Wikipedia-l November 2001

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

36 participants
112 discussions

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Making article-a-day random
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

I like that idea. Maybe we could have it mix in a few that we *know* are good, though, so it's more of a disappointment (and, therefore, incentive) when one comes that isn't. kq You Wrote: >What do ya'll think of the idea of sending out *random* article-a-day >articles, instead of those we tell the script to send out? This might end >up having a good effect for those articles that are totally worthless. >:-) > >Larry 0

1 0

Re: Apologies, etc.
by Stephen Gilbert 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

(LMS wrote) >> I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to >> the flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I >> fully acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could >> have handled more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater >> friendliness and good will. (And was thus countered by LDC) >...and some of us are pissed off that you're being to damned >tolerant and diplomatic, when we thought you should have just >booted the jerks. We demand an apology too. :-) > >Ah, the joys of leadership. And the rest of us are angry at you for other, unspecified reasons. I'm afraid an apology isn't good enough for us, since you don't know what you're apologizing for. Cash, however, is always acceptable. - STG

2 1

Wikipedia meta-information organisation
by Manning Bartlett 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

All I'm getting annoyed at the plethora of "Usenet" style discussions happening all over the place. Not so much that they are happening (I think this is unavoidable) but that there is no organisation in place to accommodate it. To distinguish between the Wikipedia (as an information resource) and the "Community involved in an encyclopaedia project" I would like to propose the creation of five pages (some already exist): Wikipedia Policy Wikipedia Commentary Wikipedia Community Wikipedia Discussion Wikipedia Utilities Each of these can have numerous sub-pages. Many pages which are floating around as distinct entries can be re-classified under these five headings. This will also discourage people from creating "meta-pages" as distinct encyclopaedia headings (eg. my own creation - [[Page titles to be deleted]]) Wikipedia Policy /Neutral point of view /To delete or not delete /Permanent deletion of pages /Wiki administrators /(etc) Wikipedia Commentary This page should be restored to its original intent - the publishing of editorial articles, free of the constraints of NPOV. Wikipedia Community /Wikipedians (and associated existing subpages) /Wikipediholic /Wikipedia-L /other pages related to the community of editors, public notices not relevant to the reader community, etc. Wikipedia Discussion /all the pages related to discussing the evolution of Wikipedia... I know Larry is against this idea in principle, but face it - it will always happen. At least this way it is centralised and we will only shit in a small corner of the nest, as opposed to everywhere now. Wikipedia Utilities /page titles to be deleted /personal subpages to be deleted /statistics /friends of Wikipedia /(etc) ***************** Manning Bartlett Senior Business Intelligence Consultant EMC Global Pty Ltd Sydney Australia

1 0

Making article-a-day random
by lsanger＠nupedia.com 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

What do ya'll think of the idea of sending out *random* article-a-day articles, instead of those we tell the script to send out? This might end up having a good effect for those articles that are totally worthless. :-) Larry

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] An opinion on personal pages
by Ian 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

If there are not personal pages, then there should be some sort of non-wiki directory of everyone who wants to add themselve. It could have stuff like what city they live in, what pages they have editied etc. They do in fact serve a useful purpose. Ian Monroe http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean/ On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales jwales(a)bomis.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote: > I think that we should eliminate personal pages, but more importantly, > we should eliminate the notion that personal pages are ones own to do > with as one sees fit. Every wiki page should be open to edit at any > time. > > There's a tension between the wiki philosophy of edit-anywhere and our > traditional feelings of authorship, and this tension comes out most > strongly on personal pages with commentary. In an encyclopedia > article, no one gets mad if someone else edits it -- we all agree that > this is what we are here for, after all. But in personal pages, > people are getting mad every day about edits. That's because they > think of themselves as the "authors" of those pages. > > I've got a few of them myself -- my statement of principles, for > example. > > I think that's a bad idea, even though I've done it myself. I support > proposals to move commentary out of the wiki, but I don't yet support > any *particular* notion of how to do it. A separate wiki? A separate > namespace? There are pros and cons to either, I think. > > -- > ************************************************* > * http://www.wikipedia.com/ * > * You can edit this page right now! * > *************************************************

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] A blanket apology
by lcrocker＠nupedia.com 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

> I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to > the flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I > fully acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could > have handled more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater > friendliness and good will. ...and some of us are pissed off that you're being to damned tolerant and diplomatic, when we thought you should have just booted the jerks. We demand an apology too. :-) Ah, the joys of leadership. 0

1 0

An opinion on personal pages
by Jimmy Wales 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

I think that we should eliminate personal pages, but more importantly, we should eliminate the notion that personal pages are ones own to do with as one sees fit. Every wiki page should be open to edit at any time. There's a tension between the wiki philosophy of edit-anywhere and our traditional feelings of authorship, and this tension comes out most strongly on personal pages with commentary. In an encyclopedia article, no one gets mad if someone else edits it -- we all agree that this is what we are here for, after all. But in personal pages, people are getting mad every day about edits. That's because they think of themselves as the "authors" of those pages. I've got a few of them myself -- my statement of principles, for example. I think that's a bad idea, even though I've done it myself. I support proposals to move commentary out of the wiki, but I don't yet support any *particular* notion of how to do it. A separate wiki? A separate namespace? There are pros and cons to either, I think. -- ************************************************* * http://www.wikipedia.com/ * * You can edit this page right now! * *************************************************

2 1

Re: Permament deletions without reason
by Dave McKee 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

I have a few questions that I feel need answering so that we all understand the facts behind the problem: 1) Whilst I accept that Wikipedia requires a total deletion system in some cases, what are the accepted administrative reasons behind deletions? 2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to the public) in any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any reason why there shouldn't be in the future? Thanks for your time in answering these questions. Two of the most important features of the Open Source movement are transparentness and openness, and whilst I understand that service providers can - and should - act as a benign dictatorship 'cos it's their backsides on the line, if these sorts of problems continue it could damage the reputation of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest asset. I hope these problems can be sorted out in an adult and businesslike manner, and that any mistakes or omissions are learnt from. [1] Dave McKee. [1] This may sound a little high-and-mighty, but the previous postings had the slight air of 'Look what Johnny did!' 'No I didn't!' - which doesn't help matters.

3 3

PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
by Magnus Manske 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

The English tarball is up at http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml! It is a little out-of-date (13.000 pages, ~8.000 articles), but it should give a realistic view of the performance to be expected. Of course, I will continue improving speed, and the sourceforge server seems a little slow (to me, anyway) compared to the bomis server, so don't be scared if something takes a second to load, especially the new special functions. "Orphans" is currently not working because it blows the memory limit for scripts on the sourceforge server. I'll try to fix it some time soon. Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to the talk namespace. I hereby officially welcome The Cunctator to the test site! Found some bugs already! :) And, yes, the script will be "free software". It's at sourceforge, after all... Magnus

2 1

Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason
by Simon Kissane 06 Nov '01

06 Nov '01

Persons have recently taken to deleting pages totally (i.e. with the admin delete command) without any justification or even prior discussion as to why they are doing this. Pages that were deleted include [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], [[Wikipedia vandalism]], [[Vandalism/Talk]], TheCunctator's subpage of [[Wikipedia commentary]] listing pages that were deleted (unfortuantely I can't remember what its title was), and I don't know what else. Unfortunately, when someone uses the admin delete command no public record is kept of what they deleted, so I don't know who did it. But I strongly suspect LMS. He insists he did not delete [[Reasons for deleting page titles]], and I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. However, he said on [[Reasons for deleting page titles]] (a statement he later deleted from that page) that "I have indeed deleted several other pages though" and that he didn't know who had deleted that page. Why did he make these statements and then retract them? Did he mistakenly think he had deleted several other pages, or is he just unwilling to admit what he had done? And why did he delete the statement that he didn't know who did? Was it that he discovered who did it, but isn't willing to say so? I have tried to raise this issue with him on Wikipedia, but beyond "I did not delete this page", he has had nothing more to say. I tried to raise the issue with him on [[Larry Sanger]], but all he did was delete my comment. When one is accused of deleting things without justification, deleting the accusation only lends credence to it. Simon J Kissane __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com

7 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l November 2001