I'm fairly new to wikipedia, and this mailinglist, so I don't really know if this is the appropriate forum for this, but here goes;
I'm attempting to flesh out the area of music genres, however I've ran into a problem I cannot seem to find a way to get around. When entering artists of various musical genres, alot of the entries I want to make, already have alot of information on a totally different subject (Fish, Genesis,Delerium,Live, Emperor ect). The obvious solution would be to add it to the existing pages under a different meaning of the word, however I feel that would do more harm then good on alot of topics. (Writing about progressive rock under the entrance for "Fish") Is there any workaroud for this? Ideally creating several pages for the same topic, that would both show up on a search, without the clutter of having elerything on the same page. This problem will only get more common as the numbers of articles increase.
I would apprechiate and insight you migth have to offer.
Which, by the way, I intend to replace entirely with
[[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] when I finish all
the reorganization there...
>Jimbo what is the official position so the the text can be updated?
Jimbo, if you do want to make a more detailed official
statement, do so on the page [[wikipedia:copyrights]], which
should be the final home of such things (it's linked from
the [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] page. I hope to
eliminate all the duplicate references to things like that.
> *laugh* Do you know David Friedman? I talk to him all the time
> (in email). Smart guy!
I've somehow never managed to run into him; I gave up on
h.p.o. (and Usenet in general) a long time ago, and I've
never found any excuse to e-mail him. He was actually
scheduled to speak at Extro 5, where I was speaking on a
different topic, but he couldn't make it. His son,
Patri Friedman, however, hosts a great table-stakes poker
game which I frequent.
On Saturday I blocked 220.127.116.11 after this person deleted content from at
least three Islam related articles ([[Qur'an]], [[Dialect]], & [[Muslim
It would be nice if I could have stated my reason why as part of the blocking
process and for [[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] to show up in Recent Changes with
my explanation automatically in an edit comment.
I really don't think the current seemingly hush-hush setup will alleviate
fears in some that a secretive cabal has taken over the 'pedia. I know that
this is not the case and not the intention of the current setup, but others
We should be completely open with everything we do and the software needs to
be tweaked to make this natural and easy. There should also be a notice on
[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] telling the world just how long an IP is blocked
and there should eventually be the ability for other sysops to undue an IP
ban if a mistake has been made.
On a related front: Is it possible to block the IP of a logged in user? There
is nothing stopping a vandal from logging in and doing harm. Although I am
not aware of any logged in user actually performing a systematic assault on
articles there have been several logged in users uploading copyrighted or
BTW it also would be nice to be able to more easily track what these vandals
have done so that the other damage these people have probably done can be
fixed. Otherwise many of the less obvious changes these people have made will
be obscured by someone else editing a vandalized article in order to improve
it -- thus removing their IP/user name from Recent Changes. Could
"contributions of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" automatically be generated and placed on
[[wikipedia:Blocked IPs]] when xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is blocked?
As soon as we decide what to do with these issues in general this discussion
should be switched to the developer mailing list to work out the details.
They don't appear to have a historical theme.
I agree, though, it looks like a execellent project, but that it is
something we don't need to replicate.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Daniel Lee Mayer maveric149(a)yahoo.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> On Thursday 18 April 2002 12:02 pm, Imran wrote:
> > > IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for
> > > OCRed pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community
> > > rather than by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken
> > > into chapters taht can be edited seperately.
> > It's already been done without a wiki see,
> > http://charlz.dns2go.com/gutenberg/
> > Imran
> What an excellent project! If we do decide to implement some kind of
> protected source setup, we should encourage wikipedians to go to that website
> first for historical documents. Although there may be some copyright
> But I think we will be set up soon so that people can donate
> to the nonprofit.
If the delay is finding legal help, I have a minimum of legal
training and experience sufficient to set up a California non-
profit which I would be glad to do for you.
And yes, my mind ponders the irony of a radical Friedmanite
anarchocapitalist offering a radical Randian Objectivist help
in establishing a non-profit collective. :-)
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, lcrocker(a)nupedia.com XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> Why would we be doing this project at all if we didn't think
> that Wikipedia will be around longer than other sites, and that
> we will be able to present texts in a superior way? Project
> Gutenberg, for example, suffers from the problem that its texts
> are ancient ASCII. We can already do a bit better, because we
> can include images from the original, original italics, etc.
> Ours are also searchable, and we can include links to commentary.
While I agree that Gutenberg could use some updating, I disagree on
Wikipedia involvment. This is really for another project, and one that
probably doesn't use wiki but some other system such as Zend which
is more easily regulated.
> I do, however, strongly feel that we shouldn't include texts
> unless they are in fact annotated. So I think the right thing
> to do in this case is for "Yes, Virginia,..." to be an article
> about the essay, at the end of which is a large subhead
> "Full Text" or something, then an introductory paragraph (offset
> somehow--perhaps intented and italic) that explains that the
> original text appears below, possibly with links or notes added.
I do agree with all this. For instance, having the United States
Constitution is very apporiate because we can annote various articles and
amendments, and other articles can easily refer to them.
But I think we should remember that Wikipedia is being constantly edited,
so I don't think we should worry too much about just linking to various
documents, since dead links can be easily fixed. There should be some
reason to actually bring the text in - such as already existing
commentary with large quotes.
> I'd really love to see, for example, "Origin of Species" with
> links to notes about modern research confirming or rejecting
> specific passages, or providing background for readers.
The fact this really hasn't happened make me dubious of the ability of
this idea to work, at least with entire books.
I probably shouldn't be forwarding this here, but I thought it might
tickle a few funnybones... It was forwarded to alt.humour.best.of.usenet
for obvious reasons. :)
PS. So that I'm saying something real with this post, has anyone else
been having a problem with requests to the wikipedia timing right out? I
keep getting 'zero sized replies' after much sitting staring at a blank
screen. It's annoying...
[Submitter's note: The folks in misc.writing are not nice to people who
ask for help with home work. I especially liked the last line. . . .]
Subject: Re: grain shortage
From: billo(a)saltmine.radix.net (Bill Oliver)
In article <3d8c5406.0203270016.11105efa(a)posting.google.com>,
Jhon <ahmad1403(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've some questions and I want answers for my questions,please.
>These are the questions:
>1. What is the overall situation of the world grain?
Not too bad. Thanks for asking.
Not many people recognize that most of the world's food needs are met
by a single large grain of rice called "The World Grain" (TWG), also
known historically as "Twiggy."
The existence of The World Grain has been known for millenia, of
course. Plato noted that all things in the world come from single
World Objects in his famous "Shadows in a Cave" speech before the Hasty
Pudding Club in 1032 BC. A best-selling expose of this was more
recently written by Henry Beard and Ron Barrett called "The Way Things
Really Work And How They Actually Happen."
In this book, Beard and Barrett expose one of the greatest secrets of
America -- that there is only one Chinese Restaurant in the world (The
World Chinese Restaurant (TWCR) ). There is a vast web of pipes that
attaches TWCR to all of the other Chinesse restaurants that we eat
at. The Chinese Take Out of the entire world is fed through these pipes.
The Chinese restaurant you probably order from is not real. Oh sure,
you can sit down and eat there, or you can order take out. But it's
not really real. It's just a place with wait staff where you go and
pay for prepared food to eat on the premises or take away. But
it's not a *restaurant* restaurant. It's a little like
And, of course, there is The World Computer (TWC) which is in Redmond,
California. I can't really write about that, else the it will take
back my share of the world electron.
The World Grain is, of course, the single grain from which all
other grain comes. It is generally mined. The chips are then
colored or milled and sold as corn, rice, or SUVs.
The World Grain was first discovered by the early American Indians.
The early Indians were mostly ranchers and hunters, though, and they
were not particularly interested in a rock-hard lump of starch the size
of a mountain. There were plenty of buffalo around at the time,
anyway, so they sold it to the early European settlers for a Timeshare
in Cornwall and season tickets to the St Endellion Festival Chorus.
Unfortunately, they had attempted this without an agent, and found
that they had overlooked the need for transportation. The famous
artist Max Factor painted a scene where the settlers told the
Delaware Indians that they could get tickets to Cornwall the
day Louisiana elects an honest governor. This painting, called
"Washington Crossing the Delaware" shows a number of Delaware
Indians scratching their heads in furious thought. This habit
of scratching the head when trying to find passage is the origin
of our phrase "scalping for tickets."
The World Grain was then taken to Plymouth, where it was known
as the Plymouth Rock. At first, attempts to mine the TWG were
unsuccessful because of the hard shell covering the grain. There
was a group of people who wanted to soak the world grain in the
ocean to soften it up (so-called "hard shell baptists" because
they wanted to "baptise" the grain). The grain was placed in the
ocean, but quickly started to expand well beyond what the settlers
wanted. The World Grain started creeping across the continental
shelf. People started building beach houses on it. The water
near Boston turned even more icky than normal, though while
looking out over the harbor Sting was moved to write those
stirring words to our National Anthem about "amber waves
Clearly, something had to be done. The world grain had
to be removed. However, the folk in Massachusetts had
also developed an impressive tourist trade based on this
expanding behemoth, slowly becoming The World Pasta. So, they
took out the world grain and put in a big stone. The tourists,
while easily deceived as all tourists are, were still a bit
disappointed. To this day, tourists go there, look at Plymouth
Rock, and say "What? This is what we drove 6 hours for?"
The world grain was then bought by a railroad tycoon and moved
to Ohio, where it was mined successfully for years. Since
the world grain was in Ohio, and Mann's Chinese Theater (and
restaurant) was in California, the transcontinental railroad
was built. Trainloads of freshly-mined grain chips went across
the nation and feeding the world.
Eventually a Democrat was elected President, and the government
took the world grain away from the citizens in order to better
serve them. The government set up an efficient mining and
food distribution system which we call "The Great Depression."
Millions of people were starving and went to Washington to
demand action. Always responsive, the government created a
diversity committee to better help people adjust.
More recently, modern technology has allowed even the government
to mine the world grain efficiently. In an effort to feed
America's poor, the government called in the INS to distribute
food to the needy inner cities of America. The INS always
serious about its job, immediately set about dropping tons of
food from airplanes into random uninhabited parts of Afghanistan.
>2. How does water effect on the production of grain?
It helps a lot.
>3. How much of the grain product is used to feed people and how much
>is used to feed animals?
Most of it. A small amount is used to make ethanol for liberals
who want expensive gas and for Senators from the Midwest who want
>4. How much of world hunger caused by grain shortage?
None. Most hunger is caused by not eating.
Nope this helps!
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
Love and huggles to all!
When someone searches, you need to have the redirects
come up last in the search results. Don't eliminate
them, but if someone is going to take the time to go
through the entire search results, then they will find
the redirects at the end. No option is needed for
this solution. :)
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
On Thursday 18 April 2002 12:02 pm, Magnus wrote:
> IMHO such a project *could* work with the wiki system, especially for OCRed
> pages that need manual work. This could be done by a community rather than
> by a single person, especially if, e.g., a book is broken into chapters
> taht can be edited seperately.
> There would have to be some special features, though, like subpages for
> the chapters (back to square one;) , a better diff system maybe, and access
> for logged-in users only to cut down troll activity.
> Another advantage would be that it could be easily interlinked with
> wikipedia ([[source:The Origin of Species]]...)
This would be an excellent feature and adding a source:namespace with more
restrictive rules would probably work out nicely. However, for source texts
like this I would further limit editing ability to sysops or maybe only to
users who have been in the database more than a set amount of time (there is
nothing stopping a vandal from logging in to do some harm).
Per a previous feature request I submitted, I still think it would be nice to
display parts of protected text in a text box within a regular wikipedia
world-editable article (maybee have all source:namespace articles
automatically have numbered lines, so that a user could call upon those
particular lines to display in a regular article.....just brainstorming).
Whatever we decide to do, we do need to somehow protect the integrity of what
the author said -- otherwise it is useless.
Annotation is a different story and usually has small sections taken out of
contex to be discussed (often by critics) -- there is much less expectation
that what is being annotated is the actual words of the original author than
would a dump of the complete text. Therefore, nothing really special is
needed for that other than regular wiki magic. Although a link to some kind
of 'protected' source would only help the argument of the annotator (or
detract from, depending on the validity of the argument).
If something is going to be seriously planned along these or similar lines,
then we should perhaps just have the sysops go around and protect the source
material and maybee replace it if there is reason to believe that it has been
tampered with (thus changing what the Bible said, for example). Otherwise we
should probably remove all such material from the current versions of
articles and replace it with external links to the text.