On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:38 am, Helga wrote:
> Hello, I am a little swamped with all the wiki list reading material and it
> seems my limited email is getting overloaded.
You might want to create an email filter to sort any emails with the string
"Helga" in the subject into a special folder (just use the help menu of
whatever email program you use and look up "filter").
Otherwise you may miss some emails that concern you.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> Something I wondered - how do you know who the new users to greet them?
> Do you just look for user names you haven't seen before or is there some
> way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the meet-and-greet but I don't
> know how to do it.
Well - I guess I do it the hard way and scan each edit in all Recent Changes
for a 24 hour period looking for edit link user names (a dead give-a-away)
and for user names I don't remember seeing before. This works for me since I
pretty good reading comprehension and memory.
What would be most useful is a listing of new users that can be accessed from
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers. That way this job would be
BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user accounts
Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
are still edit links)?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> Can still be done later. The problem is the lack of time. If you wait to
> long there are to many links to the new location of the english
> wikipedia that can not be broken. If there is no fundamental objection
> to put the English wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org then that must be done.
> What to do whit www.wikipedia.org can wait (a littel.)
This is just silly -- we are building an encyclopedia here not an
organization. There is nothing at all wrong with having the English wikipedia
at wikipedia.org and have all the pages that are about the English language
project be in the wikipedia namespace (or in the other languages project
namespaces). As each language figures out what to call their wikipedia we can
buy them domain names for that and make sure the xx.wikipedia.com domain
names still work.
Other than being a one-page portal to all the different language wikipedias
(which the Main Page already does -- as do most of the other language main
pages) I don't see any logic in using wikipedia.org for anything other than
the English language wikipedia.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue for "Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people
think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you start it up, and others use the term as in "personal
home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.
> > Unfortunately, somehow my comment has been twisted...
> > I am posting to Wikipedia-L simply to erase a distortion
> > of my comments.
> This would only be a problem if you thought we took anything
> Cunc says seriously. Since we know better, no harm done.
I'm continually baffled by the fact people keep replying to Cunc. There is
nothing in his actions over the last month that distinguishes him in anyway
from a good old fashioned Troll.
| PLEASE DO NOT FEED |
| THE TROLL. |
| THANK YOU. |
| -- The Management |
| | O
o | | |
New wikipedia signature wanted!
> Unfortunately, somehow my comment has been twisted...
> I am posting to Wikipedia-L simply to erase a distortion
> of my comments.
This would only be a problem if you thought we took anything
Cunc says seriously. Since we know better, no harm done.
I am so sick of this ridiculous "Militia" discussion that it makes my skin crawl to even be writing about it, but on some of the pages I've noticed a quote of mine being used wildly out of context, so I feel forced to clarify it.
I coined the phrase "central authority structure" to collectively refer to the "core" groups of 'pedians. ("Core" and "central" are synonymous). I used the phrase in passing to emphasise that there is an organic and completely dynamic core group of people who contribute to the 'pedia on a regular basis, and that this core group is non-exclusive and admits any who wants to join and is willing to put in the time.
Unfortunately, somehow my comment has been twisted to sound as if I think that there is a "dictatorial, militaristic power system" which is complete and utter bullshit. I don't, never have, never will. The Militia is a good idea, borne of experience and it appears most of us support it without any controversy.
I am posting to Wikipedia-L simply to erase a distortion of my comments.
I beg you, please do not bother to reply - we don't need to prolong this asinine and pointless debate any further. Let's just build the 'pedia.
"Manning Bartlett" <manning(a)bartlett.net> writes:
> I am so sick of this ridiculous "Militia" discussion that it makes my skin
> crawl to even be writing about it
Theres a Militia discussion?
I don't like this wishy-washy liberal word "Guard".
Can't we call them the "Wikipedia Fascist Death Squad"? <--- JOKE
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
I am not going to pretend to have an edifying opinion about specific
*legal* issues. I'll leave that to Jimbo and others, who have probably
studied this stuff a heck of a lot more than I have. I want to get the
legal problems straightened out as soon as possible; the stress is very
What I do want to comment on is why having links back to Wikipedia, in
general, is such a good thing. You'll forgive me for waxing eloquent on,
well, one of my favorite subjects (the future of Wikipedia).
(By the way, I agree entirely that a text link back to Wikipedia would be
just fine. We, Jimbo and I, haven't said so on the "requirements" page,
but that's because we're waiting for this issue to get properly resolved
so we can figure out what we *should* put up there.)
First, I have a goal. This is my *professional* goal in life. I want to
is to help create--probably together with Nupedia--the biggest and
highest-quality encyclopedia in history (eventually, anyway). And one,
moreover, that is free, both libre and gratis. This is a hugely ambitious
goal, and I never thought it was going to be easy. I'm enormously
gratified that we've gotten this far. When I was given this job (it
really was a great gift), I certainly didn't have *that* ambition. I
never thought I'd work professionally on an encyclopedia. But I've warmed
up to the task and by golly, I'm going to do my best to see it through.
Eventually, if we *focus* and stick to the task, Wikipedia will become a
truly useful resource. I think the two main keys to our success are focus
and time. As long as we resist travelling in the direction of Everything2
or Usenet, with their acceptance of low quality, bias, and internecine
warfare, and as long as we are given enough time, Wikipedia will grow from
15,000 not-too-bad-articles to 150,000 wow-these-are-actually-good-
encyclopedia-articles. And then who knows what will happen. It could
become something truly amazing. It's definitely worth the old college
Links back to us from websites that use our content will help make this
possible success more probable, particularly if they are links to specific
articles. I want to make sure that people who want to contribute to the
Wikipedia and Nupedia projects, who see Wikipedia and Nupedia content on
other websites, are given the option of returning to the original source
of the content and working on it.
Consider this: the people who return to the source of our articles from
another website will be twice as impressed with Wikipedia precisely
*because* someone thought the content was good enough to use and put on
their website. Think, as soon as particularly large, relatively
"prestigious" websites start using our content, the credibility of
Wikipedia is going to be given a solid boost. At that time, we will want
to be able to invite people who are impressed by our content to come back
and work on it.
Can you imagine what this project could be like in ten years, if we stay
on track? It really *could* beat out Britannica in terms of quality.
And *everybody and his grandmother* will be wanting to use Wikipedia
content. We would be denying ourselves, I imagine, potentially
*thousands* of very qualified new contributors, if we didn't require links
back to Wikipedia. I want those people to work on Wikipedia! I
internally do a little dance whenever I see a new highly-qualified person
writing lots of articles for Wikipedia. It makes me think, "By golly,
this really is *working*! This is friggin' great!"
Anyway, that's why I feel strongly about this issue.
General agreement with all of you, except for the HC
Andersen bit. In English, we use Hans Christian, so
that's how people will look him up. I was under the
impression that trying to write the articles with
"most familiar English-language version of name (when
applicable)" was a consensus-driven wiki norm? I
think that reading the discussions under nomenclature
and the History Talk would also help you, Lars!
Tschuess -- JHK
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.