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,
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first for historical documents.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
The most popular Esperanto radio station interviewed
me about the Esperanto wikipedia project today. It
was a little difficult, because she spoke quite fast,
but I think I handled it ok. ;-) I'll try to let
everyone know when it airs (it airs on the Internet as
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
Having been involved with wikipedia for only a few weeks, I have just had my first "personal" experience of vandalism, ie. someone deleted the bulk of an article I had written, leaving an unintelligible stub. Fortunately I have been able to pick up the original text and put it back. I know that there are set procedures for dealing with this, but I would like to ask: How often does this kind of thing happen? And can I assume that this is vandalism rather than a simple error (bearing in mind that the perpetrator doesn't have a proper ID?
>What (if anything) is the present consensus on including (short) PD
>the 'pedia. I'm thinking of
I don't know that we ever agreed on a single policy. Clearly,
there is sentiment against mere "data dumping". Just using
Wikipedia as yet another host for old online texts doesn't
really accomplish anything. But there's not really any reason
to /not/ include full texts along with articles about them,
especially if they are short things like poems, essays, etc.
> I think we should avoid storing *any* texts like these, including
> the "Origin of Species" book which is still online at the pedia
> (and I say so even though I am a biologist! ;)
> Instead, there should be a link to another web page that has
> the original text (like Project Gutenberg), and that is to be
> expected to be around for a while.
I understand the "citability" concern, and also the concern
that source texts being editable can be a problem. I also
think it's fine to not include a text and merely reference it.
But I also think we should give authors the power to use their
own judgment here.
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.
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'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.
I started cleaning up some of the old stuff that need to be (or
already has been) moved to wikipedia: namespace or meta, and I've run
into the need to make links to meta. Is there a quick inter-wiki-like
way to do that without having to type the whole URL? I can't find it
(and if there is, I'll document it better).
When I follow the directions from here
http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=34373 meaning I do the command
and enter 'anonymous' as the password I recieve this:
cvs [login aborted]: authorization failed: server cvs.wikipedia.sourceforge.net rejected access
I'm using Debian Potato Linux and CVS version 1.10.7
I'm just trying to download the php Wikipedia script.
Traffic is WAY WAY up.
Yesterday, we saw 88,393 after excluding robots, which I define as anyone who sees more
than 1000 pages, or anyone whose browser reports a 'http agent' that I know to be a robot.
That's a record. By way of comparison, we averaged just under 48,000 pageviews last month.
Perhaps more interestingly, the number of unique visitors per day hit 20,000+ for the first
time yesterday, up from typical days of 6,000-9,000 earlier this month, and an average of
8181 last month.
Unique editors also hit a record yesterday of 351 unique ip numbers
doing editing. This typically has hovered around 150-250.
I am not sure what the cause is, if any. It could just be a highly
favorable update at Google, which is our primary source of traffic on
a day to day basis. (More even than Bomis, hmph, some supporters THEY turn
out to be, ha ha.)
Just a note to bid you all yet another temporary farewell. I'm off to Hong Kong, London, Glasgow, London, Bombay, Hyderabad, London, Glasgow and then Singapore, before finally getting home to Sydney around June 15. This is my last big trip, so after that I'll be able to contribute to the 'pedia with something resembling consistency.
Look forward to seeing you all then - feel free to drop me an email anytime.