Hi all!
I see at least one topic which Wikipedia covers but does not list
in its search engine, that is [[Conditioning]]. I wrote that
article long ago, so it should have been spidered.
Frankly, I think that it has been removed from the search engine
index, a kind of censoring. You may ask why someone would do that
- well, the article originally contained slightly off-topic and
provocative information:
"Conditioning works the best when the poor individuum is not
aware that it is being conditioned.
<p>
Societies use the technique of conditioning to a great extent
because they need to push structures which stand opposite to what
the virgin individuum wishes. The individuum is to be integrated,
to loose a portion of his own will, emotionality and freedom. The
manipulation of totalitaristic states (Nazis, Stalinism, etc) was
often said to be the contrary of the western democracies, "the
free world", but in my opinion the latter is not that much
better. Hear Henry Rollins´ "Liar",
http://www.albert.warka.pl/rollins.htm!
Grasso
--
(Grassomusic.de)
> > Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or
> is
> > that still in the works?
>
> I think it's actually still very much just in the
> idea stage.
>
> As a typically pathetic monolingual American, I have
> a concern that
> cross-language linking should be done in a way
> that's non-obtrusive.
> It doesn't strike me that very many people will find
> it very useful to
> have 50 links on every page to every other language
> wiki for which the
> same article exists.
>
> Even people who are multilingual typically speak
> only 2 or 3
> languages. For example, many of our Polish
> wikipedians speak English,
> Polish, and probably in many cases 1 or possibly
> even 2 other European
> languages. But they might find it useless to have
> links to Tagalog,
> Mandarin, Japanese, etc.
Well, I'm mostly thinking of the Esperanto wikipedians
which on average will probably know about four
languages...
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj! Venu al Filadelfio, Usono 15-17 Februare
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de
I put my bug catches and feature requests on
sourceforge wikipedia, but I guess no one reads that.
So, here they are:
17 Jan -- When I searched for "? language" I got:
Warning: REG_BADRPT in ./specialPages.php on line 365
Warning: REG_BADRPT in ./specialPages.php on line 365
It would be nice if the Most Wanted page let you click
to view which pages actually do want that one. Also,
it might be nice if the number of articles want that
article rather than how many times it is wanted...
thus, the [? language]? problem because of the
Non-English wikipedias page!
Also, I can't access an article by typing
http://test.wikipedia.com/wiki/Esperanto for example.
Also, it would be nice in the conversion if you could
delete blank wikipedia articles so the articles that
link to them become question marks again and this
won't mess up the now useless Stub Articles page.
Also, try to put a note on the homepage about when you
plan to do the conversion so people don't get
frustrated that wikipedia is down. Your faithful
addicts may not take it so well, and we don't want to
cause any health problems... ;-)
Also, is cross-language linking implemented yet or is
that still in the works?
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
====
Junuloj! Venu al Filadelfio, Usono 15-17 Februare
http://unumondo.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Filadelfia_JES
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Ihre E-Mail noch individueller? - http://domains.yahoo.de
> I'd say it would be better in 95% of the cases to convert
> [[/Bar]] on page [[Foo]] into [[Foo/Bar|Bar]].
> I fixed the conversion script so it does that now, although
> it might become confusing for the reader if (in your example)
> there's a "real" [[Bar]] article too, because it would look
> exactly like [[Foo/Bar|Bar]]. Well, I guess we can't have the
> cake and eat it...
But that's exactly the case now with [[Foo|Bar]] of any kind.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Of course, I'm going to go through all of those pages manually
and change every [[Poker/Raise|Raise]] into [[Raise (Poker)|raise]]
anyway, so it doesn't much matter to me.
0
> I'd say it would be better in 95% of the cases to convert
> [[/Bar]] on page [[Foo]] into [[Foo/Bar|Bar]].
> I fixed the conversion script so it does that now, although
> it might become confusing for the reader if (in your example)
> there's a "real" [[Bar]] article too, because it would look
> exactly like [[Foo/Bar|Bar]]. Well, I guess we can't have the
> cake and eat it...
But that's exactly the case now with [[Foo|Bar]] of any kind.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Of course, I'm going to go through all of those pages manually
and change every [[Poker/Raise|Raise]] into [[Raise (Poker)|raise]]
anyway, so it doesn't much matter to me.
0
>http://test.wikipedia.com/
>Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
>essential features.
Well, my extensive use of subpages in Poker get translated pretty
badly, so I'll have to do a lot of manual fixing there. But I'm
probably the worst case on that score, and I don't think the problem
is that bad, and I'd much rather do it now than after 20,000 more
pages are added.
Likewise, I'd like to tweak the code for dictionary lists a bit
before I add 20 more pages of poker jargon, but that too can be
done post-live, and I can do the code myself as soon as it's in
some reasonable source control system like Sourceforge CVS.
So I'm certainly in favor of going live.
0
http://test.wikipedia.com/
Please visit the website, and report bugs and request any *really*
essential features.
For all I know, we should go live with this ASAP. Maybe all of the
outstanding issues are so minor that we can easily live with them, and
that we'd all benefit more from having the new software running than from
aiming for an impossible perfection.
On this, Jimbo, Magnus, and I want and need your input!
So I'd like to ask the list: *are* there any outstanding issues that are
so important that we just *have* to have them fixed before we move to the
new software? This could be very important, so I hope those of you who
care about this will give it some thought.
Larry
My new bride and are moving to Columbus, Ohio (where I went to grad school
and taught fiddle, among other things). We're actually renting a moving
van and driving it there. It'll take up to four days, and we're leaving
Sunday or Monday, so I'll be out of contact for the most part (and
possibly entirely) from the 20th through the 23rd or so, at least. Then
of course there are the many moving-related tasks to do in Columbus. So,
while I'll try to be in touch, and if necessary I'll try to be on hand as
much as I can, I probably won't be able to devote *nearly* as much time in
the near future as I've been able to in the past many months.
The press release hasn't immediately caught the attention of any
significant press sources, but there's still some chance that we'll see
news articles that could bring a lot of traffic in the next week.
Nupedia's first press release didn't immediately generate a lot of press,
either, so it'd be premature even at this point to conclude Wikipedia's
press release was a dud. I guess what I'm a little afraid of is that I'll
be midway through Arkansas or someplace like that, and you (one or many of
you) are having to call out the Militia. :-) Actually, I don't think my
absence in such a case would be at all a disaster, and it would be pretty
arrogant of me to think that it would be. Still, I'd hate to miss it. I
do definitely trust you all could handle it, anyway, with or without me.
Of course, my e-mail address will not change through this move.
Larry
Would anyone like to volunteer to e-mail the press release to all the big
tech news sources--Computerworld, Newsbytes, Wired, etc.? I'm not sure
that they were all included in the distribution of the press release, and
I think there's a decent chance that they'll be interested in the story.
It's certainly worth a try, anyway.
As I'll explain in my next e-mail, it would be a wonderful if someone
could volunteer to do this and save me the work of doing it myself.
Larry