Could you explain how to go about deleting pages? I'd like to start with obvious candidates such as [[NotForPublicConsumption]]. Although looking through the list at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_utilities/Page+titles+to+be+deleted now, I see most of the ones in clear need of deletion have been deleted already. and no, i don't intend to delete much at all. :-)
The front page still has "Winter Olympics" on it as a current event,
which I'd be happy to update if I could. And if you do give me admin
status, I promise not to ban 24.150.61.xxx just because he's pissing
me off. :-)
I remember vaguely we tried some sort of "wikipedia newspaper" some time
ago, but it didn't work. Today I saw a similar attempt on the German 'pedia,
where you should add today's date each day on a special page and write about
current events from the news.
This might actually work on wikipedia.com, if we'd automatically add a link
to "today" (like [[2002-03-22]]) in the sidebar. It would draw attention and
remind people there's something they might want to write about. That way,
we'd get at least links to many current topics, and on wikipedia, links tend
to turn into articles ;)
Might be worth a try, another link in the sidebar is a small price to pay.
On Talk:Main Page there is a comment about giving modification
rights on the main page to more people, now that Larry's
participation is sporadic (and Jimbo's always was).
It is getting rather out of date, and I'm sure there are a few
other folks we can trust not to screw it up too badly.
Its not your English, I'm sure that has more to do with the politics of
Sweden. I just read George Orwell's /Homage to Catalonia/ and he refered
to right-wing Socialists (Stalinists) and left-wing Socialists (the
marxists he was fighting with). This concept is absent in the US; at least
I've never heard of it before. Interesting stuff, though totally off
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Lars Aronsson lars(a)aronsson.se XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> Michel Clasquin wrote:
> > > It would carefully point out any misuse of power
> > You mean as in [[Stalin]], [[Pol Pot]], [[Mao]] . . . ?
> It might be my limited command of English, but these dictators aren't
> referred to as "leftist" in my country. I should have left politics
> out of this. My point was merely that today we use separate wikis for
> different languages, but perhaps there is also a reason to use
> separate wikis for different audience/attitude/point of view.
> > BUT once this particular period of youth culture passes into oblivion and
> > is replaced by another, a record of it in a separate wiki could serve as
> That would be the combination of youth culture and a history
> wiki. You are way ahead of me here. :-)
> Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
> Aronsson Datateknik
> Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
> tel +46-70-7891609
I'm trying to understand where the boundaries for Wikipedia are.
Forgive me if this gets philosophical, and not very practical.
There has been a lot of talk about languages that fork away from the
Wikipedia project. But what about forks within the language? Will
the English Wikipedia always be the single source, or when will it be
reasonable to set up another Wiki?
There are, of course, already other Wikis. http://c2.com/ (the
original Wiki, founded in 1994) has the Portland Pattern Repository,
devoted to object-oriented software development and eXtreme
Programming. Some of the information there might overlap with
Wikipedia, but most of it would be considered too non-encyclopedic if
it was suddenly copied to Wikipedia.
Could a Wiki devoted to history have a place outside of Wikipedia?
When describing London, it would focus on the city's historic
features, not on the facets of today's London. Then again,
Wikipedia's entries on many things are focused on history. It is
almost as if Wikipedia is that history Wiki. History, after all, is
so much more in line with the contents of an encyclopedia than is
object-oriented software development.
Could a leftist-point-of-view Wiki exist side by side with Wikipedia?
It would carefully point out any misuse of power, and list activist
and political groups. Its logotype could be a hammer-and-sickle or
simply a red star on white background. (There is already a leftist
encyclopedia (non-Wiki) in Danish on http://www.leksikon.org/)
A youth culture Wiki might list all the hot dance clubs in London, but
forget the British Museum. (Does Wikipedia list any clubs at all?)
The entire Wiki could be white text on black background.
I think target groups, focus, design, logotypes would be different
for each one of these Wikis. Just like websites are different today.
Some titles (like "London") would exist in several of them, but with a
different slant. Some titles (like "British Museum") might only exist
If all of these Wikis existed side by side, how would Wikipedia best
take advantage of this expanded network? Should Wikipedia be its
backbone, or try to be self-sufficient, ignoring the outside world?
Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting a fork of Wikipedia.
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linuxköping, Sweden
Thanks; you also need to add a clear copyright notice to
the site itself. In the absence of clear notice, the content
of the site is by default fully copyrighted, and using GFDL
content there would be a violation. I know this legal stuff
is a real nuisance--I'd just as soon it was all repealed.
But while it's still the law of the land, you do have to
pay attention to the little details.
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Spinoff project
>> Rosa's project specifically says that any materials to be
>> posted on her site must be in the public domain, so unless she
>> changes that she won't be able to use anything from Wikipedia
>> (except for stuff she can get independently from authors like
>> me who release their work to the public domain as well as
>> putting it here).
>Hm - checking back, I did say that. I was, of course, thinking of sources
>other than FDL-released sources, I'll amend it to say "public domain or
>otherwise legally available for GNU FDL release". Thanks for pointing
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>> Also, I'd like to ask something of an etiquette question - to Jimbo
>>Wales in particular, and to the Wikipedians in general. How do
>>feel about Wikipedia material being ported over and adapted for use
>>the textbook project? I know what the "public domain" rules are,
>>I don't want to do anything that would create bad feeling or set up
>>for trouble between the sites. I do, of course, have Wikipedia
>>back from a couple of places. ;)
>I think it's wonderful!
>I think that the Right Thing To Do is to link back to us on any
pages that have
>our stuff as a source. Something as simple as "This page partly
>http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Whatever" would be great.
>I don't intend to be a real stickler about this sort of thing,
>the linkback. The one thing that I don't want, is for Microsoft or
>AOL or Yahoo or someone like that to take our content without
>attribution. I think that's going to be a huge opportunity for the
>free content to grow like crazy, and so letting people know we exist
>And we should have a prominent page somewhere for "fellow
travelers", i.e. other
>people who are doing neat things with wiki and a free license, like
you, and like
>the Sevilla group, etc.
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
Rosa's project specifically says that any materials to be
posted on her site must be in the public domain, so unless she
changes that she won't be able to use anything from Wikipedia
(except for stuff she can get independently from authors like
me who release their work to the public domain as well as
putting it here).