At 01:49 PM 10/1/02 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
>My church tried to create a "Unification Encyclopedia" several years ago.
>It was edited by Andrew Wilson, and was sponsored by one of the many
>non-profit organizations members of my church have set up (possibly the
>International Cultural Foundation).
>I wonder if it's even worth discussing the possibility of Wikipedia
>seeking sponsorship from the Unification movement. Of course, editorial
>independence would have to be guaranteed (no church slant allowed to creep
>in). I'm talking about a "no strings attached" kind of grant, maybe.
>I know people with money -- the question is whether this Wikipedia
>community could stomach an associaton with "those Moonies".
My feeling is that if/when we set up the nonprofit, anyone can donate as
long as they
understand that all they get is a tax deduction, if applicable.
I'd be strongly against the Wikipedia being sponsored by *any* religious,
or ideological organization--they have agendas that don't match that of
>Ed Poor <-- member of Unification Church since 1977
>From: The Cunctator [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Propects for future growth
>On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 13:14, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
><snip call for staff>
>This is why we need to set up the non-profit.
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
My church tried to create a "Unification Encyclopedia" several years ago. It was edited by Andrew Wilson, and was sponsored by one of the many non-profit organizations members of my church have set up (possibly the International Cultural Foundation).
I wonder if it's even worth discussing the possibility of Wikipedia seeking sponsorship from the Unification movement. Of course, editorial independence would have to be guaranteed (no church slant allowed to creep in). I'm talking about a "no strings attached" kind of grant, maybe.
I know people with money -- the question is whether this Wikipedia community could stomach an associaton with "those Moonies".
Ed Poor <-- member of Unification Church since 1977
From: The Cunctator [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Propects for future growth
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 13:14, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
<snip call for staff>
This is why we need to set up the non-profit.
I see that a couple of people are busy porting Encyclopedia Libre
( http://enciclopedia.us.es/ ) articles to the Spanish Wikipedia. This raises
a /very/ important question;
Which project are we going have our interlanguage links point to?
AstroNomer has already finished translating language-ES.php and wants the
developers to install the new Phase III software for the Spanish Wikipedia on
the Wikipedia server.
This of course would be a slap in the face of the Encyclopedia Libre folks -
many of whom want more cooperation with Wikipedia. But there is a very vocal
few who hate Wikipedia.
What is everybody's preference here? Should we majorly help revive the
Spanish Wikipedia by upgrading their software or should we put our support
behind Encyclopedia Libre. Remember, EL broke away from the Spanish Wikipedia
over a misunderstanding (and they still have slanderous and unfair statements
about Wikipedia on their about page see:
Encyclopedia Libre currently has more articles and more users/contributors
but they don't seem to have a software development team (just a person or
two). Also many thousands of their "articles" are just templates so their
absence from the Spanish Wikipedia isn't that big of a deal. Also, simplified
logistics is a reason why it makes more sense to keep everything on server(s)
that our developers can access.
However, my gut feeling tells me that we should at least try to work with EL
and then if that doesn't work our fallback plan would be to upgrade the
Spanish Wikipedia and put all of our support behind them. However, if we do
go this route and EL upgrades and we point our interlanguage links there,
then what about all the work that is going on right now at the Spanish
I just want to have this decided so that I can start contributing (I'm such a
WIkipediaholic that I could majorly help revive the Spanish Wikipedia by
porting EL material but I don't want to have duplicated effort between two
very similar projects if it can be avoided).
I think this is very important because the project that gets our new
software, inter-language links, support and future inter-language
functionality is probably the project that will endure. I know it will be the
project I contribute to.
Any other thoughts on this?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Clearly, policy is formed through the give and take between what regular contributors habitually do, and discussions _about_ these contributions. As Stephen pointed out, the "policy pages" are more a reflection of what we all have already come to agreement (or at least consensus) on.
However, there is nothing wrong with letting J. Random User edit any of the policy pages. If their idea is good, the regular crew will likely adopt it. If it's egregiously bad, someone will revert it.
I would prefer, if someone reverts a dumb policy idea, that they copy the deleted text to talk and discuss it. We could also bring the issue, if warranted to the mailing list for further discussion (a la Larry Sanger).
We could even _invite_ the person who started it, to join the mailing list.
The best way to draw someone into your community is to go out of your way to please them. Shower them with gifts (as Jacob did with Esau). Try to speak to them in their own language, even if your attempts make native toddlers seem eloquent in comparison.
If we English-speaking wikipedians offer free help to those speaking other languages, what's not to like?
>I'd like to know exactly what the consensus is on "metacomments" within
>an article text - "More should be written here", "See WikiProject Foo
>for help with editing this page", "Is this correct?", and so on.
I don't like them, personally, and typically move them to talk pages. As far as I'm concerned, *all* articles on wikipedia are works in progress, so I expect all of them to need expansion in one way or another. I also think they're a bit jarring. I guess I'm not postmodernist enough. :-/
I've added a (presently for sysops only) Special:Undelete, which should
appear as "View and restore deleted pages" in the special pages list. It
lists the archived deleted pages (the majority of which are pure drivel
and should be flushed at some point), and you can view the archived
pages and their histories and optionally restore them to life.
Restoring a page with the same title as one that currently exists will
tack the deleted page's history onto the end of the existing one's.
The interface is still rather rough and not yet fully integrated with
the deletion log (ie, links to undelete perhaps should appear next to
deletion notices, and restorations should definitely be listed in the
same log), and I probably haven't tested it as thoroughly as I ought to
It is to be considered experimental, so please be gentle with it. If Lee
wants to set it up on the piclab server, less gentle testing is I'm sure
welcome there. :) I'd offer my own test server, but it's currently
behind a modem (wah!)
(File is in CVS.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
The Cunctator wrote:
>Well, if people aren't allowed to edit the pages without review from the
>mailing list--and pretty much everyone who's on the mailing list can
>have (or should have, IMHO) sysop priveleges, then the pages are in
>effect locked down. And if they're in effect locked down, then they
>should be locked down. Otherwise there's a logical disconnect.
>When I said "lock down" I meant "prevent unauthorized edits". It doesn't
>matter if that prevention is done through technology or practice--it all
>amounts to the same thing.
Locked down against whom? Where's the fire? Aside from vandals, you're the only person I can think of who has changed them to read something which is not policy.
>> I have found a problem with the Wikipedia entries on Outlook: If one tries
>> to get a Wikipedia page with a name that is made of more than one words, it
>> tries to get the page with spaces instead of underscores. Could that be
>Sorry, 'Outlook' should be 'OneLook' of course...
I tested it out, and it's still resulting in the right address ... are there times when it doesn't?