> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of elian
> Sent: 26 October 2002 14:12
> To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Cc: intlwiki-l(a)nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting on www.wikipedia.org
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Mmost arguments in favor or against different
> solutions seem to have been presented now, but I must say I lost
> track who wants
> what. Furthermore it's a useless waste of energy to work on different
> solutions without knowing which is wanted.
>
> So I invite people to give their vote..
>
>
> www.wikipedia.org should:
>
> [x] not be changed at all.
>
> [] redirect depending on the browser's language setting to the wikipedia
> in the prefered language.
>
> [] be a multilingual portal (1)
>
> [] other ______
>
> (1) draft to be further improved at
> http://mitglied.lycos.de/manske/wiki/test.php
> with language of the welcome message derived from the browser settings and
> prefered language highlighted.
>
> this message is crossposted to intlwiki-l and wikipedia-l and to
> metawikipedia [[What to
> do with www.wikipedia.org]]
>
> greetings,
> elian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Imran wrote:
>> >If you want to make money with your computer, then you should
>>
>> Ok. Some suggestions: no one who's subscribed can post to the list.
>
>Don't you mean only people who are subscribed should be able to post to
>the list ?
Heh. Yes, that's what I meant. "no one who's *not* subscribed..." :-)
kq
I've not really been following the "international" debate, but I read most of the recent stuff about
voting. Some Wikipedians, notably Cunctator, seem to think that "voting is evil", and link to some
wiki about meatballs for some arguments.
So, suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make decisions? Because with the current number of
members on this list, there's never going to be something like consensus. Endless discussions are
tiring and getting us nowhere. Already we are getting loads of e-mail about one single topic like
internationalisation; imagine how it would be with even more Wikipedians and, hence, mailing
members? That would be terrible, and I would probably not even attempt anymore to follow any
discussion after the first few reactions. The discussion will die without any solution or will
continue endlessly. That's not a desirable situation. Voting could end discussions. But "voting is
evil", so what to do then?
Jeronimo
You Wrote:
>Good morning -
>
>You get emails every day, offering to show you how to make money.
>Most of these emails are from people who are NOT making any money.
>And they expect you to listen to them?
>
>Enough.
>
>If you want to make money with your computer, then you should
Ok. Some suggestions: no one who's subscribed can post to the list. Also,
and I mentioned this to Jimbo several months ago, the email addresses
should all be obscured in the archives at nupedia.
kq
For my sins I spent many years as a minor manager and learned very
little, but I did learn the following:
Every decision has a down side. If there were no cost to making
a decision, there would be no difficulty in making it. Indeed,
there would be no decison to make.
In the present case of an opening page:
-- Multilingual page -- builds and advertises the multilingual
wikipedia at the cost of distracting and possibly driving away
readers with a limited-content page, mostly in languages they don't
speak (et cetera)
-- Automatic redirect to language setting of browser -- takes the
reader where they probably want to go at the cost of annoying them
with our arrogance if that isn't what they want (et cetera)
No amount of discussion can make either of these costs go away. I
would rather pay the second cost. Other people would rather pay the
first.
For the record, I could read a reasonably simple article in English,
Spanish, and German, and a list of Christmas baked goods in Norwegian.
Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
Jokerman9001 has been persistently uploading junk to Wikipedia for several
months. Normally, after someone uploads a few junks and finds that they are
quickly deleted, he goes away. Could he be using Wikipedia as a dead drop for
transferring illicit files? Can someone check the web logs to see if anyone
other than Jokerman downloads files that Jokerman uploaded, but never
accesses Wikipedia at other times?
phma
www.wikipedia.org should:
[] not be changed at all.
[] redirect depending on the browser's language setting to the wikipedia
in the prefered language.
[x] be a multilingual portal (1)
[x] other:This should be done only /after/ all languages are on the same
database. IMO a static portal page is a very bad idea. We are a wiki and a
static page is very unwiki. The frontend should also reflect the backend.
Right now there are a bunch of separate Wikipedia wikis. At the /very/ least,
all the current active language wikis should be upgraded to Phase III - then
at least we will be interlinked with lanuguage links.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Anthere wrote:
>> I don't mind Ram-Man's bot so much, but I'd like to
>> find an equivalent resource for towns *outside* of
>> the U.S.
>>
>> kq
>
>40.000 french postal codes ???
You'll have to explain that to me. What's a postal code? Is that the same as a city? In the U.S. we frequently have a dozen or more postal codes in a single city. Anyway, if the entries would be more than a paragraph apiece and they seem like information that somebody might reasonably look for, then I don't see what's wrong with including it.
Wikipedia has been growing unevenly since it started; I don't see how we could possibly stop it from growing unevenly now, especially since it's run by volunteers. I just hope that some day all the basic topics are covered accurately, neutrally, and in depth. :-)
kq
Pierre Wrote:
>Please use plain text when sending email. HTML is not secure when sending
>email because it can contain malicious programs; so I view my mail only
>in plain text. Please see http://www.houghi.org for how to set this in
>your mail program.
That's spam you're replying to. The second piece of spam I've received at this address now. Perhaps whatever's gone wrong in hiding this address from the spammers could be changed before the floodgates open.
kq