Wikipedia-l October 2002

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

81 participants
419 discussions

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Spellchecking in SQL
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> > There's no way we can use SQL to correct spelling > > errors automatically. > > > > But even if I fooled around with a SQL query that > > changed, say, "althought" to "although" -- I wouldn't > > trust that task to a bot. I would insist on reading > > every change in context, using probably the article's > > History page for the link marked "(last) = difference > > with preceding version". > > > > I think the mispeelings Maintenance Page is wonderful, > > and we should now rest on our laurels. That's enough > > automation for this year. > > Very good! And how would an automaton correct this > sentence: "With > automatic spell correction althought is abandoned?" :-) > Ec Thanks, that's my point exactly: "all thought is abandoned" when we turn over to machines, decisions that we must make ourselves. Ed Poor

1 0

banning in general
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

Let's talk about this--if not here, then somewhere, because it's an issue now and will only become more of an issue if bannings are being applie arbitrarily or unfairly. 1) When is it appropriate to ban someone from wikipedia? 2) Who should be able to ban? 3) When should people hesitate or refuse to ban people? 4) How long should people be banned for? I'm not saying we need another policy or "rule to consider"--God knows everyone seems to stop at "rules", forgetting "to consider." But honestly, I think the issue needs some thought. Personally, my feelings are that 1) when defacing articles or when adding profanities or ridiculous statements (In 1496, Columbus flew to Pluto with his friend from K-Pax) and doing that not just once but several times. 2) Fewer people should be able to ban than are able to now. It was a burden for Larry, and he was criticized severely for it, but one person is not a cabal; and several people making debatable decisions quickly turns into de facto policy. 3) We should not ban a contributor when involved with the situation personally or emotionally. 4) People should not be banned for long at all. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Several people on wikipedia, and on this list, started out dubbed "trolls" or something else; and we could just as easily argue that Lir was simply a highly accomplished troll, and that trolling therefore is vandalism. Is it? No, I don't think so. How long do we intend to keep people banned? There are people on the list from August. Anyway, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm putting on my asbestos suit now. kq

2 1

Re: RE: [Wikipedia-l] It's about its
by lcrocker＠nupedia.com 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> Is there a way to tell SQL just to return the first 20 records? "SELECT ... LIMIT 20". You can also add an offset; "SELECT ... LIMIT 100, 20" will give you 20 records starting at the 101st.

1 0

RE: [Wikipedia-l] It's about its
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> There are 1,178 pages in article space containing the word "it's". If > you _really_ want to wade through them looking for the erroneous ones, > go to the SQL query page and run: > > SELECT cur_title from cur where cur_namespace=0 and > cur_text regexp "[[:<:]]it's[[:>:]]" order by cur_title > > It takes a while -- hence my idea to cut the list down in most cases! Is there a way to tell SQL just to return the first 20 records? I don't want to slow down the server -- nor would I really want to wade through more than 20 pages at a time -- my brain might spring a leak :-) Ed Poor

1 0

Spellchecking in SQL
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

There's no way we can use SQL to correct spelling errors automatically. Not even MS Word's spellchecker is so reliable that one can simply let it proceed on full automatic. All it can do is point out a word that isn't on its list. Then you have to decide (A) to ignore this instance; (B) to ignore all instances in this session; (C) to add this word to your custom dictionary; (D) to accept the offered "correction"; or (E) to change it manually. This process takes human brainpower. The page which automatically looks up common misspellings is a great idea -- don't get me wrong. It has already made me 20-30% more efficient in rooting out misspellings. But even if I fooled around with a SQL query that changed, say, "althought" to "although" -- I wouldn't trust that task to a bot. I would insist on reading every change in context, using probably the article's History page for the link marked "(last) = difference with preceding version". I think the mispeelings Maintenance Page is wonderful, and we should now rest on our laurels. That's enough automation for this year. Ed Poor

2 1

Re: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
by lcrocker＠nupedia.com 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> I read all Lir's talk page comments. Nothing anti-Wikipedia > there. She says Columbus was a slave-trader, and she won't > shut up about it; well, as I suppose LDC would agree, we have > free speech on the talk pages... Absolutely. If Lir's actions took place /only/ on talk pages there'd be no problem, even with the rudeness--talk is just talk, and doesn't hurt anything. The problem is that she insists on editing the real encyclopedia pages /her/ way or no way, and utterly refuses to listen to anything anyone else has to say on the matter. She's /right/ dammit, and simply won't countenance any disagreement. No one argues that Columbus traded slaves--that's well known, and it was already covered in the article from day one. But that's not good enough for Lir--she insists that calling him an explorer in the first paragraph is /wrong/, and refuses to hear all the arguments for that. She also seems to think that stating her opinion on the naming issue 20 times makes a consensus even though it's already been decided long ago. As Far as Lir is concerned, all of the other Wikipedians don't exist; they are all inferior minds not worth listening to, because she and only she has the received wisdom, and silly little things like PhDs don't matter. The attitude is not a problem--arrogance can be quite constructive sometimes. But hte fact that she continues to /act/ on that attitude in the encyclopedia pages is a problem. I am gratified that she's now on the list, but even here you can see that she simply refuses to admit being wrong about anything.

1 0

Lir and Christopher Columbus
by Zoe Comnena 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him? Zoe --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

6 6

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
by dograt＠earthlink.net 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 8:47 AM, wikipedia-l-request(a)nupedia.com <mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com> wrote: >Message: 11 >Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:08:08 -0700 >From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> >To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com >Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus >Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com >Or, we could just relax and let the article be wrong for awhile. In a >day, maybe everyone will feel better. > >If some particularly vicious argument goes on for weeks at a time, >then we can start thinking about alternative solutions. But, usually, >people get tired of it. Lir has been at it for about 3 weeks since the day she joined. Her hallmark is to edit artcles either using unsubstantiated, outlandish claims, all- caps exclamations and/or political rants at the top of entries, childish entries (see Iowa State history, for example: "common pastimes (at Iowa State) are smoking, tripping, complaining..."), changing other user's and her own comments in talk pages, removing references to herself that seem unflattering or challenge her and accusing other users of being racist if they don't abide by her ridiculous edits. > >Was Columbus a slave trader before coming to the New World? Maybe, I >don't actually know. But I do know that it's the sort of claim that >needs some documentation. Maybe the guy who wants to say that can >provide documentation, OR someone who doesn't want to say that can >provide counter-documentation. Maybe, but is the onus on us to provide counter- documentation to speculative claims? More importantly, would it matter to lir? She quoted a dean at Iowa state with an outlandish quote. I emailed the dean and he flatly denied making such a quote. I posted that to the talk page and was immediately attacked by lir and she promptly ignored my evidence and reverted her quote. > >In the meantime, edit wars just make us all unhappy. > >--Jimbo A lot of people seem very concerned about lir's feelings and her possible positive contributions down the road. That's kind of wierd considering that she has already wasted a considerable amount of other user's time and energy with her combative, irrational tirades; time that could have been spent making wikipedia better. I, for one, have severly curtailed my contributions out of disgust and weariness. So, if you think that maybe we should"just relax and let the article be wrong for awhile", you'll probably get your wish. People like lir have worn me down and her edits certainly won't be disturbed by me anymore. dave

1 0

It's about its
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

Most of us can readily apply the following two rules: * to show possession, it's correct to use: its * we may change "it is" to its contraction: it's So, I would like to be able to search for instances of: it's ...so I can check whether it's being used as a contraction for "it is" (correct) or as a possessive (incorrect: change to "its"). But when I tried to use Wikipedia search, entering: it\'s I got a bunch of articles with the following 2 characters highlighted in red: 's ...which is a superset of what I want. What is the correct search string to enter? Ed Poor

3 2

Mispeelings
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

I found and corrected 19 separate instances of "seperate" in the Wikipedia today. All of these are currently in Wikipedia articles. I could use a little help. headquaters - 6 offical - 5 decendents - 4 thrid - 3 assasination - 2 possibilty - 2 pursuade - 2 seperating - 2 soliders - 2 assitant - 1 beacuse - 1 constuction - 1 disolved - 1 embarassing - 1 grafitti - 1 increadible - 1 relized - 1 seperated - 1 Ed Poor (If you peel an orange incorrectly, that is a mispeeling.)

9 14

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
42
Older →

Jump to page:

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 October 2002