wiki pedista is gay.
---
Earn free ringtones - go to:
http://www.earnfreeringtones.com/?src=jzcool
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:42
wiki pedista wrote:
>
>Jimbo,
> there is people that has suggested that, if
>enciclopedia libre wants to belong to the wikipedia
>community again, a possibilty is to point
>es.wikipedia.org to their site.
>You said "I don't think that's acceptable".
>I just want to make sure I understand the real
>meaning of it. Is it, "in my opinion is not
>acceptable,
>but if the rest of the comunity, including the
>developers
>that will handle the techical aspect of it agree, so
>will
>I", or "I, as the owner of the name es.wikipedia.org
>do
>not agree"?
>
>The answer is important, because that will tell the EL
>people if they are dealing with the wikipedia
>community,
>or with Jimbo Wales, owner of wikipedia.
>
>As for the NPOV, even it is not put so
>prominently in their pages, their goal seems to me
>the same us ours, create a neutral enciclopedia,
>not a collection of opinions. Probably the only think
>i consider not very NPOV are some of their references
>to wikipedia. If they flagrantly violate the NPOV,
>as you think could happen, the enforcement would be
>simply point es.wikipedia.org back to the wikipedia
>server, copy the contents, do a "fork back" and clean
>it up. I do not see the presence on the wikipedia
>server as necessary for the NPOV enforcement, then.
>
>All that said, I do think being in a common server
>would be preferable, but a member of their community
>(their current webmaster, juanan, for example) should
>have developer access to the wikipedia server, to
>be able to do maintenance of the software and
>database,
>and create their own sysops.
>That should be true for all wikipedias that have
>a size large enough and have a developer-type person
>among them.
>
>AstroNomer
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
____________________________________________________________
Tired of all the SPAM in your inbox? Switch to LYCOS MAIL PLUS
http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
wiki pedista is gay.
---
Earn free ringtones - go to:
http://www.earnfreeringtones.com/?src=jzcool
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:42
wiki pedista wrote:
>
>Jimbo,
> there is people that has suggested that, if
>enciclopedia libre wants to belong to the wikipedia
>community again, a possibilty is to point
>es.wikipedia.org to their site.
>You said "I don't think that's acceptable".
>I just want to make sure I understand the real
>meaning of it. Is it, "in my opinion is not
>acceptable,
>but if the rest of the comunity, including the
>developers
>that will handle the techical aspect of it agree, so
>will
>I", or "I, as the owner of the name es.wikipedia.org
>do
>not agree"?
>
>The answer is important, because that will tell the EL
>people if they are dealing with the wikipedia
>community,
>or with Jimbo Wales, owner of wikipedia.
>
>As for the NPOV, even it is not put so
>prominently in their pages, their goal seems to me
>the same us ours, create a neutral enciclopedia,
>not a collection of opinions. Probably the only think
>i consider not very NPOV are some of their references
>to wikipedia. If they flagrantly violate the NPOV,
>as you think could happen, the enforcement would be
>simply point es.wikipedia.org back to the wikipedia
>server, copy the contents, do a "fork back" and clean
>it up. I do not see the presence on the wikipedia
>server as necessary for the NPOV enforcement, then.
>
>All that said, I do think being in a common server
>would be preferable, but a member of their community
>(their current webmaster, juanan, for example) should
>have developer access to the wikipedia server, to
>be able to do maintenance of the software and
>database,
>and create their own sysops.
>That should be true for all wikipedias that have
>a size large enough and have a developer-type person
>among them.
>
>AstroNomer
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
____________________________________________________________
Tired of all the SPAM in your inbox? Switch to LYCOS MAIL PLUS
http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
wiki pedista is gay.
---
Earn free ringtones - go to:
http://www.earnfreeringtones.com/?src=jzcool
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:42
wiki pedista wrote:
>
>Jimbo,
> there is people that has suggested that, if
>enciclopedia libre wants to belong to the wikipedia
>community again, a possibilty is to point
>es.wikipedia.org to their site.
>You said "I don't think that's acceptable".
>I just want to make sure I understand the real
>meaning of it. Is it, "in my opinion is not
>acceptable,
>but if the rest of the comunity, including the
>developers
>that will handle the techical aspect of it agree, so
>will
>I", or "I, as the owner of the name es.wikipedia.org
>do
>not agree"?
>
>The answer is important, because that will tell the EL
>people if they are dealing with the wikipedia
>community,
>or with Jimbo Wales, owner of wikipedia.
>
>As for the NPOV, even it is not put so
>prominently in their pages, their goal seems to me
>the same us ours, create a neutral enciclopedia,
>not a collection of opinions. Probably the only think
>i consider not very NPOV are some of their references
>to wikipedia. If they flagrantly violate the NPOV,
>as you think could happen, the enforcement would be
>simply point es.wikipedia.org back to the wikipedia
>server, copy the contents, do a "fork back" and clean
>it up. I do not see the presence on the wikipedia
>server as necessary for the NPOV enforcement, then.
>
>All that said, I do think being in a common server
>would be preferable, but a member of their community
>(their current webmaster, juanan, for example) should
>have developer access to the wikipedia server, to
>be able to do maintenance of the software and
>database,
>and create their own sysops.
>That should be true for all wikipedias that have
>a size large enough and have a developer-type person
>among them.
>
>AstroNomer
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
____________________________________________________________
Tired of all the SPAM in your inbox? Switch to LYCOS MAIL PLUS
http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
> I think you might be right about this. What is the status of
> the non-profit Jimbo? The schedule for this needs to be moved up.
Jimbo and I have been talking about it, and he's waiting for me
to do some research. I just got back from a 5-day weekend in Reno
(poker tournament), so I'll be able to get that done soon.
I think the key problem here is a breakdow of trust on both sides. I
think we are all in agreement that Wikipedia branded encyclopedias
should all be open and NPOV. If we want them to trust us not to abuse
the wikipedia for advertizing purposes, we should trust them to keep the
encyclopedia open and NPOV.
Probably we should ask them to prommise to maintain certain standards of
openness and NPOV, just as we prommise not to make the various
wikipedia's into a giant avertizing site. Hopefully everybody will
keep their word, but if not the loss can be minimized by the fact that
both projects use the GNU-FDL, and so a breach on either part would just
mean that --at the time when violation occurs-- either party can fork
the project.
As long as it's just fear that somebody will violate the principles we
stand for, we should try to get over those fears and work together.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@bomis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:52 AM
To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Spanish Wikipedia; Negotiation
Axel Boldt wrote:
> In other words: we want them back on our US server, so that we, and
> not they, are in control. We know who should be banned, but we don't
> trust them with such decisions. Maybe we should say that clearly at
> the beginning; it will shorten the discussion considerably.
This is a distortion of my position, but definitely we need to make
perfectly clear that local control does _not_ extend to such issues as
allowing various wikipedias to become non-NPOV, or allowing various
wikipedias to abandon the spirit of openness. If they don't like that
restriction, then that's fine -- they can do their own non-NPOV and
non-open thing. We're better off without them.
--Jimbo
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
If there's no "common base", then there's no way to engage in "give and take" (this is a fundamental premise of Unification Church theology, besides being just plain good common sense).
Maybe before trying to sell our product, we should find out what our "customer" actually needs.
What are their goals, and how do those goals match ours?
Why did they split off?
What are the slanderous (or libelous) statements they've made?
What can we possibly offer them, that would make them recant those statements?
Without knowing the answers to ALL of those questions, I'd rather swim with sharks than try to negotiate with the other group.
Ed Poor
I usually cite stuff that I think people would want to check into, especially if it challenges what was previously in an article [1].
Links:
* [name of source] -- used in footnote one above
Ed Poor
Reacting on Stephen Gilbert's "possible bug report", I went through searching
for other pages that also contain w: links. As such I got to
[[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. And from the page talk it seems that everyone
but 24 agreed with it at the time. Nowadays I see _noone_ citing sources on a
regular basis (or even an irregular basis). Would it not be time to remove
this 'Rule to consider', or else at least change the 'Talk' page such that
it is clear that it is not a majority opinion nowadays?
Andre Engels
I didn't say "match dollar for dollar" ;-)
3000x12 = 36000
(If matched by Jimbo)
3000x2x12 = 72000
Am I missing something, or should Ed be restrained from editing the
maths pages? =)
--
adamw
>Reacting on Stephen Gilbert's "possible bug
>report", I went through searching for other pages
>that also contain w: links. As such I got to
>[[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. And from the page
>talk it seems that everyone but 24 agreed with it
>at the time. Nowadays I see _no one_ citing sources
>on a regular basis (or even an irregular basis).
>Would it not be time to remove this 'Rule to
>consider', or else at least change the 'Talk' page
>such that it is clear that it is not a majority
>opinion nowadays?
>
>Andre Engels
I cite sources frequently, although I don't think that "cite your sources" needs to be a general rule. If an expert like Axelboldt tells us something abouthis area of expertise, I don't need to double-check him in his area of expertise.
But for controversial subjects -- particularly matters which are the object of historical revisionism (medieval Poland) or political controversy (Palestine); or scientific theories which have widespread but not unanimous support (evolution, global warming) -- citing sources makes it much easier for readers to evaluate claims made in the article.
Often I have been able to end (or at least ameliorate) edit wars by suggesting to the contending parties that they cite their sources. Usually they do so, leading to properly attributed POV (X said Y, althogh P said Q) and the dust settles.
Ed Poor
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Engels [mailto:engels@uni-koblenz.de]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:54 AM
To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cite your sources?
Reacting on Stephen Gilbert's "possible bug report", I went through searching
for other pages that also contain w: links. As such I got to
[[Wikipedia:Cite your sources]]. And from the page talk it seems that everyone
but 24 agreed with it at the time. Nowadays I see _noone_ citing sources on a
regular basis (or even an irregular basis). Would it not be time to remove
this 'Rule to consider', or else at least change the 'Talk' page such that
it is clear that it is not a majority opinion nowadays?
Andre Engels
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l