> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
>
> Larry Sanger wrote:
> > > It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
> > > name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
> > > metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
> > > available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
> >
> > We clearly need Jimbo to reply on this point. I've got a few name
> > ideas myself.
>
> I have no opinion at the present time. I am intending to revive
> Nupedia in the near future, in some fashion, and I am thinking very
> much along the lines of what is being discussed here. Therefore, I
> think that Nupedia might be the right vehicle for this in the first
> place.
Then here's what I propose. Magnus, Lee, and I (and anyone else who wants
to, I guess!) will hammer out a test version of the software.
We'll set up a mailing list for the project, in which the new project's
policy (and name), etc., will be discussed. I'll announce the mailing
list on Wikipedia-l, Nupedia-l, and Advisory-l.
> From: Gareth Owen <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> Larry Sanger <lsanger(a)seeatown.com> writes:
>
> > I remember that several Nupedia editors and reviewers came out very strongly
> > against having any association with Wikipedia, and at least one (or was it
> > two?) of them threatened to quit
>
> Given the amount of progress they've made on Nupedia, how would we tell?
FYI, the reasons for the scant progress are (1) the editorial process was
complicated. That doesn't mean that we couldn't make progress in the
future with a simpler system and that someone who has put in hours of work
on Nupedia wouldn't be missed in the future. And (2) the whole process
was top-down, and once it became clear that I had been more or less
reassigned to Wikipedia, all but a few just stopped working. Again, that
doesn't mean they're not there and waiting, and that they wouldn't be
missed in the future if they quit now.
A lot of people are unjustly critical of Nupedia when they don't realize
that it was *always* a project in development, that we were generally
quite open to adjustments to make the project better--and just when we
were making a move to simplify the project, with everybody's blessing,
money ran out, and no one volunteered for the full-time unpaid job of
leading the newly-reorganized project. So don't blame Nupedia for its
stasis. Blame the bursting of the Internet bubble, if you want to blame
anything!
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Rob Brewer wrote:
> This is a good policy, except that (as far as I can tell) when you check
> contribs for an IP address you only see edits made anonymously from that IP,
> but when you ban an IP you ban both anonymous and signed-in users at that IP.
> If a proxy or a shared computer has been used by an anonymous vandal and a
> useful signed-in user, the signed-in user will be blocked, and Wikipedia
> will lose the benefit of his edits.
Has anyone thought of selective banning?
Refuse anonymous edits from the banned IP, but allow signed-in edits.
We could supply a message like, "Sorry but due to abuse from IP i.j.k.l, you must sign in to contribute."
Ed Poor
Rob wrote;
>Incidentally, my (default) proxy (194.117.133.196 cache-
haw.cableinet.co.uk)
>is banned again - my ISP also caters to the recent goatse.cx vandal. I know
>how to manually change my proxy, but other valid users on Blueyonder in
south
>west England ([[user: Nosrail]] for example) may not.
unblocked, and added to [[wikipedia:annoying users]]. no offense to you or
Nosrail. :-)
kq
>I'm delighted too, but it wasn't Maveric's campaign,
>it was mine. He was lax in this, if in nothing else
>ever.
>
>Tom P.
>O88
Lax on this? Have you been visiting Recent Changes
lately? I've personally fixed the headers of at least
a few hundred articles so far while adding language
links to and from es.wiki.
I quietly agreed with you a long time ago and have
been stating things like "heading 2 comes after
heading 1" in edit summaries for some time now.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Also, a ban of even a single hour's duration can be effective.
I would include a (standard) note in Recent Changes, like:
"Please do not use this page for graffiti. Try the [[sandbox]] instead."
or
"Yes, you can delete an entire page. But please don't"
If they ignore the first warning, you could give them a second, final warning:
"Please do not make any more edits until you read [[...some policy page]]. Any more (graffiti/deletions) and we'll have to ban you."
Actually, I think we should come up with some standard (boilerplate) text for warnings & explanations to newbies/vandals. I would phrase the first warning so it doesn't scare away an innocent newbie, while giving the second one an air of finality (knock it off, or you're out of here).
And I second the idea of a self-expiring ban. (I'm tempted to unilaterally un-block any IP address that was blocked more than 7 days ago. I just might do so - except dear old Helga, unless I hear a strong objection.)
Ed Poor
I'm glad you're making the == Heading == headers smaller. The only reason I was rebelling against Maveric's campaign -- and using === Heading2 === was because of font size.
Now that it doesn't SHOUT at people, I'm happy to toe the line.
== Heading ==
=== Subhead ===
==== sub-Subhead ====
etc.
Ed Poor
> BTW: this is a subject which is definitely of
> concern for the
> international list. Or is wikipedia-l the
> international list now?
>
> greetings,
> elian
Good question...
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Hi all,
I'd like to be made an admin, or sysop, or whatever you want to call them.
My username is Camembert. I've been around since late July, and have
thought of asking for admin status a couple of times before. It's the
latest goatse.cx vandal and encouragement from mav that have finally
convinced me to ask for the upgrade.
I promise not to abuse my powers by deleting the "Votes for deletion" page,
and if there's some sort of pledge I need to take, then send it over, and
I'll read it out facing the [[Main Page]] with hand on heart.
Cheers
LP (camembert)
I second Mav's suggestion and applaud his desire to help.
I really like the idea of "levels of certification". There's a big jump up from "some user" wrote this to "a reviewer with a degree in the field" reviewed it. How many more jumps are there? Department head? Published author? Nobel Prize winner?
At first, we might not be able to attract people who are as highly qualified as Britannica's reviewers -- especially if we don't pay them anything. But I would really, MUCH, rather read a biology article reviewed by Mav (or a math article reviewed by Axel) than some unreviewed, open-to-graffiti version. I mean, what if some kid changes a key value in a chemistry equation?
I knew we could do it: the Wiki Borg lives!
Ed Poor
> From: David Levinson <dlevinson(a)mn.rr.com>
> Sign me up (I have Ph.D. Civil Engineering and teach transportation
> engineering, planning, and policy)
Great!
> It should not go under the name nupedia, nor should it go under the
> name wikipedia, but something else. According to network solutions
> metapedia.com is owned, but metapedia.org and metapedia.net are
> available. Hyperpedia.org is also a good name and available.
We clearly need Jimbo to reply on this point. I've got a few name
ideas myself.
> We might want to think about an updating protocol, as wikipedia
> articles evolve past the frozen versions, some sort of flagging would
> be in order of articles that diverged significantly from frozen
> articles and the "liquid" wikipedia open to edits.
Definitely--I'm sure that sort of feature will be one of the first to be
added.
> We might also want to think about allowing multiple groups be able to
> "publish" "frozen" versions at the touch of a button (sort of
> combination of Larry and Ed's idea). Any individual/group, once
> registered, would be able to touch a button and establish a flag on a
> wikipedia article. Thus in Frozen version A, the academics might have
> a tight standard and only review/update once in a blue moon, but
> another group B could freeze a different version and update more
> frequently. Since these are only article flags on particular versions
> (all of which are stored in a single database), there would not be
> forking as such. However someone could search only for group A. Group
> A would have their own web interface (own name, own address). If
> someone else didn't like group A's cut (too small, too elite, too
> whatever), they could publish their own take on the encyclopedia.
>
> It would allow someone potentially to be using wikipedia to publish a
> non-NPOV encyclopedia, since versions in the middle of edit wars would
> be freezable by a particular group - but as long as that was somehow
> acknowledged, and the lines between liquid wikipedia and frozen
> wikipedia (versions A, B, ...) were established, I think it could be
> tolerated.
I think this is a *great* idea. I can easily see how the encyclopedia
filter software could become more popular that PediaWiki itself. It's
essentially a way to import articles from Wikipedia (or, theoretically,
any PediaWiki website).
Of course, the only drawback is that "reviewing" efforts might be spread
too thinly; but somehow I doubt that will be a problem.
> The issues of interlinking - linking to a "liquid" article would need
> to be addressed either by identifying it as external link, removing
> that link in the "frozen" version, or as some third kind of link.
> However, this raises questions of self-containment.
Exactly right. That setting should probably be left open to the reader.
Then we could debate about what the default setting should be.
Larry