranges is just going to motivate people to lie. Some people might reason "I can help more on the census if I lie about my age and therefore get asked more questions".
Before discussing this any further, it might be instructive if we all knew what COPPA is all about, and what kinds of information are covered by it. If we aren't asking questions which are considered "sensitive", we might not have to worry about this at all.
--Andrew whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
From a practical standpoint, we can't be certain that anybody is or is not 13. Even though we could state that you must be over 13 to participate, we can't possibly validate users who claim to be. While it doesnt work in all circumstances, a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might be in order here. At least then, if there was a COPPA-related problem, we could plead ignorance.
Not asking for ages leaves a major hole in the survey - age is one of the key discriminators between different demographics.
True, but telling people that you are going to discriminate against them (by collecting less information from them) if they fall into certain age ranges is just going to motivate people to lie. Some people might reason "I can help more on the census if I lie about my age and therefore get asked more questions".
A sinister plan: as everybody the same questions, but don't actually collect responses from people younger than 14.
Simply have a category "up to 14" . Thirteen year olds are permitted, and there is no need to specify a bottom year.
On Feb 11, 2008 10:28 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 9:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
From a practical standpoint, we can't be certain that anybody is or is not 13. Even though we could state that you must be over 13 to participate, we can't possibly validate users who claim to be. While it doesnt work in all circumstances, a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" might be in order here. At least then, if there was a COPPA-related problem, we could plead ignorance.
Not asking for ages leaves a major hole in the survey - age is one of the key discriminators between different demographics.
True, but telling people that you are going to discriminate against them (by collecting less information from them) if they fall into certain age ranges is just going to motivate people to lie. Some people might reason "I can help more on the census if I lie about my age and therefore get asked more questions".
A sinister plan: as everybody the same questions, but don't actually collect responses from people younger than 14.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Simply have a category "up to 14" . Thirteen year olds are permitted, and there is no need to specify a bottom year.
That doesn't resolve the COPPA issue, though (I'm not sure it is an issue, of course, I would need to read up on it).
sure it would meet it--it means we have no indication to indicate they are under 13.
On Feb 11, 2008 1:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Simply have a category "up to 14" . Thirteen year olds are permitted, and there is no need to specify a bottom year.
That doesn't resolve the COPPA issue, though (I'm not sure it is an issue, of course, I would need to read up on it).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
sure it would meet it--it means we have no indication to indicate they are under 13.
I certainly wouldn't buy that, and I doubt anyone else would. If someone is 13 or under, there is a very good chance that they are, in fact, under 13.
Don't ask don't tell? ;) I think we could say <13.5 or, we could ask for their birth date and if they are below that, save that information and ask no other questions.
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:09:22 +0000 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
On 12/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
sure it would meet it--it means we have no indication to indicate they are under 13.
I certainly wouldn't buy that, and I doubt anyone else would. If someone is 13 or under, there is a very good chance that they are, in fact, under 13.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&am...
Deni Symonds wrote:
Don't ask don't tell? ;) I think we could say <13.5 or, we could ask for their birth date and if they are below that, save that information and ask no other questions.
This entire discussion is centered around the fact that, if that is done, kids will lie about their age in order to answer questions, thus rendering the results unusable.
I suggested that the questions are asked, but the results are not saved anywhere.
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:09:22 +0000 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
On 12/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
sure it would meet it--it means we have no indication to indicate they are under 13.
I certainly wouldn't buy that, and I doubt anyone else would. If someone is 13 or under, there is a very good chance that they are, in fact, under 13.
You expect any different? Kids will be kids, and I highly doubt making them put a birthday to make them at least 13 is any challenging task. Some websites do the same for under 18 year olds, and I know that many 17 and 16 year olds lie about that as well. Asking for age on the internet is about as useless as asking for someone's eye color. In this pseudo-anonymous environment, you can be anyone.
-Chad
On Feb 12, 2008 5:51 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Deni Symonds wrote:
Don't ask don't tell? ;) I think we could say <13.5 or, we could ask for their birth date and if they are below that, save that information and ask no other questions.
This entire discussion is centered around the fact that, if that is done, kids will lie about their age in order to answer questions, thus rendering the results unusable.
I suggested that the questions are asked, but the results are not saved anywhere.
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:09:22 +0000 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Census
On 12/02/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
sure it would meet it--it means we have no indication to indicate they are under 13.
I certainly wouldn't buy that, and I doubt anyone else would. If someone is 13 or under, there is a very good chance that they are, in fact, under 13.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Chad wrote:
You expect any different? Kids will be kids, and I highly doubt making them put a birthday to make them at least 13 is any challenging task. Some websites
It's not about making them. They would still be allowed to answer the questions - only they won't know that the answers won't be used.
On Feb 12, 2008 5:51 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Deni Symonds wrote:
Don't ask don't tell? ;) I think we could say <13.5 or, we could ask for their birth date and if they are below that, save that information and ask no other questions.
This entire discussion is centered around the fact that, if that is done, kids will lie about their age in order to answer questions, thus rendering the results unusable.
I suggested that the questions are asked, but the results are not saved anywhere.
On Feb 10, 2008 5:42 PM, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone!
I mentioned a while back how we should have a Wikimedia census so, we can know more about who edits WMF projects.
Are you aware that such a survey is already planned by Wikimedia?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/UNU_survey_agreement
Angela
On Feb 10, 2008 5:30 AM, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 5:42 PM, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone!
I mentioned a while back how we should have a Wikimedia census so, we can know more about who edits WMF projects.
Are you aware that such a survey is already planned by Wikimedia?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/UNU_survey_agreement
Angela
You may also not be aware that a similar project is being run on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedian_Demographics
It's in an early stage still, but it's very similar to a census like what is being discussed here.
--Andrew Whitworth
One of the biggest problem is how we could send the census out - by
its definition, everyone would answer it but, that clearly wouldn't happen.
Which is why it shouldn't be called a "census". A census involves asking everybody, which can't happen. This is a survey, so call it a survey.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer
it but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email
addresses, we can send out unique url's or, we could allow users to
sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
If you want to make sure that everybody who answers is connected to some Wikimedia account, you're getting yourself into an amount of work you're not aware of...
I also strongly suggest a security audit of the limesurvey software you are using. I found some sql injection points in older versions. They have fixed those, but their coding style is prone to such errors...
Bryan
Hmmm, I'd like to repeat Angela's statement/question: where does this differ from the UNU research that has been announced? We should make sure not to do double work for nothing :)
BR, Eia
Are you aware that such a survey is already planned by Wikimedia?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/UNU_survey_agreement
Angela
2008/2/10, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Deni Symonds symode09@hotmail.com wrote:
could send the census out - by its definition, everyone would answer
it but, that clearly wouldn't happen. If there is a list of email
addresses, we can send out unique url's or, we could allow users to
sign up or, fill it out anonymously. Any ideas?
If you want to make sure that everybody who answers is connected to some Wikimedia account, you're getting yourself into an amount of work you're not aware of...
I also strongly suggest a security audit of the limesurvey software you are using. I found some sql injection points in older versions. They have fixed those, but their coding style is prone to such errors...
Bryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org