Wikipedia-l October 2002

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

81 participants
419 discussions

RE: [Wikipedia-l] linguistic issues
by Poor, Edmund W 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

Whenever I write a new article, I always use American English spelling. When I spell-check an article, and British English spellings like "labour" and "programme" come up, I tell the spell-checker to calm down and accept these. When I edit an article manually, I switch to British English spelling when I notice that the current paragraph is using British English spelling. My motto is "blend in". Ed Poor

1 0

mailing lists
by Anthere 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

Hi everybody, I dunno about you all, but I am getting overly confused between all the different points discussed at the same time, url adresses, contents of a page we have not agreed to exist, common recentchanges, common servers or not, auto-redirection or not, cookies or not, common meta ... It's nice that so many ideas are proposed, but it's really getting confusing. Maybe even more to non-english speaking, and certainly for those not following all lists thoroughly. Another thing adding to the confusion is that *mailing list(s) matter*. I think that could be a point to start with, and one on which we could maybe easily agree on, which would be nice for a change. I already stated a couple of time, there was a problem with the definition of the mainlist and the interlist. 1)The main list is both used for internal english matters AND integrated wikipedia matters 2 The inter list was initially set up to take care of matters dealing with creating and organising inter wiki A side effect of 1) is that some en.wiki editors tend to generalize typical english matters to the rest of the wikipedias. A side effect of 1) is that all inter that want to be involved in the decision process have to register the main list. Thus making the inter list useless. A side effect of 2) is that new inter comers tend to believe they can post messages to the inter list, and trust the information there is complete. Both points being clearly untrue (especially since we sometimes forget to double post, on one, or on the other list) Other side effects are multiple cross posting between the two lists, implying - additional posting time (specially when we forget the cc) - additional reading time to check the message is the same - additional time for deletion - cluttering of the mail box - incomplete information for those who are not registered at *both* lists My belief is that we need to set up that issue. Ideally, I think there should be: 1) A "main" list, dealing with integrated issues (I don't know the best word to say that, I don't want to mean integration, I want to say issues important to the enlarged community) 2) Plenty of language-specific lists, among which the english list, to deal with naming conventions and majuscule/minuscule typo conventions. Lists only to be set up if there is a need and a demand of course. In concrete terms, for example Option1: either a new list (a "metalist") is created, and the mainlist deals with english matters (the inconvenience of that option will be that most people would continue nevertheless to post everything at the main list) Option2: the interlist really becomes the integrated list and the mainlist stays only for en.issues (that option could maybe be accompanied by an automatic registering process for english not yet on the interlist; but again, I fear lazyness will prevent this process, and posting will stay on the main list anyway; also, this might become a diplomatic issue to some) Option3: the main list becomes the main list (metalist), and a new en.list is created for english issues (is that possible that all users of the main list are automatically registered to that en.list, and an automatic message send for easy unsuscribing for those not interested to stay on it? it would make the switching process less labourious...) The 3rd process could be nearly transparent for english users, as most of the time, people reply to messages, so it won't change habits much. They will be registered to two lists, but ain't that the case of many already ? This option would help avoiding cross posting and information loss. It would save time. It would avoid mailbox cluttering. It will also make clearer that setting up an integrated encyclopedia is a one of the goals; not helping side projects to develop. A conceptual point is also bothering me, but I admit I have no idea to prevent that right now. That is the word "international" to be opposed to the english-speaking_main_wikipedia. It is just the same than the words "importation" and "exportation"; just depends on your own position. International has a smell of countries. While english versus non-english just have a smell of language. I like that option better. Just my thoughts. Sorry if it was too long and laborious task to read. But I think it important that somehow, one day, this mailing list issues are dealt with. Anthere --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com

5 4

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Random page bug fix
by Poor, Edmund W 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

I have a lot of experience with "interim bug fixes" -- because finding and fixing bugs is how I earn my living. That said, here is my proposal: For now, ban the use of the AMPERSAND_CHARACTER in article titles. (I think this is what Jimbo just did -- or is also proposing :-) * If someone wants to write about the big old phone company, the article will have to be called "ATT" or "American Telephone and Telegraph" * The first (bold) mention of the company in the text of the article can still be '''AT&T''', because that doesn't hurt anything. Eventually, one of us bright fellows (or gals) might figure out a way to parse the AMPERSAND_CHARACTER in a URL, but until then the above is a usable workaround. Ed Poor Opinions expressed on this list are *mine* -- not my employer's.

1 0

Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #760 - 12 msgs
by Matt M. 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

>But the situation is so muddled that writing guides simply ask > writers to be consistent within their own works.. Translating > "Français" as "french man" is acceptable, but I would prefer "French > man" with a capital letter. Buh? What style guides are you reading? I've read a few (my field is proofreading and translation) and I have not ever come across one that suggests that not capitalizing nationalities is acceptable. Names of nationalities and languages are always capitalized. English capitalization has got rules. Some of them can be bent - some cannot. > Sexism doesn't enter into this at all. Well, I wasn't really talking about sexism, but just pointing out that different languages have different rules, and that Anthere shouldn't get too exercised about an English speaker getting "français" and "Français" mixed up by accident because they forgot the French rule. > "Frenchman" in one word that > does have associated difficulties, but attitudes are by no means > unanimous on this. The movement for non-sexist language does see it as > sexist, but others of us would see the "a French person" as bringing > unnecessary awkwardness to the language. Those afflicted with political > correctness often draw the false conclusion that those who do not follow > their solutions for non-sexist must be speaking in a sexist way. I > certainly do not consider the word "frenchman" to be sexist. You would be fine with calling a woman a Frenchman? Matt

2 1

Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] en.wikipedia.org vs www.wikipedia.org and the Wikipedia family
by lcrocker＠nupedia.com 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

>Pepe Lepew is a Loony Toons cartoon character. He is a >French skunk. Sort of. In Pepe Lepew cartoons, >"french" is spoken by adding "le" to English words. In >every cartoon, a hapless black cat somehow gets a >white stripe of paint on her back, and Pepe falls in >love with her, thinking she is a "petite femme skunk". >She does not, however, reciprocate his amorous >feelings, especially since his smell is rather >offensive to all of God's creation. > >I can understand why he isn't famous in France... What, you don't think the French would appreciate the fine American humor of stereotyping the French as sexual predators with poor bathing habits? I'm sure there must be some equally offensive English-speaking cartoon character popular over there.

3 3

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Some answers with the "users'" point of view in mind.
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

mav wrote: >In our rush for the URL switch, it would have been a mistake just to put up a >static page at www.wikipedia.org that merely directed users to each >language's Main Page. IMO what really is needed is a combined Recent Changes >at www.wikipedia.org. That way somebody landing at www.wikipedia.org can look >to the top of their page, hit Recent Changes and see the last 100 edits made >for the whole project (each language). Until that is possible, I don't think >a gateway page will work at all. This to me is a fascinating idea, and much more attractive than the portal as we proposed it. You could see a streamlined Recent Changes page, showing only what changes were made to what article where, e.g. * [[Fig]] [English]; 01:11 * [[Kommunismus]] [Deutsch]; 01:12 * [[The Elephant Man]] [Français]; 01:12 * [[PNG]] [Polski]; 01:13 * [[Stephen Spielberg]] [Español]; 01:14 * [[François Rabelais]] [English]; 01:14 It might be more enticing than a static portal page. kq

1 0

How many wikipedians and users are actually multi-lingual?
by Karen AKA Kajikit 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

By which I mean fluent enough in more than one or two languages to contribute to the relevant wikipedia and to need to see what's going on in more than one wikipedia at a time? It seems like a great suggestion to be able to access a global 'recent changes' listing etc, but really, how much use is it to the average user? Somebody who is monolingual, or poorly bilingual is just going to be overwhelmed by surplus information and put off the whole project idea if it seems like you HAVE to be a polyglot to get any sense out of it. If you speak Japanese and Malay it's not going to be a lot of use to you to see a listing full of French and English edits, or vice versa. You'd be better off for the portal page to have access to each language seperately than to try to jumble them together. Select your language from a dropdown menu and off you go. Want recent changes in Swahili? Choose Swahili from the language box and you'll see it. Want to check up on the Japanese next? Switch over... etc. I support a global login. I don't see why you should have to have seperate logins set up for the meta and the standard english pedia AND any other language that you may be fluent enough to be interested in. If you want the wikipedias to be one project and not 500 then one login ought to work for the whole kit and caboodle. -- Karen AKA Kajikit To err is human... to really foul things up add kitten and stir. Come and visit my part of the web: Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/ Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/

1 0

Towards a consensus on Goals (not solutions -- yet)
by Poor, Edmund W 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

>>> 2. That www.wikipedia.org be the language-neutral front page, >>> with links to the wikipedias of each language. >> >> This seems to be a really good idea. >> Let the opposing three convince the rest that it is a bad thing to do. > > I don't know if it's still the case, but a non-content front page used to > be able to loose 20-40% of visitors to a site. > > Imran There seems to be consensus on user requirements (rather than on solutions): 1. First time visitors get an enticing content page (TBD: what language should this be?) 2. Logged-in contributors get their favorite language site; after they choose it from their preferences page. 3. English language shouldn't appear domineering. 4. One URL (like www.wikipedia.org) for the organization itself, which explains the international wikis (with English as "just another language"). Ed Poor

3 2

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Towards a consensus on Goals (not solutions -- yet)
by Jaap van Ganswijk 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

At 2002-10-16 14:32 -0400, Poor, Edmund W wrote: >>>> 2. That www.wikipedia.org be the language-neutral front page, >>>> with links to the wikipedias of each language. >>> >>> This seems to be a really good idea. >>> Let the opposing three convince the rest that it is a bad thing to do. >> >> I don't know if it's still the case, but a non-content front page used to >> be able to loose 20-40% of visitors to a site. >> >> Imran > >There seems to be consensus on user requirements (rather than on solutions): >1. First time visitors get an enticing content page (TBD: what language should this be?) >2. Logged-in contributors get their favorite language site; after they choose it from their preferences page. >3. English language shouldn't appear domineering. >4. One URL (like www.wikipedia.org) for the organization itself, which explains the international wikis (with English as "just another language"). Please also consider that on any serious site well over 50% of the new visitors get in via the sub pages from a search engine. I often see website designers (and advertisers) think that every visitor comes in via the 'official entrance' of the site, but that is usually not the case. I often go to a site, because of a link to a sub-page and when I want to learn more about the nature of the site I peel layers off of the URL until I get relevant information. Greetings, Jaap

1 0

Re: Some answers with the "users'" point of view in mind.
by Daniel Mayer 17 Oct '02

17 Oct '02

On Wednesday 16 October 2002 12:01 pm Ruth Ifcher wrote: > Hi Members, >..... > First, in regard to "redirect highlighting" proposed by Mr. Manske, I > think that a regular Wikipedia reader will find this quite disconcerting. > At most, I think it should be a logged-in user's choice. I must have missed that one. Yeah, I agree, highlighting redirects is a bad idea. If there are valid alternate ways to title something then an alternate but still perfectly valid name shouldn't look different. At worst this would be very confusing, at best this is needless feature creep. > Second, in regard to the "first page" or "main page" contents, I think > the main page, as it is, is far too "busy" for the everyday user. They > should be looking for a choice of language and a place to put a search > argument. I think that is pretty much all that belongs there, in terms of > content. This doesn't mean the page cannot be attractive. For the main or 'gateway page' for the whole project I tend to agree -- but my view of what isn't too "busy" may differ from yours. However the whole 'International Wikipedia gateway at www.wikipedia.org' thing has one very serious flaw as it is now; There is no direct and obvious link to Recent Changes. In our rush for the URL switch, it would have been a mistake just to put up a static page at www.wikipedia.org that merely directed users to each language's Main Page. IMO what really is needed is a combined Recent Changes at www.wikipedia.org. That way somebody landing at www.wikipedia.org can look to the top of their page, hit Recent Changes and see the last 100 edits made for the whole project (each language). Until that is possible, I don't think a gateway page will work at all. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
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